International institutions
UNEP, the greatest success of the Stockholm Conference (1972), is a fundamental actor in the promotion of sustainability on a global scale. This United Nations program, based in Nairobi, was founded with the intention of leading global environmental governance, thanks to its catalytic role among United Nations environmental agencies. The program regularly collaborates with these agencies, with the World Bank and other international institutions, with NGOs, the private sector and civil society, with the aim of promoting sustainable development.
In Ivanova's words,[29] UNEP has a clear mandate as a reference institution for global environmental management, but its success has been only partial. It has been effective in two key areas: Monitoring and advice, and promoting environmental agreements. It has also helped strengthen the institutional capacity of environment ministries around the world.
As an example, just in the field of sustainable consumption, UNEP launched the life cycle initiative in 2002, which has brought together industry leaders, academics and policy makers at the same table to encourage the application and dissemination of tools for assessing the environmental impact of products throughout their useful life. The program seeks to ensure that all these institutions collaborate towards the integration of environmental issues in the procedures for the provision and offering of goods and services. UNEP collaborates especially with the fashion, advertising, finance and retail industries, which are very important agents for the promotion of sustainable consumption.[27].
However, UNEP has failed to develop political management processes in a coherent and coordinated manner. It has also failed to identify and promote best practices and has not become the institutional reference for numerous international environmental conventions. This lack of robustness has contributed to perpetuating increasingly complex and fragmented international environmental governance.
According to Ivanova, if on the one hand UNEP offers comparative advantages in the fields of environmental monitoring, scientific evaluation and information exchange, which should be fully promoted, on the other hand it cannot aspire to lead all environmental management processes due to the proliferation of international institutions and environmental NGOs that already intervene, in an increasingly complex and extensive field. Instead, it must be able to serve as a space for information exchange and a forum for political debate in which different agencies and networks can negotiate and exchange experiences, and thereby facilitate the implementation of agreements.
Other authors point out other problems such as the enormous internal fragmentation of the entity, its small and unstable budget (dependent on donations) that, together with its location in a country in the South, have made UNEP an institution with little credibility and insufficient political weight, in the face of other organizations with more resources that do not accept being coordinated by this program, despite the need for the existence of a coordinating agent for global environmental governance and despite all the work that this institution has done in pursuit of the development of environmental protection especially in developing countries. development.
Ivanova proposes, to reform UNEP, the following tasks:.
Other proposals point towards providing a new mandate for UNEP. This mandate "should produce greater coherence between social and environmental agencies, making the concept of 'environment for development' a reality. It should act as a platform both for the establishment of standards and for other types of interaction with national, international and United Nations bodies. The principles of cooperation and cooperation must be reflected in the application of this revised mandate."[30].
A certain number of principles must be adopted to strengthen UNEP, namely:
"During the process of strengthening UNEP, the specific needs of developing countries should be considered and the fundamental principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" respected. Developed countries should promote the transfer of technologies, new and additional financial resources, and training for meaningful participation of developing countries in international environmental governance." The same work points out the need to involve civil society as "an important actor and agent of transformation".[32].
Created in 1991, the Global Environment Facility is an independent financial organization launched at the initiative of donor governments, such as Germany and France. It is the first financial organization fully dedicated to the environment on a global scale. It has 179 member states. Your donations are directed to projects that cover the topics of biodiversity, climate change, international waters, ozone layer destruction, soil degradation and Persistent Organic Pollutants.
The GEF maintains an institutional structure that derives from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Bank. Currently, the GEF is the financial support mechanism for four environmental conventions: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. The GEF is funded by countries that have committed to helping other less developed countries under these conventions. Thus, it channels these funds towards projects of its choice that are designed and executed by UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank. But if UNEP and UNDP have the mandate to coordinate and manage the projects, the World Bank is the main manager of the fund.[33].
The annual budget of 561.10 million US$, much higher than that of UNEP (85 million US$), does not, however, allow it to meet all the environmental management demands of developing countries.
