Governance For Sustainability:
last revision - Feb 29, 2008
Go To Earthmodal Homeclick here to return to earthmodal home

Source
World Resources Institute   (new window, website)

operations note: readers may either go to the download page reference given here or may (prefer to) use the chapter references following the quoted text below.

World Resources 2002-2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, voice, and power  (new window, webpage - download page)

"Sometimes we use the term governance very broadly to describe not just the process of decision-making, but the actual management actions—where and when to log, or how to limit fishing or distribute grazing permits—that result. In other words, in our day-to-day experience we intertwine environmental governance and ecosystem management, which is where the real impact of decisions becomes visible. In truth, environmental governance goes beyond the actual decisions on how to manage natural resources to include the decisionmaking framework—the laws, policies, regulations, bureaucracies, and formal procedures—within which managers make their decisions. It sets the larger context that either enables or constrains management."

World Resources 2002–2004

World Resources 2002–2004 has three goals. The first is to define in everyday terms what environmental governance means and how it relates to today’s environmental trends and social conditions. That involves probing what lies behind the environmental decisions that shape our lives. It means enumerating the variety of players and decision points that mediate our impacts on Earth’s ecosystems. It requires examining whether decisions are made transparently and the public accountability of the decision-makers. It involves exploring the role of good information and public participation in environmental affairs. It means looking at the rights and responsibilities that come with private and public ownership of the environment. These are all elements of how we exercise our authority over the planet, which is really what environmental governance is about.

The second goal is to assess the state of environmental governance in nations around the world. How close are we to embodying good governance practices? Measuring our governance performance is difficult. For example, how should we measure transparency of government agencies? What constitutes adequate public participation in resource-related decisions? What is an “effective” law or regulation? Until now, no one has undertaken a systematic study of environmental governance indicators. Here we report on a first attempt to do this—the Access Initiative. This groundbreaking effort, undertaken by an international consortium of public interest groups, assesses the openness and accessibility of environmental decision-making in nine nations. The results of the Access Initiative give a detailed picture of how well the public in the surveyed nations can participate in local and national decisions about the natural environment they inhabit. They offer a guide to better governance by identifying the kinds of information and involvement people require to become active partners in the management of ecosystems.

Our third goal is to advance the thesis that attention to better environmental governance is one of the most direct routes to reversing the world’s environmental decline. In practice, better governance must translate to more inclusive processes for making decisions about natural resources. Institutions must clearly integrate environmental concerns into everyday activities and economic decisions. Natural resource management agencies like forestry, agriculture, mining, and environment ministries need to reshape their mission and structure around maintaining the health of ecosystems.

In this report, we consider ecosystems as the fundamental biological engines of the world economy and the foundations of a sustainable future. They form the physical anchor for our consideration of environmental governance. For our purposes, environmental governance is only effective if it leads to fair and sustainable management of ecosystems.

operations note: save these following to subdirectory ../Gov2003 in the earthmodal bookshelf

  (all items in new window, pdfs)
Front matter (2,118 KB) Title page, contents, foreword
Chapter 1: Environmental governance. Whose voice? Whose choice?(3,649 KB) 
Chapter 2: Environmental governance today(2,697 KB)
Chapter 3: Public participation and access(1,613 KB)
Chapter 4: Awakening civil society(2,439 KB)
Chapter 5: Decentralization - A local voice(1,548 KB)
Chapter 6: Driving business accountability(2,505 KB)
Chapter 7: International environmental governance(2,802 KB)
Chapter 8: A world of decisions - Case studies (2,802 KB)
Chapter 9: Toward a better balance(863 KB) 
Data tables(2,097 KB)
References(274 KB)
Index(95 KB)
Book cover(482 KB)
Inside covers (72 KB)
Guide to World Resources 2002-2004 (Full text of executive summary)(3,856 KB)


. . . .
Seven Elements of Environmental Governance

1. Institutions and Laws: Who makes and enforces the rules for using natural resources? • What are the rules and the penalties for breaking them? • Who resolves disputes?
Government ministries; regional water or pollution control boards; local zoning departments and governing councils; international bodies like the United Nations or World Trade Organization; industry trade organizations. • Environmental and economic laws, policies, rules, treaties, and enforcement regimes; corporate codes of conduct. • Courts and administrative review panels.

2. Participation Rights and Representation: How can the public influence or contest the rules over natural resources? • Who represents those who use or depend on natural resources when decisions on these resources are made?
Freedom of Information laws; public hearings, reviews, and comment periods on environmental plans and actions; ability to sue in court, lodge a complaint, or demand an administrative review of a rule or decision. • Elected legislators, appointed representatives, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) representing local people or other environmental stakeholders.

3. Authority Level: At what level or scale—local, regional, national, international—does the authority over resources reside? Distribution of official rulemaking, budgeting, and investment power at different levels of government (e.g., district forest office, regional air pollution control board, national agriculture ministry, international river basin authority).

4. Accountability and Transparency: How do those who control and manage natural resources answer for their decisions, and to whom? • How open to scrutiny is the decision-making process?
Elections; public oversight bodies; performance reviews; opinion polls; financial audits; corporate boards of directors; stockholder meetings. • Availability of public records of rules, decisions, and complaints; corporate financial statements; public inventories of pollutant releases from industrial facilities, power plants, and water treatment facilities.

