Greening the United Nations Charter: World Politics in the Anthropocene

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Challenges of a Changing Earth. Declaration of the Global Change Open Science Conference Amsterdam, signed by the chairs of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, the World Climate Research Programme, and the international biodiversity program DIVERSITAS. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 13 July 2001. Available at http://www.essp.org/index.php?id=41&L= (last accessed 10 February 2012). For the seminal summary of the underlying science, see W. Steffen, A. Sanderson, P. D. Tyson, J. Jäger, P. A. Matson, B. Moore III, F. Oldfield, K. Richardson, H.-J. Schellnhuber, B. L. Turner II, and R. J. Wasson, Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure (New York: Springer, 2004). 2. See J. Zalasiewicz, M. Williams, A. Smith, T. L. Barry, A. L. Coe, P. R. Brown, P. Brenchley, D. Cantrill, A. Gale, P. Gibbard, F. J. Gregory, M. W. Hounslaw, A. C. Kerr, P. Pearson, R. Knox, J. Powell, C. Waters, J. Marchall, M. Oates, P. Rawson, and P. Stone, “Are We Now Living in the Anthropocene?” GSA Today 18, no. 2 (2008): 4–8. 3. See J. Rockstrüm, W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H.-J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. de Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sürlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. A. Foley, “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity,” Nature 461 (24 September 2009): 472–475. 4. Challenges of a Changing Earth, note 1 above. 5. P. J. Crutzen and V. Ramanathan, “Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate in the Anthropocene: Where Are We Heading?,” in H.-J. Schellnhuber, P. J. Crutzen, W. C. Clark, M. Claussen, and H. Held, eds., Earth System Analysis for Sustainability (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, in cooperation with Dahlem University Press, 2004), pp. 266–292. 6. In 2009, the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change set up a 10-year program in this field, the Earth System Governance Project (see www.earthsystemgovernance.org for more detail). The Third Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability “Transforming the World in an Era of Global Change,” held in May 2011 in Stockholm, called in its Stockholm Memorandum for “strengthening Earth System Governance” as one of the eight priorities for coherent global action (available at http://globalsymposium2011.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/The-Stockholm-Memorandum.pdf, accessed 22 December 2011). 7. See Interconnected Risks and Solutions for a Planet under Pressure. Transition to Sustainability in the Context of a Green Economy and Institutional Frameworks for Sustainable Development, one of nine policy briefs produced by the scientific community to inform the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and commissioned by the international conference “Planet Under Pressure: New Knowledge Towards Solutions” (available at www.planetunderpressure2012.net). 8. See F. Biermann, K. Abbott, S. Andresen, K. Bäckstrand, S. Bernstein, M. M. Betsill, H. Bulkeley, B. Cashore, J. Clapp, C. Folke, A. Gupta, J. Gupta, P. M. Haas, A. Jordan, N. Kanie, T. Kluvánková-Oravská, L. Lebel, D. Liverman, J. Meadowcroft, R. B. Mitchell, P. Newell, S. Oberthür, L. Olsson, P. Pattberg, R. Sánchez-Rodríguez, H. Schroeder, A. Underdal, S. Camargo Vieira, C. Vogel, O. R. Young, A. Brock, and R. Zondervan, “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance,” Science, vol. 335 (16 March 2012), 1306-1307. 9. See “U.N. Overhaul Required to Govern Planet's Life Support System,” press release by the consortium organizing the Planet Under Pressure conference held 26–29 March 2012 in London, released 23 November 2011 (on file with author). The consortium includes the Earth System Science Partnership; the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme; DIVERSITAS, the international programme of biodiversity science; the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change; the World Climate Research Programme; and as sponsor the International Council for Science. 10. S. M Kaasa, “The UN Commission on Sustainable Development: Which Mechanisms Explain its Accomplishments?,” Global Environmental Politics 7, no. 3 (2007): 107–129. For an appraisal of the first, somewhat more effective years, see F. Biermann, C. Loose, and B. Pilardeaux, “Five Years after Rio: Right Track or Dead End?,” Nord-Süd aktuell 11, no. 2 (1997): 228–236; P. S. Chasek, “The UN Commission on Sustainable Development: The First Five Years,” in The Global Environment in the Twenty-First Century: Prospects for International Cooperation, ed. P. S. Chasek (New York: UN University, 2000), pp. 378–398. 11. Members of the Group of 20 include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the European Union. These countries do not necessarily represent the largest economies. The Netherlands, for example, is not part of the Group of 20 despite having more voting rights in the International Monetary Fund than the Group of 20 members Australia, Argentina or Indonesia; however, the Netherlands are represented in the Group of 20 indirectly through the European Union, along with relatively larger European economies such as Spain or Poland. Switzerland—not a member of the Group of 20 and not of the European Union—has a higher gross national product than Saudi Arabia, Argentina, or South Africa, all members of the Group of 20 member states. The composition of the Group of 20 is thus not only based on purely economic indicators, but also linked to additional criteria such as size of population and global representation. Overall, this is likely to increase the relevance of this relatively new coordinating mechanism. One complication that might need to be addressed in the future is that the four largest European countries are represented twice, both through the European Union and individually, reflecting at present the hybrid character of the Union. 