Introduction:
With the dawn of 21st century, the global environmental governance has become one of other most talked about the issue and one of the most leading discourses of world leaders. As the Tsunamis, Hurricanes, famines and heat-waves have become increasingly frequent and intense, the calls for global environmental governance has been picking up, as leaders think it is the only way to restrain the adverse effects of the climate change.
The foundation upon which this notion of global environment governance sits is various studies that have taken place over the course quite a few decades beginning with the Stockholm Conference in 1972. As a wake of this conference, intellectual endeavours reproduced which began analysing the ways in which global cooperation can be achieved (Kennan 1970, p. 407; Johnson 1972, p. 278)
The basic definition of Governance is it is the ways through which the states achieves well-ordered rule and shared action (Stoker, 2004, p. 28). It is the practice that frames principles and methods in detail so that actions toward achieving those goals can be founded, defining roles and duties and streamlining interactions (Stokke 1997, p. 28).
Environmental governance is multi-dimensional as it broadly looks at the political, economic, social and ecological dimensions. There are various themes and approaches of global environmental governance. To boost upon our understanding of the ongoing developments in the global environmental governance, this essay will delve deep into the critical sketch of the four main theoretical approaches of the environmental governance. It will throw light on the contours of global governance as well as the critical analysis surrounding the environment governance.
Main Theoretical Approaches to Global Environmental Governance:
Governance involves a wide circle or network of stakeholders from multiple sectors and situations, and it the process where ‘a society steers itself, and the dynamics of communication and control are central to the process’ (Rosenau and Durfee 1995: 14). The broadening in the meaning of the governance in the environmental issues evident as the environmental problems often has transboundary and international effects. Lemos and Agrawal (2006: 229) define environmental governance as;
The set of regulatory processes, mechanisms and organisations through which political actors influence environmental actions and outcomes. Governance includes the usual functions of a state besides encompasses actors such as communities, business, and the NGOs. The key to different forms of environmental governance are the political-economic relationships that institutions embody and how these relationships shape identities, actions and outcomes.
To substantiate the scope of the environmental governance as global and shared agenda for all humankind, the first ‘Earth Summit’ was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 releasing the Agenda 21, which is considered to be the most important document for global environment governance. The Agenda 21 combines an account of ecological damage with a suggested set of priorities and policy responses to achieve some form of sustainable development (UNCED 1992). Similarly, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is another significant outcome of the summit. Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, is another milestone to substantiate the global environmental governance debate and action. This essay will look at the four strategic approaches to the global environmental governance very: regime, global governance, neo-Gramscian, and governmentality.
1. Regime-based Approach
The Regime-based approach is a state-centric approach and has the most established groundwork and methods which make it easier to understand. However, it does not allow the engagement of non-state actors. However, lately efforts are underway to fine tune this approach and open up regimes to let non-state actors play their part as well (Haggard and Simmons 1987, p. 588). Under this method, it was believed that the attitude of the state is easier to channelize into the desired direction. However, then it gave rise the need for non-state actors that have to step up and analyse situations from unbiased perspectives. It is primarily rested on the idea of the international system lacking stability hence states were the tools to bring about some global governance and cooperation. The idea was popular and prevailing for quite some time (Dessai and Schipper 2003, p. 150)
Furthermore, this approach rested on the rationale of it is easier for states to distinguish between national and international interest which is why they are better placed to work toward this goal since it is a homogenous entity (Biermann 2005, p. 281). The mutual vulnerability was best avoided and resolved under this approach as theorised by its leading proponents. Since the sovereignty and power both rested and asserted by the state, it lies in states hands that it ensures it is the medium through which global governance is in place.
2. Global Governance Approach
The rise of the proliferation of the work and debate on global governance asserted the increasing visibility of the non-state actors in the international policy-making. The profile of the non-sate actors in the international political economy. Weiss argued that the dissatisfaction with the regime approach led to define the governance beyond regime (Weiss 2000). The Global Governance is based on the rationale that the most of the state-centric approaches are bound to fail. To be more efficient to forge global cooperation, the steps beyond regimes must take place; this gave rise and popularity to global governance approach. Despite its acceptance and unanimity, the conceptualization that this method offers are still discouraging and shady.
The concept of global governance does not have an agreed and consistent understanding. Young (1997) looks at the global governance regarding the regime and non-state actors as complimentary. Another theorist, like Scholte, uses the concept of global governance from an idealist world view (Scholte 2000). The third point of view conceives vibrant cooperation between a wider segment of the actors such as government, civil society, the private sector and other related institutions. Moreover, the focus of this coordination is driven by mutual concern and shared vision (Commission for Global Governance, 1995). Moreover, Dingwerth and Pattberg (2006) appeals for a critical approach to global governance which is more hegemonic to the adverse effect of neo-liberal market-centric development at the international level.
3. Neo-Gramscian Approach
The Neo-Gramscian identifies the role of civil society as the key player in environmental politics (Wapner 1997: 78). The Neo-Gramscian proposes a promising approach to explaining the dynamic of the non-state actors in global environmental governance. The approach centres on civil society actors to shape policies and dealing with common environmental problems (Gramsci 1971; Cox 1989). Neo-Gramscian defines the state in many complex terms than regime and global governance approaches. Subsequently, the approach has a wider concept of power that captures extended issues of state authority, legitimacy and autonomy of non-state actors in the political economy of the sustainable development (Levy and Newell 2005). Similarly, the Neo-Gramscian ideas are sensitive to the complex relationship between structure and agencies. This complexity in the relationship leads to tangled interlinkages between state, market and social institutions. Levy and Newell (2005: 49) claims that political competition and compromise is the hub of this Neo-Gramscian approach. Another essential part of this approach is the linkage between different actors and institutions across the national and international boundaries.
