Environmental and Developmental Governance
Iain DAVEY
Keywords: Governance, Earth Summit, Rio, sustainable development, global governance, United Nations, Agenda 21, Brundtland, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), global-level meetings, World Summit for Sustsinable Development (WSSD)
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a series of global conferences that have been organised by the UN with the aim of bringing sustainable development to the forefront of the international agenda. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of these summits with regard to the governance of environmental and development issues. In doing so it considers what good governance is, and how it relates to the sustainable development. The paper concludes that these summits have been successful in moving the agenda on sustainable development forward but that a general lack of implementation calls into question the system of global governance and in particular leads one support calls for institutional reforms, improved mechanisms to engage key stakeholders, and more concrete goals for action. It is also clear that additional
‘external’ factors that include expanding globalisation and liberalisation of trade, have done much to limit the effectiveness of these summits.
Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 10(4), 2008: 691 – 705.
Doshisha Society for the Study of Language and Culture, © Iain DAVEY
The contribution of global-level meetings towards environmental and developmental governance
In recent years, there has been a series of global conferences that have been organised by the UN with the aim of “enriching the international agenda and to raise awareness on the major issues and concerns of the time, through cooperation of member states and participation of other actors in the development process” (Langmore, 2000). These include:
1992 - United Nations Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED), held in Rio, also known as The Earth Summit, or simply, Rio
1995 - The United Nations World Summit for Social Development 1997 - The Rio +5 summit
2000 - The Millennium Summit
2002 - The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), or Rio +10
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of these summits with regard to the governance of environmental and development issues. In order to do this, we first have to define what good governance is, and how it relates to the environment and development.
Ayre & Callaway (2005) consider Governance as a tool to coordinate the collective activities of a group and define the choices members of that group make, and the way in which those choices are made. More specifically, the UN Development Programme (1997) lists what it calls the core characteristics of good governance; participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and strategic vision. Similarly to Ayre and Callaway, it
defines good governance as addressing “the allocation and management of resources to respond to collective problems”.
With these aspects of governance in mind, we will assess the contributions the various global-level meetings have made towards the environment and development. In more general terms however, the main focus in evaluating these summits will be the gap that exists between the so-called North and South (a rather loose term of reference to the developed and the developing world). While the former has tended to follow a mostly environmental agenda, the later generally lobbies for one of development. In simple terms, a meeting that has ‘productively contributed to addressing governance of environment and development’, is one that has been able to forge a partnership between these two sides that leads to concrete actions towards attaining sustainable and equitable development. In addition, for effective implementation, especially of environmental goals and agreements, a summit needs to successfully engage the three main sectors of governance;
government, civil society, and the public sector. In any final analysis however, the question should be, as the WSSD Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, asked of the Rio+10 summit, did it “make a genuine difference?”
(UN, 2002).
We will now look at an outline of the main summits and consider the positive aspects and achievements together with the missed opportunities or failures. To conclude, we will consider whether overall, the meetings were generally a success or failure and what direction future global meetings should take with regards to effectively addressing governance of environment and development.
1992 - The Earth Summit
Since the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, in
1972, there has been a series of global meetings on global environmental issues. Following the 1987 Brundtland Commission's report, which officially defined sustainable development for the UN, in 1989, the General Assembly proposed the first ever Earth Summit on environment and development. As a result, the UN Conference on Environment and Development was held in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992. The agenda was to send a clear message that humankind had reached a critical turning point and that the unsustainable and inequitable patterns of growth and consumption were a threat to our future (Earth Council, 1996). Furthermore, it aimed to tackle this problem by making concrete changes to our economic systems that would help lead to a global partnership between the North and South, and also to create a shift towards development that was sustainable. This was to be done through a five-point plan:
A global action plan for sustainable development in the 21st century, called Agenda 21
Conventions on climate, biodiversity, and forests
An Earth Charter (later renamed The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development)
Financial agreements to carry out Agenda 21 and to transfer environmentally sound technologies from North to South
Measures to strengthen the UN institutions (Dresner, 2002)
Together these were promoted as a “global programme of action for sustainable development” (OECD, 2002). In addition, there was an unprecedented level of involvement by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which helped to enhance the political legitimacy of the Rio summit.