5. Property Rights and Tenure: Who owns a natural resource or has the legal right to control it?
Land titles; water, mineral, fishing, or other use rights; tribal or  traditional community-based property rights; logging, mining, and park recreation concessions.

6. Markets and Financial Flows: How do financial practices, economic policies, and market behavior influence authority over natural resources?
Private sector investment patterns and lending practices; government aid and lending by multilateral development banks; trade policies and tariffs; corporate business strategies; organized consumer activities such as product boycotts or preferences; stockholder initiatives related to company environmental behavior.

7. Science and Risk: How are ecological and social science incorporated into decisions on natural resource use to reduce risks to people and ecosystems and identify new opportunities?
Science advisory panels (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]); natural resource inventories (e.g., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations biennial State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report); ground- and satellite-based ecosystem monitoring programs (e.g., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment); national censuses and economic tracking; company health, safety, and environment reports.

Better Governance for Sustainable Ecosystems

earthmodal note: this governance recommendations table has been assembled from the text of "Chapter 9: Toward a better balance" in order to facilitate access to the  lists of recommendations that are in that chapter.

governance recommendations table  (new window, this site, webpage)
World Water Assessment Program (WWAP)   (new window, website)

operations note: see Assessment section for download

The United Nations World Water Development Report

Chapter 2: The Challenges of Governance
Part 2. Water Governance in Practice:

Trends in Reform and Rights
Governance is one of the biggest challenges within the water sector: Why and how are certain decisions made? What stakeholders are involved? What principles, rules and regulations (formal and informal institutions) apply? Governance is process-oriented and thus intrinsically linked to politics and preoccupied with how various actors relate to each other. Because of the varying characteristics of water resources and the myriad socio-economic and political frameworks, governing mechanisms vary considerably across countries, including differences such as the reformed items, the pace at which countries are moving towards implementing water reforms, the level of the reform and the degree of targeting environmental and social objectives.

Key messages:
In many countries water governance is in a state of confusion: in some countries there is a total lack of water institutions, and others display fragmented institutional structures or conflicting decision-making structures. In many places conflicting upstream and downstream interests regarding riparian rights and access to water resources are pressing issues that need immediate attention; in many other cases there are strong tendencies to divert public resources for personal gain, or unpredictability in the use of laws and regulations and licensing practices impede markets and voluntary action and encourage corruption.

■ Good water governance is a complex process, influenced by a given country’s overall standard of governance, its customs, mores, and politics and conditions, events within and around it (e.g. conflict) and by developments in the global economy. There is no blueprint for good water governance.
■ Reforms of water governance are being driven by internal pressures on water resources and environmental threats, growing population and the focus of the international community on poverty alleviation and socio-economic development (e.g. Millennium Development Goals). However the rate of reform is patchy and slow.
■ There are significant and serious gaps in developing countries between land and water use policies and governance and between policymaking and its implementation, often due to institutional resistance to change, corruption, etc.
■ In the water sector, as worldwide, corruption is pervasive, though shortage of information about its extent in the water sector prevents a full picture from being obtained. It has had little attention to date in the water sector and much remains to be done.
■ Increasing recognition is accorded to the right to water, in terms of a human right to a supply of safe water, the role of water rights in helping to deal with local competition for water and in dealing with social, economic and environmental problems.
■ The privatization of water services displays uneven results. Many multinational water companies are currently decreasing their activities in developing countries. The potential of local small-scale companies and civil society organizations to help improve water services has largely been overlooked by governments and donors.
■ Many governments recognize the need to localize water management but fail to delegate adequate powers and resources to make it work. Local groups and individuals are often without access to information, are excluded from water decisionmaking, and thus lack a capacity to act.

Environment and Energy for Sustainable Development     (new window, website)
Energy for Sustainable Development: Overview    (new window, website)

operations note: see Assessment section for download
World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability

Chapter 12. Energy Policies for Sustainable Development
Michael Jefferson (United Kingdom)

The scenarios described in chapter 9 indicate that changes are needed if energy systems are to promote sustainable development. The key challenges are expanding access to affordable, reliable, and adequate energy supplies while addressing environmental impacts at all levels. Policies can support sustainable development by:
 With the right policies, prices, and regulations, markets can achieve many of these objectives. But where markets do not operate or where they fail to protect important public benefits, targeted government policies, programmes, and regulations are justified when they can achieve policy goals.
    The broad strategies to encourage sustainable energy systems are straightforward. But they require wider acknowledgement of the challenges we face and stronger commitment to specific policies. The strategies include:
The challenge of sustainable energy includes crucial enabling roles for governments, international organisations, multilateral financial institutions, and civil society—including local communities, business and industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and consumers. Partnerships will be required, based on integrated and cooperative approaches and drawing on practical experience. A common denominator across all sectors and regions is setting the necessary framework conditions and ensuring that public institutions work effectively and efficiently with the rest of society to achieve sustainable development.
    Energy can be a powerful tool for sustainable development. But redirecting its power to work towards that goal will require major policy changes within the overall enabling framework. Unless those changes occur within the next few decades—and are begun without further delay—many of the opportunities now available will be lost or the costs of their eventual realisation (where possible) greatly increased. Either way, the ability of future generations to meet their needs would be gravely compromised.