12. See here also Towards a Charter Moment: Hakone Vision on Governance for Sustainability in the 21st Century (Earth System Governance Project, Lund, 2011). Downloadable at http://earthsystemgovernance.org/publication/earth-system-governance-project-editor-towards-charter-moment (last access 10 February 2012). A “global sustainable development council” has meanwhile also been proposed by the United Nations Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Global Sustainability in its report Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing. See www.un.org/gsp. It is also supported in “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance,” note 8. 13. For an extensive overview of the possible structural and legal setting of a UN Sustainable Development Council see S. Bernstein with J. Brunnée, Consultants' Report on Options for Broader Reform of the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD): Structural, Legal, and Financial Aspects http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=211&menu=45 (accessed 20 December 2011). 14. Rio + 20: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A Proposal from the Governments of Colombia and Guatemala. Undated (2011). On file with author. 15. See with further references, for example, S. Andresen and K. Rosendal, “The Role of the United Nations Environment Programme in the Coordination of Multilateral Environmental Agreements,” in F. Biermann, B. Siebenhüner, and A. Schreyügg, eds., International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009), pp. 133–150. 16. See Consultative Group of Ministers or High-level Representatives on International Environmental Governance, Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome (agreed at the group's second meeting in Espoo, Finland, 21–23 November 2010, paragraph 13). 17. See on streamlining, for example, the set of measures suggested in A. Najam and M. Muñoz, Four Steps for Targeted Coherence (Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development, Global Environmental Governance Briefing Paper 3, 2008). A good analysis of medium-term reform options of UNEP is also in S. H. Olsen and M. Elder, Strengthening International Environmental Governance by a Two-Phased Reform of UNEP: Analysis of Benefits and Drawbacks, IGES Policy Report 2011-04 (Kamiyamaguchi, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2011). See also the analysis in N. Kanie, “Governance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Healthy or Ill-Equipped Fragmentation?,” in L. Swart and E. Perry, eds., Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives on the Current Debate (New York: Center for UN Reform Education, 2007), pp. 67–86. 18. The first published proposal is G. F. Kennan, “To Prevent a World Wasteland: A Proposal,” Foreign Affairs 48, no. 3 (1970): 401–413. See the different viewpoints and the history of the debate presented in F. Biermann and S. Bauer, editors, A World Environment Organization. Solution or Threat for Effective International Environmental Governance? (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2005). 19. “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance,” note 8 above. 20. On the position of the European Union, see the Union's submission on 1 November 2011 to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, paragraph 21. “The EU view of a UN Specialised Agency for the environment is as follows: Pursuant to Articles 57 and 63 of the UN charter, a Specialised Agency of the UN (a ‘World Environment Organisation’ or ‘United Nations Environment Organisation’) would be established as the global body for the environment with its seat in Nairobi. It would be based on the models of some of the existing, medium-sized UN specialised agencies such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).” (Available at http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=510&nr=240&menu=20, accessed 9 December 2011.) 21. Chair's Summary, High Level Dialogue on Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development, held 19-21 July 2011 in Solo, Indonesia, paragraph 13. On file with author. 22. F. Biermann, “The Case for a World Environment Organization,” Environment 42, no. 9 (2000): 22–31; F. Biermann, “The Emerging Debate on the Need for a World Environment Organization: A Commentary,” Global Environmental Politics 1, no. 1 (2001): 45–55; F. Biermann, “Strengthening Green Global Governance in a Disparate World Society. Would a World Environment Organization Benefit the South?,” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2 (2002): 297–315. 23. Within the WHO system, some regulations—for instance, on sanitary and quarantine requirements, nomenclatures, or safety or labeling standards—enter into force for all states after adoption by the Health Assembly with the exception of states that have formally objected within a certain period. 24. See Joint Inspection Unit, Management Review of Environmental Governance within the United Nations System (prepared by Tadanori Inomata), UN Doc. JIU/REP/2008/3, at p. 15. 