In order to consider the effectiveness of this summit, it is useful to look
more closely at Agenda 21 which arguably has become the highest profile aspect of the summit’s agenda and what the OECD describes as probably the “the most prominent and influential – but non-binding – instrument of the environment and development field” (OECD, 2002). In formulating Agenda 21, a bottom-up approach was taken so that, rather than from a national governmental level, much of the impetus came from civil society.
As Dresner (2002) notes, the key concepts championed by Agenda 21 were participation and open government. Implicit in the involvement of NGOs, Agenda 21 therefore had the potential of creating a strong base for good governance in terms of participation, consensus orientation, and equity.
Agenda 21 also echoed the ideas put forward Brundland Report of 1987 that because development and environmental problems were interwoven, an integrated approach was needed to solve them. To this end, Agenda 21 emphasized the importance of fostering partnerships between NGOs and the private sector. This approach was also designed to help ‘capacity building’;
the provision of increased financial and administrative support for NGOs, that gives them a greater chance of achieving their potential. In addition, creating a framework that assists partnership formation so that governments can work together with NGOs and the private sector, is increasingly seen as an essential condition for effective governance (Newell, 2000). Links between development and environmental concerns were also highlighted, by recognizing the need for a stronger partnership between North and South, and again, reflected ideas put forward in the Brundland Report.
Finally, the environment was projected as a major global, rather than local or national issue and, for the first time, became an important part of international politics. In turn, this has helped the summit itself to become an important focus for future debate on sustainable development (Dresner, 2002).
There were, however, a number of notable shortfalls of Rio. Most significantly, key areas of development were excluded from Agenda 21 because of their controversial nature, for example, the issue of population, international debt, and consumption rates. Also, because of the tensions between North and South, the three main conventions that were planned, were largely, a disappointment. While the convention on climate failed to create binding targets, no action plan was set out on biodiversity and was largely blocked by the US to protect the commercial interests of its biotechnology industry. Finally, the convention for forest principles was dropped altogether; this time because of commercial interests of the South.
Indeed, failure to get concrete agreements on these important environmental areas may have been reflected in the negative trends that dominated the UNEP’s Global Environmental Outlook report (GEO-3) published in 2002.
There were other signs during Rio that indicated there had been a failure to bring North and South close enough for tangible progress on sustainable development to be made. Firstly, the South insisted the ‘Earth Charter’ be called ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, in an attempt to make it less biased towards an environmental agenda. In addition, the South criticised the summit for not producing any development commitments on debt relief, and improvements in the terms relating to ODA, access to international finance, and the stability of commodity prices and market access (Grubb et al, 1993).
During 1992, there was a lot of optimism surrounding Rio’s programme of action. However, in the words of the Earth Council, an NGO body set up to help implement the summit’s plans, “the results of the Earth Summit (…) depend on what governments do to follow-up and carry out its agreements, with the active participation of civil society” (Earth Council, 1996).
Unfortunately, many commentators suggest there has been a disappointing level of implementation following Rio. One reason was a lack of financial commitment to fund Agenda 21 and as Khor noted, hopes were “dashed as the North continues to renege on its commitments at Rio” (Khor, 1997).
Other criticisms include insufficient guidance from the agenda itself on how to fulfill the National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSDSs) (OECD, 2002), and the body responsible for implementing Agenda 21, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), being under-funded and ineffectual (Dresner, 2002). Finally, there was the failure of the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) set up by the summit, to lead to any significant changes within the business sector towards more sustainable patterns of activity.
This summit showed much promise in terms of advancing the participative framework for environmental and developmental governance, and the potential for improved consensus orientation and equality in the decision making process. However, failure to overcome the North South divide, also meant of course that consensus orientation at a global level had not been moved forward in any significant way. As evidenced by leadership issues and a general disappointment in the level of implementation resulting from the summit, the North South divide also contributed to the summits overall effectiveness in fulfilling its original goals.
