class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide # Introduction to Global Environmental Governance ## Executive Certificate in Environmental Governance ###
James Hollway
###
Graduate Institute Geneva
### Wednesday, 20 October, 2021 --- class: middle, inverse, iheid-grey, with-logo logo-cies logo-cies .center[ .polaroid[![:scale 40%](https://panarchic.ch/images/team/james_hollway.jpg)] ] ??? Name, who I am, what I do Plan for today... --- class: center, middle # Introductions .pull-1[.circleon[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg/1024px-NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg.png)]] .pull-1[.circleoff[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/NYCS-bull-trans-2.svg/1200px-NYCS-bull-trans-2.svg.png)]] .pull-1[.circleoff[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/NYCS-bull-trans-3.svg/1200px-NYCS-bull-trans-3.svg.png)]] --- ## What is global (environmental) governance? -- .blockquote[“What is global governance? Virtually anything...” ~ Lawrence Finkelstein] -- Either: - an analytical .red[scholarly project] of analysing actors, relations, and processes beyond the state and formal institutions - a normative .red[political programme] pursuing global integration by other means in the face of reduced steering capacity of national political systems -- .blockquote[“What makes the world hang together?” ~ John Ruggie] ??? That is, Finkelstein goes on to say, we say 'governance' because we don't really know what to call what is going on. A floating signifier, as Hofferberth says. Little bit of the story behind the term: - post-Cold War optimism, but also confusion See also more critical conceptions: - governmentality (Sending and Neumann): gg an expression of a changing logic or rationality of government in which civil society is redefined from passive object of government to both object and subject of government... - feminism highlights how still about redistribution --- ## What does global governance typically consist of? Key component of what makes ‘global governance’ _global_ are the more encompassing notions of actorhood involved: .pull-left[ - states - bureaucratic agencies - international institutions - international non-governmental organisations ] -- .pull-right[ - social movements - public-private partnerships - civil society organisations - corporations - cities - etc. ] -- Supposedly more importantly, what makes ‘global governance’ _governance_ is a focus on the vertical and horizontal _relations_ of authority and legitimacy between and among these actors, and the _processes_ of change and transformation that they are a part of. -- Now what makes ‘global governance’ _environmental_? --- ## Global environmental problems <!-- One typology of global environmental problems: --> -- .pull-1[ .red[global commons issues] - areas (usually) under no clear authority - e.g. the atmosphere, the high seas, Antarctica, and space... - vulnerable to overexploitation, because no way to reliably ration resource in the face of incentives ] -- .pull-1[ .red[transboundary problems] - that intentionally or unintentionally cross or spillover from one country to another - e.g. transboundary river or air pollution, acid rain, global trade in hazardous waste, or endangered species - sometimes considered simpler because perpetrators usually fewer and more identifiable ] -- .pull-1[ .red[local-cumulative problems] - occur within national borders but have cumulative global effects - e.g. deforestation, biodiversity loss, freshwater management and provision - butts up against strong international norms of sovereignty... ] --- ## What factors drive (international) environmental problems? `$$I = P*A*T$$` Envmtl **Impacts** are function of growing **Population**, increasing **Affluence**, and higher intensity **Technology** -- _What's missing here? What other perspectives can you think of?_ -- .pull-left[ - **scientific perspective**: - problem: outcome, attributional, or policy solution _ignorance_ - solution: information and technology - **ecological perspective**: - problem: insufficient _value_ on protection - solution: engaging the long-term project of the values embedded in societal foundations - **legal perspective**: - problem: lack of _recognition_ for environment/future generations - solution: more and more modern legal rules ] .pull-right[ - **economic perspective**: - problem: perverse _incentives_ and externalities - solution: reconstruct market-supporting institutions to send correct price signals - **management perspective**: - problem: _incapacity_ to protect envmt - solution: investment to elevate, quickly - **political perspective**: - problem: _power_ structures, within and between actors, don't align with environmental interests - solution: identify ways to reconfigure power, e.g. institutions, to put power in ‘right’ hands ] ??? But this overlooks at least two other important factors: - .red[consumption patterns] or rates, e.g. what or how we save or invest, can exacerbate or ameliorate this relationship - .red[social organization] (institutions) affect what happens, how it happens, and where it happens <!-- ## Another typology of problems --> <!-- .pull-left[ --> <!-- ### Heterogeneity problems --> <!-- - how many actors and how different are they? --> <!-- ### Distribution problems --> <!-- - is this about just coordinating or cooperating? --> <!-- ### Enforcement problems --> <!-- - how strong are the incentives to cheat? --> <!-- ] --> <!-- .pull-right[ --> <!-- ### Scientific uncertainty --> <!-- - how sure are we about the state of the world? --> <!-- ### Preference uncertainty --> <!-- - how sure are we about other actors' preferences? --> <!-- ### Behavioural uncertainty --> <!-- - how sure are we about other actors' behaviour? --> <!