Source
World Resources Institute   (new window, website)

"The World Resources Institute's mission is to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth's environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations.

Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty: The Wealth of the Poor
United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank,  World Resources Institute

A glance at the Table of Contents (new window, this site)
PDF Downloads

Full text: World Resources 2005 -- The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty (High resolution) (15455 kb)

Full text: World Resources 2005 -- The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty (Low resolution) (8370 kb)


World Resources 2005 is about simple propositions:
■ Economic growth is the only realistic means to lift the poor out of extreme poverty in the developing world; but the capacity of the poor to participate in economic growth must be enhanced if they are to share in its benefits.
■ The building blocks of a pro-poor growth strategy begin with natural resources. These provide the base upon which the vast majority of the poor now depend for their fragile existence, but over which they exercise little control, and therefore can’t exercise full stewardship.
■ The role of governance—transparent and accountable governance— is critical to fostering pro-poor growth and essential to ensuring that the engine of that growth, natural resource wealth, is managed wisely.

Better Governance Is Vital for Higher Incomes

Maximizing environmental income for the poor requires changes in the governance of natural resources. The need for such changes is pressing because the poor are at a great disadvantage when it comes to controlling natural resources or the decisions surrounding them. They often lack legal ownership or tenure over land and resources, which restricts their access and makes their homes and livelihoods insecure. They also suffer from a lack of voice in decision-making processes, cutting them out of the decision-making loop.             Natural-resource corruption falls harder on the poor as well, who may be the victims of bribedemanding bureaucrats or illegal logging and fishing facilitated by corrupt officials who look the other way. The poor are also subject to a variety of policies—such as taxes and various regulations—that are effectively anti-poor.
    These governance burdens make it hard for poor families to plan effectively, to make investments that might allow them to profit from their assets or skills, or to work together effectively to manage common areas or create markets for their products. In other words, governance burdens quickly translate to economic obstacles.

Tenure Security is a Primary Obstacle

Ownership and access are the most fundamental keys to the wealth of nature. Unfortunately, many poor people do not own the land or fishing grounds they rely on for environmental income. This lack of secure tenure makes them vulnerable to being dispossessed of their homes and livelihoods, or, if they rent homes or land, subject to sometimes exorbitant rent payments. The importance of tenure—or the lack of it—to the ability to tap nature’s wealth can’t be stressed too much. The rights to exploit, sell, or bar others from using a resource—the bundle of rights associated with tenure or ownership—are essential to legal commerce. Ownership also provides an incentive to manage ecosystems sustainably by assuring that an owner will be able to capture the benefits of long-term investments like soil improvements, tree planting, or restricting fishing seasons to keep fish stocks viable.
    Tenure issues affecting the poor involve not only private ownership of land, but also the use of common lands. Many areas under state ownership provide the resource base for poor communities, but these communities often have no legal basis for their use of common pool resources. In many instances, these resources— whether they are forests, grazing areas, or fishing grounds—have been governed locally for centuries under traditional forms of  “communal tenure,” in which resources are owned in common by a group of individuals, such as a village or tribe. Unfortunately, such customary arrangements are often not legally recognized, and conflicts between communal tenure and modern state-recognized ownership frequently threaten rural livelihoods. State recognition of such traditional ownership arrangements or new power-sharing agreements between local communities and the state that grant specific rights to use and profit from the state commons are often important ingredients in successful efforts to tap the wealth of natural systems (Meinzen- Dick and Di Gregorio 2004:1-2).

Lack of Voice, Participation, and Representation

When important decisions about local resources are made, the poor are rarely heard or their interests represented. Often these decisions, such as the awarding of a timber concession on state forest land that may be occupied by poor households, are made in the state capitol or in venues far removed from rural life. Even if they could make it to these decision-making venues, the poor—and other rural residents as well—would still be unlikely to find a seat at the table. The right for local resource users to participate in resource decisions is still a relatively new concept in most areas and often not embodied in law. Language barriers, ignorance of their legal rights, and a lack of full information about how resource decisions are likely to affect them are also potent obstacles to the participation of the poor. Lack of money, of political connections, and of lawyers or other advocates that can articulate their needs are all sources of political isolation and marginalization (WRI et al. 2003:44-64).
Source
United Nations Environment Programme  (new window, website)

Global Environment Outlook 3 : Synthesis
operations note: download done in Environment (this site)

Conclusions

There has been immense change in both human and environmental conditions over the past 30 years. In an unprecedented period of population increase, the environment has been heavily drawn upon to meet a multiplicity of human needs. In many areas, the state of the environment is much more fragile and degraded than it was in 1972. The result is that the world can now be categorized by four major divides:

The four gaps are a serious threat to sustainable development.