The GEF has been criticized for having been traditionally linked to the interests of the world bank, at least in its first stage in the 1990s[34] and for having privileged some multilateral agreements relating to certain areas to the detriment of others.[35] Others consider that it is a key piece of current capitalism, of equal importance to the Structural Adjustment Policies of the 1980s and 1990s, and that it fosters the emergence of a "market green" on a global scale. It is "an adaptation (of the World Bank) to this emerging world order, in response to the emergence of environmental movements that become a geopolitical force."[36] Thus, according to Zoé, it was about, on the part of the European and North American governments, offering a green face to the international development aid system. Discussions on environmental conservation were marked by the demands of developing countries for a financial transfer that would help them conserve their environment. It was necessary to create an organization that would respond to these demands, so that the southern countries would sign the three major conventions of the Rio summit. Most of those accepted the creation of the GEF on the condition that it would be independent of the World Bank and have sustainable development as a priority.
Despite the profusion and political complexity of the debates in the Fund, its administration is subject to economic criteria of profitability measured in costs and benefits, as is also the case of all conventions. On the other hand, it has received more funds in its first 3 years of existence than UNEP after its creation in 1972. Finally, the aid provided by the GEF does not represent more than 1% of development aid between 1992 and 2002 and the annual expenditure it represents is comparable to daily North American military expenditure.[36].
It is an intergovernmental institution that meets biannually to evaluate the efforts agreed upon at the Rio Summit. Composed of 53 Member States elected every 3 years, the UNCSD was reformed in 2004 to allow for better implementation of [Agenda 21]. Since then it meets biannually, dedicating each two-year period to a particular topic. Thus, the period 2004-05 was dedicated to the issue of water, and the period 2006-07 to climate change. The UNCSD has been criticized for its insignificant impact on state environmental policies and on the implementation in general, and specifically at the state level, of agenda 21, according to a WRI report.[37] On the other hand, its mission oriented towards achieving action and implementing agreements has forced it to participate in the negotiation and planning of these, which is why it usually comes into conflict with institutions such as UNEP and the OECD.[38].
The fundamental nature of the different multilateral conventions and agreements as pillars of emerging global environmental regulations, makes the secretariats of each of them, according to Bauer, Busch and Siebenhüner[39], actors with a greater influence than the attention that is usually paid to them, beyond certain specialized research. This influence is, however, variable depending on the secretariat in question, depending on factors such as greater or lesser bureaucratic and leadership efficiency, as well as its position, which may be more "technocratic" or closer to strict compliance with the demands of all countries or more "involved" (advocacy approach) in favor of certain affected countries even if this implies going against more powerful developed countries. This is the case, specifically, of the Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
On the other hand, one of the most criticized organizational aspects, especially from within the United Nations system itself, due to the lack of coordination and cacophony it generates[25] is the multiplication of secretariats, one for each MEA, if the growing proliferation of these agreements is taken into account (45 worldwide in scope and more than 500 in general).
The growing globalization of environmental threats has led many actors, including some states, to defend the proposal for the creation of a global environmental Organization within the framework of the United Nations, with the capacity to adapt treaties and enforce international standards. UNEP has sometimes been seen as the embryo of this future organization. More information can be found in the proposals section.
The World Bank influences environmental governance through other actors, especially the GEF. The World Bank does not have a very defined mandate on environmental management despite having incorporated this issue into its mission. And yet, it dedicates 5-10% of its annual funds to environmental projects. The capitalist vocation of this institution means that its investment is concentrated only in areas that can be profitable in terms of cost-benefit, such as the fight against climate change and the ozone layer, while neglecting others such as adaptation to climate change and desertification. Its financial autonomy allows its influence to be felt also indirectly in normative production, in international negotiations and at a regional level.[40].
After having been greatly criticized in the 1980s for its support of predatory projects that, among other effects, produced the deforestation of tropical forests, in the 1990s the World Bank established its own set of environmental standards that would serve to correct those actions. These standards differ from those of UNEP, which are supposed to be the reference to follow, thus discrediting this institution and creating a new source of lack of coordination and conflict around environmental governance. Other financial institutions, regional development banks, private sector... have also established their own standards. The criticism is not directed at the WB standards themselves, which can be considered "robust", according to Najam.[41] but at their legitimacy and real efficiency.
