Abstract
Abstract This interdisciplinary article draws from the radical ideas of global political ecology (GPE), environmental politics, ecological economics and the sociological analysis of social movements. It seeks to help bridge the research gap regarding non-state actors' (NSAs) influence on the role of the nation-state and the United Nations in global political ecology and environmental policy, including emission reductions, such as antideforestation measures, and environmental justice. We consider NSAs as consisting of two heterogeneous global coalitions: a) civil society organizations (CSOs) and environmental non-governmental organizations, and b) peak corporate organizations with green economy objectives, here denominated green business organizations, representing transnational corporations (TNCs). After a review of prior studies, we present a version of an advocacy coalition framework; identify a timeline of changes in UN architecture and simplified NSA influence categories. We only begin to test very broad hypotheses on relative agency and to compare NSA narratives with UN documents. We show that the architecture of the UN has gradually shifted from favoring civil society to corporations. There is evidence that, in the late 1990s, in comparison with CSOs, TNCs increased their access to nation-states and UN agencies. The TNC narrative changed from a) denying climate change and ignoring the UN to b) recognizing change and guiding negotiations. These shifts in UN architecture, TNC agency and narrative appears to have influenced changes in UN documents towards a corporate global environmental framework, reducing their references to the regulatory and enforcement roles of the state and global binding agreements, shifting global debate towards a voluntary corporate orientation. This may have reduced prospects for reducing emissions and increasing environmental justice. Combining market mechanisms with strong regulatory frameworks is best practice for environmental policy. When nation-states have the will and capacity to command and control, they can reduce environmental degradation. Stronger national government competence and enforcement capacity and binding UN agreements are essential for the effectiveness of market incentives, which may be enhanced by business and civil society initiatives. If CSOs can reunite and regain their strength, maybe they could negotiate with TNCs on a more equal footing. Perhaps UN members could once again become comfortable with the idea of strong states and non-hegemonic global governance. Key words: Global political ecology, Nation-state, earth system governance, UN architecture, UN agency, green economy, non-state actors, UNCED, Rio+20, Climate convention
Highlights
The logic of unrestrained and minimally regulated economies has led to accelerated climate change and increasing income disparities (Orr 2017: 16). The objective of this global political ecology study is to analyze trends regarding the influence of non-state actors (NSA) on United Nations environmental policy, including anti-deforestation measures, their different views on the roles that the UN and the state play in national environmental policies, and the implications for policy effectiveness
Concentrating on different actor interests, characteristics and actions and the central importance of politics is helpful to understand non-state actor's influence upon UN processes, and we develop this in an "advocacy coalition framework." The analysis of ideas and discourses used to support interests allows comparison of important coalitions that we discuss below, and their impact on UN documents regarding the regulatory role of the state
UN institutions and positions have shifted in response to ongoing political mobilization among actors and have resulted in the redistribution of power among the UN political system's advocacy networks, changing the global political ecology without affecting UN stability
Summary
The logic of unrestrained and minimally regulated economies has led to accelerated climate change and increasing income disparities (Orr 2017: 16). The Global Governance Commission (1995) conceived of environmental governance as the sum of diverse forms by which people and institutions, public and private, manage their common interests They define Earth System Governance as the "interrelated and increasingly integrated system of formal and informal rules, rule-making systems, and actor-networks at all levels of human society (from local to global) that are set up to steer societies towards preventing, mitigating, and adapting to global and local environmental change." It is seen "as the capacity to ...produce effects that shape natural processes." It includes formal institutions with the power to enforce the law as well as informal arrangements. Some actors use framing to modify the collective understandings of a problem, while others are on the receiving end — accepting or contesting proposals or practices
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