Source:
A European System of Environmental Pressure Indices

First Volume of the Environmental Pressure Indices Handbook:

The Indicators

Part I: Introduction to the political and theoretical background

Jochen Jesinghaus

Pressure Indices programme coordinator
European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety (ISIS), TP 361
I-21020 Ispra (VA)
Fax: +39-0332-78-5733
European Statistical Library
http://esl.jrc.it/
http://esl.jrc.it/envind/ddk.htm
http://esl.jrc.it/envind/dashbrds.htm

1.2.2 The Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model

D Driving forces are underlying factors influencing a variety of relevant variables. Examples: the number of cars per inhabitant; total industrial production; GDP.

P Pressure indicators describe the variables which directly cause (or may cause) environmental problems. Examples: toxic emissions, CO 2 emissions, noise etc. caused by road traffic; the parking space required by cars; the amount of waste produced by scrap cars.

S State indicators show the current condition of the environment. Examples: the concentration of lead in urban areas; the noise levels near main roads; the global mean temperature.

I Impact indicators describe the ultimate effects of changes of state. Example: the percentage of children suffering from lead-induced health problems; the mortality due to noise-induced heart attacks; the number of people starving due to climate-change induced crop losses.

R Response indicators demonstrate the efforts of society (i.e. politicians, decision-makers) to solve the problems. Examples: the percentage of cars with catalytic converters; maximum allowed noise levels for cars; the price level of gasoline; the revenue coming from pollution levies; the budget spent for solar energy research.

Eurostat focuses on Driving force (e.g. sectoral trends), Pressure and Response indicators, and on linking such indicators to standard socio-economic statistics. Complementary to this effort, the European Environment Agency (EEA) will concentrate on state and impact indicators, and on a comprehensive description of the full PSR chain.


 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 10: Linking Environmental and Socio-Economic Indicators: from SD indicators to Scenarios


 
 
 
 

Figure 1: Indicators, Media, Voters and Politics

Although at first sight the mechanism looks a bit complicated, it provides the government with two simple rules for their decision-making:

operations note: see Indicators section (this site) for SEDAC's Summary for Policy Makers report which shows an application of Policy Indicators (PPI) and the ratings of various governments around the world.

1.4.5 Valuation: the problem volume-problem share model

All honest policy-making is somehow aimed at improving the “welfare” of people. However, the definition of “welfare”, and the importance attached to its components, depends strongly on personal beliefs and values. While everybody will agree nowadays that the quality of the environment is an important element of welfare, they will not agree how much weight should be given to it, and how much of the efforts of society should be dedicated to which issue.

Figure 11: Decision hierarchies: a three-cluster model of welfare politics
Priorities
Below the level of the three top clusters, relative comparisons can be made easily either on the basis of natural science (e.g. by comparing the toxicities of mercury and lead), or with the help of social science-based weighting methods (such as expert assessments following a Budget Allocation Process or Analytical Hierarchy Process).
In contrast, comparisons between the three top clusters, e.g. between Economy and Environment, as they are necessary for any attempt to “monetize” environmental damages, are a real challenge, because the “values” of the clusters are highly subjective. Different societal actors have different overall attitudes towards the environment, that is, their judgement of the overall “problem pressure” may be orders of magnitude apart. For example, people close to the economic actors (whether they are trade unionists or share holders) tend to think that competitiveness, economic growth and employment come first, and then the environment; those who work actively with environmental NGOs would agree that competitiveness and employment are important but still would put “environment” on top of their list of priorities.

operations note: Environmental Law is saved to earthmodal bookshelf root directory. This text is referenced also in sections Economics, Modeling, and Worldview

Source
International Environmental Law, third Edition; Alexandre Kiss and Dinah Shelton; Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, NY; 2004 (pdf, New Window, 4 MB)
Environmental Law Programme
www.unep.org/dpdl/law


Table of Cases
Introduction
A. Concept and Scope of the “Environment” and “Environmental Law”
B. The Necessity of International Law

PART I: STRUCTURE AND BASIC CONCEPTS
Chapter 1: Foundations of International Environmental Law
A. Religion and Philosophy  (in Worldviews at left)
1. Religious Sources
2. Utilitarianism
3. Equity
a. Intra-Generational Equity
b. Inter-Generational Equity: Rights of Future Generations
c. Inter-Species Equity
B. Science (in Modeling shown above)
C. Economics (in Economics at left)
D. International Law (extract in this section - below)
1. Sovereignty
2. Cooperation
3. Common Concern of Humanity
4. Common Heritage of Mankind
E. Conclusions
. . . .

D. International Law

International law, as traditionally defined, governed relations among juridically equal states, once considered the sole subjects of international law. International law has regulated interstate relations through rules based on the consent of states reflected in the adoption of treaties and the development of customary international law through state practice viewed as obligatory (opinio juris). While the contours of this classic system remain intact, it has undergone fundamental changes in the past half century. International environmental law is both a product of and in part a cause of this transformation that affects the processes of law-making and the role of consent as well concepts of sovereignty. Many aspects of modern international environmental law are linked to the concepts of the common concern of humanity and common heritage of mankind.