4. Governmentality
This term was coined by Foucault to denote the government’s rationality (Gordon 1991, p. 3) the methods, the logic, politico-social functions as well the procedure of the governance (Sending and Neumann 2006, p. 651). Foucault theorised how a state works and what could be the forms of relationship between the state and the non-state actors. This approach offers positivity when, compared with all the methods we discussed in detail above, for the global environment governance. Since the purpose of the state is to make sure that the governance takes place in orderly way, the theorists and the governments should not be concerned where the power lies or how it is distributed and translated, as the ultimate aim is to benefit the people at large somehow. This favours the civil society as the power vacuum, left by the government, can be utilised by the non-state actors in helping the state toward its primary duty of improved and effective governance to the people. Hence the public institutions and the institutions of civil society can co-exist with the shared aim of addressing people’s concerns and working in the larger interests of the citizens.
Past few decades have seen the surge in the initiatives seeking to deal with the significant environmental challenges, such as reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, non-state actors have been at the forefront of these campaigns. These endeavours bear critical implications for environmental protection governance (Auer 2000, p. 160) the emission of greenhouse gases is the problem occurred at the highest level, at the level of states. Moreover, powerful countries are hard to agree on GHGs which complicates the wider agreement among nations at the international arena and to convince them to adopt a more environment-friendly way to energy production, for example (Betsill and Corell 2001, p. 78).
Conclusions:
The adverse effects of climate change and environmental degradation have resulted in the development of theoretical approaches to come up with the political economy of the global environmental governance. There are four dominant theoretical approaches to global environmental governance. It is through governance that all the aims can be achieved. Moreover, environmental problem is, after all, an issue of governance that needs to be affected at the highest level. Among the four approaches, Regime approach though offering the strength of power structure strictly defined at the state level but it excludes non-nation state actors thereby compromising its affectiveness.
The global governance approach, however, decentralises its powers. In spite of its apparent positivity, there is insufficient evidence to establish that this approach works the best in forging global governance to find the solution of environmental problems. The third approach, Neo-Gramscian, in the way of outlining governance that the tangible results can be attained. Given the choices, governmentality works best in establishing a chain of global environment governance as it accommodates the public as well as private state actors to creatively contribute in satisfying the shared environmental goals of the nation.
Bibliography
Auer, M. (2000) ‘who participates in global environmental governance: Partial answers from international relations theory’, Policy Sciences 33:160.
Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E. (2001) ‘NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: a framework for analysis’, Global Environmental Politics, 1(4): 78
Biermann, F. (2005) ‘Between USA and the South: strategic choices for European climate policy’, Climate Policy 5: p. 281.
Commission for Global Governance (1995) Our Global Neighbourhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, W. R. (1989) ‘Production, the State and change in World Order’ in Global Challenges and theoretical Challenges: Approaches to world Politics for the 1990s, E. Czempiel and J. N. Rosenau (eds). Toronto: Lexington Books.
Dessai, S. and Schipper, E. L. (2003) ‘The Marrakech Accords to the Kyoto Protocol: analysis and future prospects’, Global Environmental Change, 13 (2): p. 150
Dingwerth, K. and Pattberg, P. (2006) ‘Global Governance as a perspective on World Politics’, Global Governance 12 (2): 185 -203.
Gordon, C. (1991) ‘Governmental rationality: An Introduction’, in The Foucault’s Effect: Studies in governmentality, G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller. P. 3
Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the prison notebooks (Q.Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith eds, and Trans.) New York: International Publishers.
Haggard, S. and Simmons, B. A. (1987) ‘Theories of International Regime’, International Organization, 41 (3): p. 588.
Johnson, Brian (1972) ‘The United Nations Institutional Response to Stockholm: A Case Study in the International Politics of Institutional Change’, International Organization 278.
Kennan, George F. (1970) ‘To Prevent a World Wasteland: A Proposal’, Foreign Affairs 48, 3, 407.
Lemos, M. and Agrawal, A. (2006) ‘Environmental Governance’, Annual Review Environmental Resources, 31: 297-325.
Levy, L. D. and Newell, J. P. (eds) (2005). The Business of Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rosenau, J. N. and Durfee, M. (1995) Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Scholte J. A. (2002) ‘Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance’, Global Governance, 8: 281-304.
Sending J. O. and Neumann, B. I. (2006) Governance to Governmentality: Analysing NGOs, States, and Power. International Studies Quarterly 50, 651.
Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Government: from Thatcherism to New Labour, Basingstoke, p. 28
Stokke, O. S. (1997) ‘Regimes as Governance System’, In. Global Governance: Drawing Insight from the Environmental experience, Oran Young (ed.) Cambridge: MIT Press p 28.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992) Agenda 21, Geneva. Available at: http://www.erin.gov.au/portfolio/esd/nesd/Agenda21/html.
United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environmental Outlook (London: Earthscan and UNEP 1999), p. xx
UNFCC Kyoto Protocol. Available at: unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (07 Nov 2016)
Young, O. (1997) ‘Rights Rules and Resources in World Affairs’, In Global Governance: Drawing Insight from the Environmental experience, Oran Young (ed.) Cambridge: MIT Press, pp 2-23
Wapner, P. (1997) ‘Governance in Global Civil Society’, in Oran Young (ed.) Global Governance Drawing Insight from Environmental Experience. Cambridge: p. 78
Weiss, T. (2000) ‘Governance: Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges’, Third World Quarterly 21 (5): 795
Rakesh Karna 