1995 - World Summit for Social Development
The first summit after the Rio was the World Summit for Social Development, held in 1995, in Copenhagen. The main agenda was the eradication of poverty, full employment, and social integration. Ironically, however, it could be argued that it was a lack of ‘integration’ that led to the summit failing to reach any firm commitments. While the South managed to keep the agenda focused on mainly development issues, the North showed
limited interest (Dresner, 2002), and consequently, little action was forthcoming. Indeed, the relative volume of commentary dedicated to this summit may also reflect the level of interest that the summit generated in the North.
1997 - Rio+5
In 1997 Rio+5 was held with the aim of building “new alliances across disciplines, sectors and national boundaries while identifying actions for implementing sustainability” (Speth, 1997). In simpler terms, it was to assess the progress made towards sustainable development since Rio and to identify why goals hadn’t been met, and what corrective action could be taken. In general, it concluded that the implementation phase of Rio was not going well. As one UN member then put it:
It is apparent that the basic structures for implementing sustainability are not well understood and have not been put into place. One of the major stumbling blocks is the way in which individuals and organizations campaigning for sustainability continue to work
independently of each other. (Speth, 1997)
Indeed, the slogan of Rio+5 “Moving Sustainable Development from Agenda to Action” highlights this perceived lack of action after Rio and consequently, it was proposed that there be a hardening of laws to move principles, such as those established by Rio, to binding agreements. As an example, from the ‘polluter pays’ principle of the 1992 Rio declaration, binding targets were eventually established by the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which itself, represents one of the most concrete examples of a strategy that has emerged from the culmative efforts of the key meetings that were held in 1990’s. Now in 2007, it is still the main platform on which the international climate change agenda is moving forward from.
2000 – Millennium Summit
In 2000, the Millennium Summit produced the Millennium Declaration, which set out eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) that focused on sustainable development, reducing poverty, and improving human rights.
Together they provided a comprehensive set of precise and time-bound targets, most for 2015, which would be monitored by the General Assembly.
Although the general consensus is that few, if any of the goals are likely to be met by 2015, they do, in themselves represent a significant tool to measure, monitor and report on the international community’s progress of sustainable development policies. Indeed, the latest MDG report (2007) itself could not be described as optimistic, and says that although some gains have been made since 2000, much still remains to be done and significant actions are needed if there is to be even a possibility of success.
Undoubtedly, the MDG’s themselves are very important for measuring the effectiveness of development policies, and also for improving the accountability of nations efforts towards achieving sustainable development.
But while the MDG’s could be interpreted as a strategic framework, the 2000 summit did not make any of the goals legally binding. It also failed to put any significant mechanisms in place to achieve those goals.
2002 – Rio+10
By 2002, liberalisation and globalisation were increasingly being blamed for the lack of commitment towards a sustainable world society, and implementation of Agenda 21 was still disappointing. Therefore, one of the main aims of Rio+10 that year, was to speed up implementation of Agenda 21 and other related prior agreements that would “bridge the gap between promise and action” (Ayre & Callaway, 2005).
The three main outcomes of the Rio+10 were the Johannesburg Declaration, a Plan of Implementation, and the formation of partnerships for sustainable development. The declaration acknowledged some of the key development issues, which were missing from Rio, for example, consumption and production patterns, and globalisation, and called for a united action by all stakeholders to reduce poverty and other global divides. In contrast to the Rio Declaration therefore, which reflected the summit’s mostly environmental agenda, the main focus of the Johannesburg Declaration were the problems of development. In the Plan of Implementation however, both development and environmental targets were agreed, including halving the number of people without access to adequate sanitation by 2015, and reducing the rate of decline in biodiversity by 2010. Finally, for the first time, this summit incorporated NGOs as part of the formal outcome. Over 300 voluntary partnerships were created, which helped increase the level of dialogue between all the three sectors of governance; government, civil society, and public enterprise, and boosted the resources available for implementing sustainable development plans. In this sense Rio+10 went further than the Earth Summit at extending participation, which in turn created the prospect of greater consensus, equity, and transparency. Further more, the additional resources provided the promise for effectiveness of environmental and developmental governance framework.