1. Sovereignty

State sovereignty, one of the oldest principles of international law, means that each state has exclusive jurisdiction within its territory to adopt laws and enforce them, administer the territory, and judge disputes that arise therein. The sovereign rights of states include exclusive jurisdiction over their resources.51 Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration explicitly applies this principle to environmental matters by affirming that “[s]tates have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies . . .” The same formulation has been reproduced in other binding and non-binding international instruments. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration uses the same wording, but enlarges its scope by referring to “environmental and developmental policies,” reflecting the focus of the Rio Conference on both environment and development.

A tension between traditional notions of state sovereignty and environmental concerns can be seen in the evolution of legal texts regarding permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Early formulations mainly focused on rights of states over these resources, responding to concerns about neo-colonialism and economic development. The Stockholm Declaration was the first international document to balance state sovereignty with "the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction," The formulation is repeated in the Rio Declaration and in the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international texts. Repetition of the principle, its invocation in state practice and its widespread acceptance, led the International Court of Justice to declare that “the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is now part of the corpus of international law relating to the environment.”52 More expansively, Article 192 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea provides: "States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment." This formulation clearly includes areas within national jurisdiction even where harm has no impact outside those limits.

Some environmental issues raise serious problems for the application of state sovereignty, since the environment knows no boundary. Migratory species of wild animals, birds, and fish as well as pollution of oceans, rivers, lakes and the air, do not stop at the limits of territorial jurisdiction. Such situations can lead to conflicts between sovereign rights which can only be solved by international law. Treaties to which a state becomes a contracting party limit its sovereignty, but such limitations are self-imposed. Each state is now involved in a large web of international treaty obligations concerning environmental protection that must be executed on its territory, including agreements to protect species of wild fauna and flora, prohibit the dumping of harmful substances into rivers, lakes or the sea, and prevent atmospheric pollution by constraints imposed upon industries. The general trend toward integrated protection of the environment requires that states exercise broad control over activities which can harm the environment and this necessarily limits their freedom of action.

2. Cooperation

An obligation to cooperate with other states derives from the very essence of general international law, and finds reflection in the existence and proliferation of international institutions. In the field of environmental protection, international cooperation is necessary to conserve the environment in its totality, as much for states within their territorial jurisdiction as for areas outside territorial limits. The general need to cooperate to conserve the environment is expressed in several texts, starting with Principle 24 of the Stockholm Declaration :

International matters concerning the protection and improvement of the environment should be handled in a cooperative spirit by all countries, big and small, on an equal footing. Cooperation through multilateral or bilateral arrangements or other appropriate means is essential to effectively control, prevent, reduce and eliminate adverse environmental effects resulting from activities conducted in all spheres, in such a way that due account is taken of the sovereignty and interests of all states.

The UN General Assembly reaffirmed the same principle in Resolution 2995 (XXVII) of December 15, 1972, and in the 1982 World Charter for Nature. According to the latter instrument, states shall cooperate in the conservation of nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchanges and consultations. They must also establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on the environment, as well as methods to assess these effects. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is also largely based on the principle of cooperation, in particular between industrialized and developing countries.

The principle of cooperation underlies most treaty obligations. Nevertheless, several texts make it explicit, such as Article 197 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea:

States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.

An example of regional co-operation is provided by the Memorandum of Understanding between Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda for Co-operation on Environment Management.53 Its aim is the development and harmonization of national framework environmental laws on environmental impact assessment, management of nonhazardous and hazardous wastes, toxic and hazardous chemicals, wildlife and forest resources, laws for the management of the Lake Victoria ecosystem and formulation of environmental standards. Co-operation shall include continued consultations, capacity building and networking on environmental policies, laws and strategies, undertaking joint programs and the development and implementation of environmentally sound principles, agreements, instruments and strategies for environment and natural resources management. The MOU provides for the establishment of an Interim Sectoral Committee for the three states as well as interim national focal points.

Different legal instruments specify the fields of international cooperation. According to Principle 5 of the Rio Declaration all states and peoples shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. In 1995, during a World Summit for Social Development, 117 Heads of State agreed to an integrated approach to poverty eradication based on the concept of partnership, within societies as well as between developed and developing countries.

The concept of partnership emerged during preparations for the Rio Conference as an expression of closer and more systematic cooperation. Principle 27 of the Rio Declaration adds that cooperation shall be conducted in good faith and shall include further development of international law in the field of sustainable development. The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development extended the concept of partnership to encompass non-state actors as well as states. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development recognizes that sustainable development requires a long-term perspective and “stable partnerships with all major groups” (Para. 23). The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation also calls for enhanced partnerships between governmental and non-governmental actors, including all major groups.

The Rio Declaration also insists on cooperation to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development, by improving scientific understanding through exchange of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies (Principle 9). Similar clauses related to the transfer of knowledge, information, and technology form an important part of most global environmental treaties. Article 4(5) of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, for example, provides that the developed country parties shall take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies and know-how, in particular to developing countries. They also are to support the development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing countries.

Another designated area of international cooperation in the Rio Declaration is in regard to the relocation and transfer to other states of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health. Principle 14 requires, inter alia, that if a state chooses to ban or restrict the importation of hazardous substances or the relocation of hazardous activities, the ban or restriction should be respected by other states. The 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal54 supports this principle.

