A roadmap to the era of global environmental wisdom: A review of "Global Environmental Governance, Options and Opportunities"

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Summer 2003 by Avgerinopoulou, Dionysia-Theodora

I. INTRODUCTION

The current international regime was formed in a pre-globalization, environmentally "innocent" era. As such, it has not been structured properly to address the wide range of environmental problems we face today. Serious global environmental issues, such as climate change, ozone layer depletion, loss of biodiversity, exhaustion of natural resources, and the transboundary trade of hazardous waste require joint action on a global level. The track record of existing international institutions suggests that we will not achieve sustainability without developing new, innovative global structures. A new book was recently published that explores the possibilities that modern society has to surpass the level of what, until recently, was considered mere political idealism, and, in the long run, to successfully implement proposals for effective global governance. The book, entitled "Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities," edited by Daniel C. Esty and Maria H. Ivanova and published by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, was presented at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August 2002, where it was welcomed with great enthusiasm. Being a collection of articles written by fifteen authors that come from all over the world - Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America - the book constitutes a creative policy dialogue that depicts considerations of different geographical groups. The authors discuss an agenda of large-scale environmental concerns and present them from the perspective of different disciplines. The interdisciplinary approach and the integrated solutions proposed are indeed necessary for responding to the complexity of the global environmental problems. The themes of the book reflect a coherent continuity, without being unnecessarily duplicative. Piece by piece the authors add elements to an innovative governance architecture. Each article poses a new governance issue, describes the current situation, and, most importantly, provides some useful ideas on how we can address the specific problem. The articles have a certain crescendo effect, dramatically impressing upon the reader the need to achieve some real solutions to the issues presented.

II. HISTORY AND PATHOLOGY OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION SYSTEM

The opening article by James Gustave Speth, The Global Environmental Agenda: Origins and Prospects, provides a short but useful summary of the evolution of the global environmental agenda and relevant scholarship through the years. The author distinguishes between two phases of global environmental governance. He describes the pathology of the first phase, which may have now passed, even though the environmental threats it faced are still here. For a successful outcome of the second phase that we now live, he advocates the development of new institutions, such as a Global Environmental Organization, as well as a shift in our mentality. According to the author, modern society should enhance an alternative governance structure integrating "Jazz" spirit, that is, the creation of "a world of unscripted initiatives, decentralized and improvisational."1 Lastly, the author points out that through the design of a more effective global mechanism, we have to take into account not only the environment, but also other social problems, such as poverty and underdevelopment. Readers should keep these considerations in mind as they move through the subsequent articles.

III. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

Before we build a more efficient regime for addressing global environmental problems, we need more information. One reason for the failure of past attempts was the lack of adequate data and scientific knowledge. David Hales and Robert Prescott-Allen, in their article entitled Flying Blind: Assessing Progress toward Sustainability, focus on the importance of environmental measurement and the development of environmental indicators in all countries. These steps are prerequisite for a deeper understanding of the problems of priority-setting and policy-making. As the authors note, "[g]oals that are not measurable are unlikely to be achieved."2 The authors adopt a holistic approach and advocate integrated assessment methodologies that take into account both human and ecosystem wellbeing. If done this way, decisionmakers would be able to understand the interdependence of ecosystems and design long-term policies that would avoid both social and environmental costs. The article spotlights the existing interdependence between advanced environmental measurements and effective global governance. An efficient flow of scientific information will help us to narrow the range of disagreement over greatly disputed issues, such as climate change and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and subsequently would allow us to design common policies.

Continuing on the information issue, Sylvia Karlsson's article, The North-South Knowledge Divide: Consequences for Global Environmental Governance, persuades even the most skeptical reader of the gap in our knowledge of the environmental problems around the globe. The article vividly presents a number of issues developing countries face, but which the scientific and political communities in the North simply ignore. "Globalized" environmental knowledge has emerged in developed countries and has focused mainly on the ecosystems of the North. The international community has to work to enhance the resources in the developing countries themselves by educating local scientists and creating research centers. Without the participation of scientists from the South, it would be difficult for the policy makers to perceive the actual problems the South faces and include them in the developing international environmental agenda of global environmental governance. Through a flexible global governance mechanism, we should use, at least at the beginning, alternative resources of knowledge, such as data collection with the cooperation of civil society.