-- ] --> --- class: center, middle # Growth .pull-1[.circleoff[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg/1024px-NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg.png)]] .pull-1[.circleon[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/NYCS-bull-trans-2.svg/1200px-NYCS-bull-trans-2.svg.png)]] .pull-1[.circleoff[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/NYCS-bull-trans-3.svg/1200px-NYCS-bull-trans-3.svg.png)]] --- ## There are a lot of international environmental agreements `\(>3000\)` multilateral and bilateral environmental agreements, roughly third each on species, pollution, and others (see Mitchell et al 2020) .center[![:scale 90%](IntroToGEG_files/figure-html/SignRates.png)] <!-- ## Institutions vary in design --> <!-- .center[Membership, Scope, Centralization, Control, Flexibility] --> <!-- -- --> <!-- .pull-left[ --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Enforcement problem, `\(-\)` Membership --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Preference uncertainty, `\(-\)` Membership --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Distribution problem, `\(+\)` Membership --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Heterogeneity problem, `\(+\)` Scope --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Distribution problem, `\(+\)` Scope --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Enforcement problem, `\(+\)` Scope --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Heterogeneity problem, `\(+\)` Control (for some) --> <!-- * `\(+\)` State of the world uncertainty, `\(+\)` Control --> <!-- ] --> <!-- .pull-right[ --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Behaviour uncertainty, `\(+\)` Centralization --> <!-- * `\(+\)` State of the world uncertainty, `\(+\)` Centralization --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Heterogeneity problem, `\(+\)` Centralization --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Enforcement problem, `\(+\)` Centralization --> <!-- * `\(+\)` State of the world uncertainty, `\(+\)` Flexibility --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Distribution problem, `\(+\)` Flexibility --> <!-- * `\(+\)` Heterogeneity problem, `\(-\)` Flexibility --> <!-- ] --> <!-- .footnote[Koremenos et al. 2001] --> <!-- ## International environmental agreements are related --> ??? --- ## Why do we have such proliferation? .pull-left[ **Strong creative factors** - .red[Demand] for new institutions - Emergence of new scientific knowledge - Changing community standards → salience - Anthropogenic issue creation - Organizational progeny <!-- - Pragmatics --> <!-- - Institutional --> <!-- - Framework-protocol model --> <!-- - Lex specialis --> - Lack of a focal organisation - .red[Domestic] incentives to create - Two-level game - Specialised ministries - Logrolling - Leadership commitments - Development financing routes - .red[Designed] proliferation - Pragmatic decomposition of causal complexity - Strategic ambiguity and inconsistency - Redundancies for resilience - Redundancies for parallelism ] .pull-right[ **Weak removal factors** - .red[Demand] for existing institutions continues - Persistent problems - Vague/overambitious aims interminable <!-- - Monitoring difficult --> - Cross-legitimating web of institutions - .red[Domestic] costs to removal - Sunk costs - Vested interests - Cancellation costs, financial or reputational - .red[Designed] continuation - Institutional memory advantageous - Institutional change considered easier - Dormant/paper tigers can be rehabilitated ] ??? High supply rate Community interdependence Bureaucratic legitimacy Issue-linkage Detached negotiating fora Low removal rate --- class: center, middle # Consequences .pull-1[.circleoff[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg/1024px-NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg.png)]] .pull-1[.circleoff[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/NYCS-bull-trans-2.svg/1200px-NYCS-bull-trans-2.svg.png)]] .pull-1[.circleon[![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/NYCS-bull-trans-3.svg/1200px-NYCS-bull-trans-3.svg.png)]] <!-- ### Densification of global environmental governace --> --- ## What does the institutional core of GEG look like now? <img src="IntroToGEG_files/figure-html/multilevl-1.png" width="1008" /> --- ## What are the consequences of such complexity? .pull-left[ **Advantages** - .red[Decentralization] - Provides participatory opportunities <!-- - Does not cede all autonomy to states or markets --> - Broader (host) ownership - Allows learning - .red[Specialization] - Division of labour - Tailor-made solutions - Communicative simplicity - .red[Parallelism] supportive - Funding redundancy and resilience - Normative reinforcement - .red[Within group dynamics] - Emergent trust and loyalty, collective will <!-- - Experimental sandbox --> - Enables social enforcement (e.g. shaming) - .red[Between group competition] <!-- - Increases total resources --> - Spreads risk and promotes experimentation - Improves fitness/efficiency ] .pull-right[ **Disadvantages** - .red[Decentralization] raises cognitive complexity <!-- - Causal complexity --> - Heuristic reliance - Politics of expertise/amplifies policy networks - Enables cross-institutional strategies - .red[Specialisation] frustrates learning - Treaty congestion and negotiation fatigue - Policy incoherence <!-- - Causal complexity --> - .red[Parallelism] costly/inefficient - Duplication of work, no economies of scale - Geographic dispersion, more meetings - Privileges powerful well-resourced actors - .red[Within group dynamics] - In-group/out-group rivalry - Group think, failure to monitor external events <!-- - Chessboard politics (for the powerful) - Alter and Meunier --> <!-- - Forum-shopping --> <!-- - Regime-shifting --> <!-- - Strategic inconsistency (conflicting agendas) --> <!-- - Strategic ambiguity --> <!-- - Facilitates exit strategies, Moral hazard --> - .red[Between group competition] - Vested interests and turf battles <!-- (institutional barriers) --> - Coordination failures ] --- class: inverse iheid-red center middle with-logo logo-iheid_BW What questions do you have for me?