Cooperation also is needed for the rational and equitable use of shared resources, such as transboundary watercourses and international lakes.  Another essential part of cooperation is providing financial assistance to countries to enable them to comply with their obligations, especially in the relations between industrialized and developing countries. Article 20(2) of the 1982 Convention on Biological Diversity and Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa55 provide that the developed country parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to developing or affected country parties.

Finally, the order on provisional measures issued December 3, 2001 by the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in the Mox Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) makes concrete the duty of states to consult and cooperate. Ireland invoked article 123 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), concerning enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, which requires states to cooperate in exercising their rights and performing their duties. Ireland also relied upon article 206 which requires assessment of the potential effects of planned activities that may cause substantial pollution or significant and harmful changes to the environment. The Court enunciated in paragraph 82 of its order that the duty to cooperate is a fundamental principle in the prevention of pollution of the marine environment, according UNCLOS Part XII, and in general international law and that rights arise therefrom which the tribunal may consider appropriate to preserve under Article 290 of the Convention (on provisional measures). Judge Wolfrum’s separate opinion questioned whether the customary international obligation to cooperate for environmental protection creates corresponding legal rights but he did find that UNCLOS creates a legally protected right to cooperation for its contracting parties.

3. Common Concern of Humanity

The cohesion of every society and community is based upon and maintained by a value system such as a common religion, philosophy, ideology or ethics. The system may demand respect for the human person, propriety, patriotism, respect for cultural values, or adherence to a particular social order. The protection of such fundamental values is generally recognized as a common concern of the community and is ensured through law, especially constitutional law.

The common concern of a society thus leads to the creation of a legal system whose rules impose duties on society as a whole and on each individual member of the community. Almost all national constitutions proclaim fundamental human rights and freedoms and require the government to respect and ensure those rights. Increasingly, similar provisions are included to secure environmental protection. Article 66 of the 1976 Portuguese Constitution is illustrative. It proclaims an obligation on the state through its agencies to prevent and control pollution and its effects and harmful forms of erosion, to organize territorial space so as to establish biologically balanced landscapes and to create and develop natural parks and reserves. As a counterpart, the Constitution recognizes that all persons have the right to a human, healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the duty to protect it. The national regulatory system is built upon this foundation.

International law lacks a constitutional text and central authority to determine the common concern of all humanity because states individually and jointly draft and adopt legal regulations governing international relations. During the second half of the twentieth century states aimed to create a universal political organization to maintain international peace and security and improve the well-being of all humanity.

This ambitious effort could only proceed by defining domains of common concern. The international recognition of human rights and fundamental freedoms constituted a first step of paramount importance in developing the concept of an international community built upon the fundamental values of humanity. Similarly, knowledge that the biosphere is the only known place in the universe where life is possible led to the emergence of another universal value, protection of the human environment as a common concern of humanity.

The global environment, an interdependent ecological system, can only be protected at the global level, making it a common concern for all humanity. Transboundary and domestic environmental issues that cannot be managed effectively by national or regional efforts also are common concerns. The modalities of protection and preservation are formulated in law and policy and enforced by national and international institutions. A large number of international instruments recognize the common concern of humanity. The term “common interest” appeared early in international treaties concerning the exploitation of natural resources. The 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling recognizes in its preamble the “interest of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks” and that it is in the common interest to achieve the optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible.56 The depletion of fish resources, which began as a local problem, took on much larger dimensions in the second half of the twentieth century. States then recognized that it was in their common interest to take conservation measures.

The 1952 Tokyo Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean expresses the conviction of the parties that it will best serve the common interest of mankind, as well as the interests of the contracting parties, to ensure the maximum sustained productivity of the fishery resources of the North Pacific Ocean.57

A major step in international recognition of the common concern of humanity was conclusion of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.58 Its preamble affirms that “it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.” Article IX authorizes the adoption of measures for the preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica “in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the Treaty.” The Antarctic Treaty system further developed with adoption of the Canberra Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which made express reference to the “interest of all mankind to preserve the waters surrounding the Antarctic continent for peaceful purposes only.”59 The most recent addition to the Antarctic Treaty system, the 1991 Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty60 achieved full recognition of the common interest. Its preamble expresses the conviction that the development of a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems is in the interest of mankind as a whole and for this purpose it denominates Antarctica a nature reserve, devoted to peace and science.61

Such evolution must be seen as reflecting awareness of the general depletion of natural resources and of the threats to the environment, awareness that is increasing the pressure to adopt broad measures in the interest of present and future generations. Even before the 1972 Stockholm Conference, the 1968 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources had expressed the desire of the contracting states to undertake individual and joint action for the conservation, utilization and development of natural resources by establishing and maintaining their rational utilization for the present and future welfare of mankind.62 With the words “future welfare” the temporal dimension of the common interest of humanity has appeared.