Among some of the criticisms of the summit however, were that no new treaties were signed, consumption problems were not included in the implementation plan, and that there was no strong statement on global warming. In addition, despite the positive efforts to engage NGOs and the corporate sector, many of the principles of good governance (listed earlier) were not demonstrated by the summit’s proceedings. As Ayre & Callaway (2005) comment, because of a lack of framework, the positive work in creating new partnerships at the summit offered “little promise for solving
the deeply structural problems of global governance”. Furthermore, because negotiations happened in closed sessions, admission procedures were difficult for smaller NGOs, and NGOs are not allowed to block UN agreements (Malos, 2002), the level of effective, equitable, and consensus- orientated processes was limited. There was also anger that the WTO and trade took too much prominence over other issues, which led to some feeling that “the leaders of the world have behaved as if they were corporate executives” (BBC, 2002). This is an important point because as Menotti (2002) points out in his assessment of Rio+10, if international trade bodies are allowed to dominate multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), it
“derides the very concept of checks and balances that is so central to good governance”. Similarly, there were claims that many of these ‘type II’
partnerships were subject to undue influence from corporations (Elliot, 2004).
Conclusion
Because of the wide divisions that still exist between the various actors involved in the sustainable development debate, commentary on the outcomes of these summits has been predictably polarised. It seems fair to say though that these summits have generally been successful in moving the agenda on sustainable development forward and keeping it in the spotlight.
And, while it might be argued that it is mostly the efforts of NGOs that have been responsible for this, it is the summits, which give them the global platform on which to act.
The general lack of implementation however has called into question the global governance of environment and development and in particular the effectiveness of the UN. In a 1999 report to the General Assembly for example, it refers to “institutional fragmentation and loss of policy coherence”. While both the Rio and Rio+10 summits addressed institutional
reform, neither offered significant guidance on how it should be achieved.
In addition, while one of the main aims of the World Summit in 2005 was to strengthen the UN and reviewing progress on the MDGs, again, there was disappointment with North South divisions and US hostilities towards various issues that weakened the planned text. Consequently, the final outcome document was described as “weak and full of platitudes and generalities” (Shah, 2005)
Suggestions from outside the UN however, to make the framework of environment and development governance more effective, transparent and accountable, include the formation of a World or Global Environmental Organisation that could balance the power of the WTO and trade, although critics of this idea fear it is too biased towards the environmental agenda.
And to help strengthen the UN, and other global-level bodies concerned with governance of environmental and developmental issues, better coordination, and a rationalisation and consolidation of their internal structures have been called for. With more effective and clearer structures of governance in operation, there may, in turn, be a better chance for realising the improvements in ‘bottom-up democratisation’ (Elliot, 2004) as advocated by the Brundtland report, Rio, and Rio+10. Only then can any significant progress be made by capitalising on civil society’s important role in “mobilising political opinion and support for sustainable development”
(William, 1992, p.26).
Other explanations for the failures associated with global governance of environment and development are numerous. In the World Humanity Action Trust (WHAT) report: ‘Governance for a Sustainable future’, limited progress during the time of these summits was blamed on the lack of political will and understanding, the lack of credible and relevant information, and the dominance of economic policies over social and
environmental policies. In turn, these appear to represent what Ayre and Callaway (2005) mention as an ‘implementation gap’, and ‘information gap’, which are also closely linked an ‘institutional gap’ and the North South divide. It’s useful to note however, that recently there has been a significant strengthening of consensus and in the sense of urgency relating to sustainable development issues, which in turn, could translate into an increase in the level of implementation compared to that which has happened since the Earth Summit in 1992.
In addition to calls for institutional reforms, improved mechanisms to engage key stakeholders, and more ‘time-bound’ and ‘action-orientated’
goals (Ayre & Callaway, 2005), it has become clear that additional ‘external’
factors have done much to limit the effectiveness of these summits. These include expanding globalisation and liberalisation of trade, and the continuation of some powerful nations to champion their own interests at these summits. For sustainable development to be achieved therefore, these trends need to be reversed, and for that to happen, a fundamental shift in political will and the way in which the global economy functions. As the International Form on Globalisation (IFG) writes:
As long as global institutions and national governments simultaneously attempt to pursue economic globalization, no goals for a healthy planet, or equity and justice for people, are remotely
achievable. (IGF, 2002)
One alternative approach is a neo-liberal approach, also called the ‘3rd Way’
(Arestis & Sawyer, 2001) whereby the state takes a more active role in regulating the economy and with human well-being as well as growth as its goal (Elliot, 2004).