The WTO mandate does not have a specific principle on the environment. All problems related to the environment are treated giving priority to trade needs and the principles of the WTO's own trading system. This leads to conflict situations. Thus, although the WTO recognizes the existence of MEAs, it denounces that some 20 MEAs have come into conflict with WTO trade rules. In fact, some MEAs may allow a country to prohibit or limit trade in certain products if they do not meet certain requirements related to environmental protection. In these circumstances, if the prohibition of one country towards another concerns two countries that are signatories to the same MEA, the difference can be settled following the principles of the agreement itself, while in the event that the country affected by the limitation of its trade towards another is not a signatory of the agreement, the WTO demands that the disagreement be settled according to its own WTO trade principles, that is, ignoring the environmental consequences.
The IMF defends its mission to help States to promote their growth and development. To achieve this growth goal, the IMF pressures states regarding several objectives: reduction of public spending, increase in exports and foreign investment. But each of these objectives has negative effects on the environment of the countries concerned. On the other hand, the reduction of public spending implies the reduction of spending dedicated to the environmental policy of the states, dedicated to financing protected areas, fighting corruption, developing good governance and producing environmental projects.[5] In that sense, the environment is not the IMF's priority, but due to the enormous financial power of this institution on a global scale, the often negative effects of its actions on global environmental governance are considerable. Even more important is the fact that its philosophy of promoting growth promotes the dominant neoliberal unsustainable development model that is precisely the cause of the environmental crisis and which is therefore being increasingly questioned.
Other international institutions that include environmental governance as part of their action, among many others, are:
In total, there are about 30 United Nations agencies and programs that include environmental management as part of their mandate, according to Najam[41] this fragmentation results in a lack of coordination, sufficient exchange of information, and a dispersion of responsibilities. It also produces a proliferation of initiatives but at the same time a rivalry between them.[5].
Non-state actors
The issue of the actors participating in environmental governance is directly related to its democratization. Thus, for example, according to Bäckstrand and Saward,[45] there is a consensus on the fact that "greater participation of non-state actors in multilateral environmental decisions (concerning the establishment of agendas, the launch of campaigns, pressure, consultation, monitoring and implementation) reinforces the democratic legitimacy of environmental governance."
However, there are examples in which, faced with the power deployed by companies to influence the development of a territory, for example that of mining companies, only strong activism that starts at the local level can be successful in putting the entire population and public authorities behind it. This is the case of Cotacachi in Ecuador, where a social movement has combined popular education in environmental politics, especially among women, direct action, influence on local public authorities and the denunciation of the plans of the mining industry in its own country of origin, Canada, with the support of international environmental groups.[46].
This importance of the multiplicity of strategies is also pointed out by Fisher[47] when he refers to civil society actors who work at the same time putting pressure within international institutions as part of the national delegations of participating NGOs, as well as organizing protests outside the meetings of these international institutions. In this sense, the objective of social movements is sometimes to become guarantors of the laws themselves that the governments of their respective countries are failing to comply with or misinterpreting.[48].
But beyond the undoubtedly positive results of the action of social movements on the democratization of the societies of which they are part, it is worth asking to what extent they can be protagonists of a social transformation on the territory? Or, in other words, "to what extent have social movements contributed to generating environmental governance at the territorial level (new institutions, regulatory systems, behaviors, organizational forms and management modalities)?" According to Bengoa[49] "social movements contributed decisively to the creation of an institutional environment in which the fight against poverty and exclusion becomes a reference from which one cannot escape", but despite the achievements in that sense "these institutional changes have not given way to transformation processes that substantially modify the opportunities of rural inhabitants, especially the poorest and the socially excluded." Among the reasons given for these limits, the following are noted:.
Another issue no less important than the initiative capacity of social movements is their ability to articulate, at the local level, in governance frameworks in which they are organized with institutional actors. As an example, in Ecuador, it is worth mentioning the innovative experience of the formation of associations and management committees in which different actors (NGO, community, municipalities, ministry) participate to make the management of a protected forest successful from a social and environmental point of view.[50].