Other international environmental treaties similarly recognize the common concern of mankind. The 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals recognizes in its preamble that “wild animals in their innumerable forms are an irreplaceable part of the earth’s natural system which must be conserved for the good of mankind . . .[E]ach generation of man holds the resources of the earth for future generations and has an obligation to ensure that this legacy is conserved and, where utilized, is used wisely.”63 The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, adopted several months after the Bonn Convention joins the concepts of general interest and future humanity by recognizing that wild flora and fauna constitute a natural heritage that “needs to be handed on to future generations.”64 Similarly, the World Charter for Nature states that the preservation of the species and of the ecosystems should be ensured “for the benefit of present and future generations.”65 The World Charter opened the door for the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity which explicitly proclaims the principle of common concern of humanity66 by stating “the importance of biological diversity for evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems in the biosphere,” and by “affirming that the conservation of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind . . .” The Framework Convention on Climate Change similarly affirms in the first paragraph of its preamble that “change in the Earth's climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind.”

The inclusion of smaller areas in the common concern is seen in the Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, adopted several months after the Convention on Biological Diversity. It recognizes that “the marine environment and the fauna and flora which it supports are of vital importance to all nations.”67 More recently, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa refers to “the urgent concern of the international community, including states and international organizations, about the adverse impacts of desertification and drought,” although only some parts of the world are directly concerned.68

As within states, the common concern, l'intérêt général, is a general concept which does not connote specific rules and obligations, but establishes the general basis for the concerned community to act. The conventions cited imply a global responsibility to conserve disappearing or diminishing wild fauna and flora, ecosystems, and natural resources in general in danger. Language to this effect can be found in the Oct. 30, 1980 resolution of the UN General Assembly on the draft World Charter for Nature, which asserts the “supreme importance of protecting natural systems, maintaining the balance and quality of nature and conserving natural resources, in the interests of present and future generations.”69

The right and duty of the international community to act in matters of common concern must be balanced with respect for national sovereignty. States retain sovereignty subject to the requirements of international law developed to ensure the common interest. Other domains of international law, including trade and diplomatic relations, are instrumental to achieving this common interest of humanity. They do not constitute in themselves the ultimate goals of international society but are means to improve the moral and economic well-being of humanity as a whole. The terms of the United Nations Charter indicate that international peace and security must be coupled with economic and social advancement of all peoples and individuals in order to ensure overall advancement of humanity. Respect for human rights, economic development and environmental protection have been unified in the concept of sustainable development as a common concern of humanity.

4. Common Heritage of Mankind

The common heritage of mankind is a concept that emerged at the end of the 1960s to challenge older concepts of res nullius and res communis in legal approaches to common resources. Res nullius, which in most systems included wild animals and plants, belong to no one and can be freely used and appropriated when taken or captured. The concept of res communis implies the reverse, common ownership that precludes individual appropriation but allows common use of the resources, e.g. navigation on the high seas. The concept of common heritage of mankind is distinct from both earlier concepts, in part because of its inclusion of the word “heritage,” connoting a temporal aspect in the communal safeguarding of areas incapable of national appropriation. Special legal regimes have been created for the deep seabed and its subsoil,70 Antarctica, the Moon, the geostationary orbit of satellites, and areas, sites and monuments that form essential parts of the cultural heritage of humanity.

The nature of the common heritage is a form of trust whose principal aims are exclusive use for peaceful purposes, rational utilization in a spirit of conservation, good management or wise use, and transmission to future generations. Benefits of the common heritage may be shared in the present through equitable allocation of revenue, but this is not the essential feature of the concept. Benefit-sharing can also mean sharing scientific knowledge acquired in common heritage areas, like Antarctica or the Moon, or sharing use, as with cultural heritage or the orbit of geostationary satellites.

Whether the trustee is the international community through the intermediary of an international body or one or more states acting on the community’s behalf is a policy decision. The common heritage of mankind can be administered by a special authority, like the International Seabed Authority created by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, amended by agreement in 1994. It also can be administered in common by a group of states, as in Antarctica. Finally, it can be remain under state sovereignty and be administered by individual states under the supervision of an international body, as with the cultural and natural heritage designated by the 1972 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage. The last example shows that, in contrast to the concept of res communis, the common heritage of mankind can remain under national sovereignty, like protected cultural areas in Egypt or nature reserves in Kenya, and even can be owned by private persons.

During the drafting of the Convention on Biological Diversity, some states criticized the concept of common heritage of mankind. States having rich biological diversity opposed considering such resources as parts of the common heritage of mankind, the benefit of which should be shared with others. These views demonstrated a lack of understanding of the concept of common heritage, which does not necessarily include the present sharing of material benefit. The Convention on Biological Diversity, by entrusting the contracting states with the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity on their territories (Arts. 6-10), incorporates the main elements of the concept of common heritage.
operations note: this document reference was downloaded at the beginning of this section

World Resources 2002-2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, voice, and power
Table 7.2: Selected Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)

Note: Status as of June 2003; European Union included in count of parties and calculation of world percentage.
Source: Stokke and Thommessen 2002 and Secretariat websites.
146

MEA  Purpose Date Adopted  Entry into Force Parties to MEA Percent of
World Nations
 that are
 Party to MEA		 Secretariat and Annual Budget
Ramsar Convention - Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
To conserve and promote the wise use of wetlands.		 1971  1975 136 70% IUCN, Ramsar Convention Bureau. Gland, Switzerland.
Core budget: $2.4 million (2002).