25. See Joint Inspection Unit, note 24 above, at p. iv. 26. See Joint Inspection Unit, note 24 above, at p. 30. 27. The Trusteeship Council is comprised of an equal number of countries that administered trust territories and of countries that did not administer trust territories, and including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and United States). 28. The UN General Assembly concluded in 2005 that chapter XIII of the charter, which stipulates the UN trusteeship system, should be deleted. Even though such declaration of the UN General Assembly cannot have this intended effect per se—which requires a formal amendment of the charter—the declaration indicates the consensus of members. See UN General Assembly, Resolution 60/1 “2005 World Summit Outcome,” UN Doc. A/RES/60/1 of 24 October 2005. 29. Renewing the United Nations. A Programme for Reform, Report of the Secretary General, UN Doc A/51/950 of 14 July 1997, paragraph 85. 30. See In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/59/2005 of 21 March 2005, paragraph 218. 31. These are the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; the 1968 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space; the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects; the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space; and the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. There are in addition a series of declarations and principles on specific aspects of outer space governance. 32. Here I differ from a recent initiative by WWF-UK, the “Draft Declaration of Planetary Boundaries,” which argues for a “Planetary Boundaries Institution” and for “creating an independent public enforcement body with appropriate and effective legal powers and duties” (which could be identical with the Planetary Boundaries Institution). While the draft declaration is not very elaborated at this stage, it seems to veer into a direction that gives too much executive power to scientific networks. The draft declaration, dated 24 October 2011, is available at http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/declaration_on_planetary_boundariesv1.pdf (accessed 10 February 2012). 33. See article 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which forms, as annex to the Charter of the United Nations, an integral part of this document. 34. See here also Towards a Charter Moment: Hakone Vision on Governance for Sustainability in the 21st Century, note 12; and “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance,” note 8. 35. The Global Environmental Assessment Commission that is proposed here would necessarily remain an independent panel of experts. It would be open to interventions by civil society organizations, yet not formally include those in decisionmaking. 36. The idea of separate chambers for civil society representatives dates back to Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood. The Report of the Commission on Global Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). 37. The representation of nongovernmental organizations from developing countries in UN settings remains low, compared to the richer and better organized organizations from industrialized countries. This has also been identified as a problem as regards the UN Commission on Sustainable Development; see Kaasa, note 10 above, at pp. 115–116. 38. See, for instance, P. Pattberg, “Private Governance and the South. Lessons from Global Forest Politics,” Third World Quarterly 27 (2006): 579–593. 39. See G. Schouten and P. Glasbergen, “Creating Legitimacy in Global Private Governance. The Case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil,” Ecological Economics 70 (2011): 1891–1899. 40. I cannot discuss here in detail whether a UN Sustainable Development Council would exist alongside the ECOSOC or replace it. Creating a UN Sustainable Development Council under article 22 of the UN Charter would leave the ECOSOC intact, and hence require a delineation of responsibilities between both councils. This route would also allow creating a novel decisionmaking system for the UN Sustainable Development Council, for instance, by granting a stronger role to the 20 largest economies and a new role to representatives of civil society, as outlined earlier in this article, without requiring an amendment of the charter. However, if governments agreed on a fundamental revision of the UN Charter itself, then integrating ECOSOC into a new UN Sustainable Development Council would be the best option by allowing for a meaningful integration of all three pillars of sustainable development under one high-level council of the UN. 41. The UN General Assembly established in 1955 a committee to report on options for UN reform, and terminated this effort formally in 1967. 42. In addition, article 77 para. 1 lit c of the UN Charter allows for trusteeship agreements for “territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.” Technically, this could apply to Antarctica, if members of the Antarctic treaty system would chose so. However, the high seas and outer space can hardly be subsumed under the term “territories.” Also, a trusteeship agreement under article 77 would place the governance domain under the present UN Trusteeship Council, which is in its current form dominated by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, hence making a stronger role of the existing council, without larger reform, unacceptable for many countries.