But to be effective at tackling the many environmental and development problems which are often inherently trans-boundary and global in nature, these changes would also have to be accommodated at the global level, which in turn, adds weight for the calls for stronger governance through new global institutional frameworks.
To conclude with an optimistic note, it is interesting to consider the words of one senior UN official, Shashi Tharoor, who said:
Talk is the necessary precursor for action. And even if action is slow in coming, world summits can establish international norms and standards that are increasingly accepted. They represent progress of a kind, even if it is never better than two steps forward, one step
back (BBC, 2002)
References
Arestis, P., & SawYer, M. (2001). The economic analysis underlying the ‘Third Way’.
New Political Economy, vol.6, 2, pp 255-278.
Ayre, G., & Callaway, R. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: A foundation for the future. London: Eathscan.
BBC, 2002. Analysis: Do world summits work? Available from: http://news.bbc.co.
uk/2/hi/in_depth/2207267.stm [Accessed 5 December 2005]
BBC, 2002. World Summit in Quotes. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
africa/2231001.stm [Accessed 5 December 2005]
DRESNER, S., 2002. The principles of sustainability. London: Earthscan.
EARTH COUNCIL, 1996. About the Earth Council. Available from: http://www.
ecouncil.ac.cr/about/backgrnd.htm [Accessed 2 December 2005]
ELLIOTT, L., 2004. The Global Politics of the Environment. 2nd Ed. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
GRUBB, M., et al, 1993. The ‘Earth Summit’ Agreements: A guide and assessment.
London: Earthscan.
International Forum on Globalization, 2002. The UN World Summit on Sustainable Development: A brief overview. Available from: http://www.ifg.org/un.html [Accessed 13 December 2005]
KHOR, M., 1997. Effects of Globalisation on Sustainable Development after UNCED.
Third World Resource Journal. Available from: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/rio- cn.htm [Accessed 8 December 2005]
LANGMORE, J., 2000. Five-Year Review of the World Summit for Social Development. Copenhagen+5. Issue No.3. Available from: http://www.icsw.org/
copenhagen_implementation/copenhagen_newsletter/cop_nwsltr_no3/menu.htm [Accessed 28 November 2005]
Millennium Development Goals Indicators, 2007. Millennium Development Goals Indicators: The official United Nations site for MDG Indicators. Available from:
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/News.aspx?ArticleId=34 [Accessed 9 January 2008]
MENOTTI, V., 2002. Where To Go After Johannesburg? Cancun or Bust!. Available from: http://www.ifg.org/wssd/wheretogo.htm [Accessed 12 December 2005]
MALOS, A., 2002. WSSD Success or Failure. Global Policy Forum. Available from:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/int/un/access/2002/10wssd.htm [Accessed 11 December 2005]
NEWELL, P., 2000. Governance and Sustainable Livelihoods. Available from: http://
www.livelihoods.org/static/pnewell_NN149.htm [Accessed 7 December 2005]
OECD, 2002. Sustainable Development Strategies: a resource book. London:
Earthscan.
SHAH, A., 2005. United Nations World Summit 2005. Global Issues. Available from:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/unworldsummit2005.asp#Summit MeetingOutcome. [Accessed 15 December 2005]
SPETH, J., 1997. Rio+5 Forum Overview Report: Introduction. Available from: http://
www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio5/forum/index.htm [Accessed 7 December 2005]
UN, 2002. The Johannesburg Summit Test: What Will Change? Johannesburg Summit.
Feature story. Available from http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/whats_new/
feature_story.html [Accessed 7 December 2005]
UNDP, 1997. Governance for sustainable human development. UNDP policy document. January 1997. Available from: http://magnet.undp.org/policy/default.htm [Accessed 28 November 2005]
WILLIAMS, M., 1992. Guidelines to strengthening the institutional response to major environmental issues. Development, 2, pp 22-27.