World Heritage Convention - Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 		To establish an effective system of identification, protection, and preservation of  cultural and natural heritage, and to provide emergency and long-term protection
of sites of value.		 1972
1975 176 91% UNESCO, World Heritage Centre. Paris, France.
Budget: $8.1 million (2002-2003).
CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora To ensure that international trade in wild plant and animal species does not  threaten their survival in the wild, and specifically to protect endangered species from over-exploitation. 1973
1975 
162 84% UNEP, CITES Secretariat. Geneva, Switzerland.
Administrative budget: $6.7 million (2002).
CMS - Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals  To conserve wild animal species that migrate across or outside national  boundaries by developing species-specific agreements, providing protection for endangered species, conserving habitat, and undertaking cooperative research. 1979
1983 
84 44% UNEP, CMS Secretariat. Bonn, Germany.
Core budget: $1.8 million (2002).
UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas To establish a comprehensive legal order to promote peaceful uses of the oceans and seas, equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, and conservation
of their living resources.		 1982  
 1994 142 74% United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. New York, United States. Division budget: $3.1 million (2003).
Vienna Convention - Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer To protect human health and the environment from the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion by controlling human activities that harm the ozone layer and by cooperating in joint research. 1985
1988 185
96% UNEP, Ozone Secretariat. Nairobi, Kenya.
Administrative budget: $1.2 million (2002).
Montreal Protocol - Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol to Vienna Convention) To reduce and eventually eliminate emissions of man-made ozone-depleting substances. 1987
1989 184
95% UNEP, Ozone Secretariat. Nairobi, Kenya.
Administrative budget: $3.9 million (2002).
Basel Convention - Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal To ensure environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes by minimizing their generation, reducing their transboundary movement, and disposing of these wastes as close as possible to their source of generation. 1989
1992 158
82% UNEP, Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC), Châtelaine,
Switzerland.
Budget: $4.2 million (2002).
UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change To stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level preventing dangerous human-caused interference with the climate system. 1992
1994 
188 97% United Nations, Climate Change Secretariat. Bonn, Germany.
Total budget: $16.8 million (2003).
Kyoto Protocol - Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change To supplement the Framework Convention on Climate Change by establishing legally binding constraints on greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging economic and other incentives to reduce emissions. 1997
Not yet 110
57% United Nations, Climate Change Secretariat. Bonn, Germany.
in force Total budget: $16.8 million (2003).
CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity To conserve biological diversity and promote its sustainable use, and to encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. 1992
1993 187
97% UNEP, Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Core budget: $10 million (2002).
UNCCD - United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification To combat desertification, particularly in Africa, in order to mitigate the effects of drought and ensure the long-term productivity of inhabited drylands. 1994
1996 187
97% United Nations, Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification. Bonn, Germany.
Core budget: $15.3 million (2002–2003).
Aarhus Convention - Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters To guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and legal redress in environmental matters. 1998
2001 
25 13% Aarhus Convention Secretariat, Environment and Human Settlement Division (ENHS), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Geneva, Switzerland. Core budget: $855,000 (2003).
 



Global Year Book 2008
pages 14-15

International environmental governance: Progress in 2007
The year 2007 witnessed a series of international meetings related to international environmental agreements (MEAs), global trade negotiations, and other intergovermental processes in response to existing and emerging global environmental challenges (Box 1 and Box 2). Progress was made on prominent issues such as climate change, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, persistent organic pollutants, and biodiversity loss (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Ratification of multilateral environmental agreements by region
UNEP Year Book 2008

earthmodal note: see also Environment section (this site) in GYB 6 and GYB 08 - Appendix, theme: Global Environmental Governance document pages for a more recent chart of signatories.

Multilateral Treaty Framework: An Invitation to Universal Participation
Focus 2005: Responding to Global Challenges  (pdf, 6.5 MB, New Window)
United Nations Nations Unies
HEADQUARTERS • SIEGE NEW YORK, NY
REFERENCE: 29 March 2005
http://untreaty.un.org/English/treaty.asp

Letter from Nicolas Michel, Under-Secretary General to the Secretary General (Kofi Annan) introducing the  2005 treaty event at the United  Nations

 **********************

Summaries and Status of the Core Group of Multilateral Treaties


United Nations Development Programme
Democratic Governance  (new window, website)

"Democratic governance is central to the achievement of the MDGs, as it provides the ‘enabling environment' for the realization of the MDGs and, in particular, the elimination of poverty. The critical importance of democratic governance in the developing world was highlighted at the Millennium Summit of 2000, where the world's leaders resolved to "spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development." A consensus was reached which recognized that improving the quality of democratic institutions and processes, and managing the changing roles of the state and civil society in an increasingly globalised world must underpin national efforts to reduce poverty, sustain the environment, and promote human development.

UNDP's work in democratic governance is reinforced by its network of over 166 offices and its global partnerships with democratic governance institutions.

UNDP's core services to support national processes of democratic transitions, focus on: (1) Policy advice and technical support; (2) Strengthening capacity of institutions and individuals (3) Advocacy, communications, and public information; (4) Promoting and brokering dialogue; and (5) Knowledge networking and sharing of good practices."