Filling a Critical Gap in Global Environmental Governance
March 1, 2022
March 1, 2022
There are an increasing number of scientific alerts about threats to the global commons and that exceed planetary environmental boundaries. Climate change is an obvious example, and chemical pollution including plastics is a recent concern. Despite the efforts of the UN system of institutions and many multilateral environmental agreements, the problems are accelerating and interacting in dangerous ways requiring urgent action. They can be distinguished by the fact that they extend beyond the national jurisdiction of sovereign states and often can be traced to non-state actors including multinational corporations, for which there are no existing governance institutions at the scale of the problem. Some may in part be the responsibility of international conventions or organizations, but these lack the capacity to pass binding legislation or to enforce agreements among states.
What these threats have in common is the release into the environment of substances, including pollutants and wastes, directly or indirectly as a result of human activities. This suggests a possible innovative step forward in global environmental governance through creating the institutional capacity to define when such releases involve significant global risks and to adopt global legislation targetting those risks and the parties responsible for them, whether state or non-state actors.
With the rapid expansion of human activities of many kinds to the planetary scale, we are using 100 billion tonnes of matter every year to make products and manufacture objects which, often after use, flood the environment with many thousands of chemicals, molecules, substances and materials in quantities or at a scale where they are causing, or threaten to cause, significant impacts to human health, environmental quality, ecosystem functions or future development possibilities. These include wastes of many kinds which degrade and transform in the environment. They also include a wide range of pollutants, greenhouse gases, ozone-depleting substances, poisons, pesticides, agricultural chemicals, antibiotics, endocrine disruptors, carcinogenic substances, long-lived radioactive isotopes, space junk, materials for geoengineering, plastics and many thousands of other chemicals, newly invented or manufactured on a large scale beyond natural processes. Recent research shows that everyone is increasingly exposed to complex mixtures of these chemicals with health effects only beginning to be understood, and ecosystems everywhere are being increasingly disrupted with species disappearing. There will be many unpleasant surprises in store.
National boundaries have no relevance to the movement of such substances, and there are so many that existing processes to negotiate and adopt multilateral agreements among states could never cover all of the risks, and do not adequately implicate non-state actors.
There is thus an urgent need to take a carefully circumscribed but significant step forward in international environmental governance by creating the capacity to define, manage and where necessary regulate or prohibit through global legislation the release into the environment of substances and materials presenting planetary risks. This can be built in large part on what already exists. By focusing specifically on substances and the processes of their creation and release, this sidesteps issues of national sovereignty. Indeed it should protect national autonomy in responding to legislative requirements designated as necessary for the common good of all. The other significant innovation will be to extend the scope of this legislation to non-state actors, especially multinational corporations, that are often directly at the origin of the substances and materials concerned and that largely escape from national regulation.
This new step forward in global governance would require components briefly summarized as: scientific assessment, legislation and enforcement.
Scientific assessment: The first step is to identify the release of something presenting a global risk because of the nature or scale of the processes of its manufacture and use and its impacts, both at present and dynamically as it accumulates over time, looking ahead to future threats. This would require defining the planetary boundary or limit beyond which damage would be consequent or irreversible, with costs outweighing benefits. In the present economic system, the benefits are immediate to the producers, while the costs are externalities left to be borne by the public, the environment and future generations. Scientific research has already done much in this direction, but the results are not always directly linked to policy processes. The global institution should be able to call on all existing scientific assessment processes where relevant, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), or to create new ones for substances not presently covered. It would need the authority to obtain access to the necessary confidential information even when classified as commercial secrets or intellectual property.
Legislation: Where the science identifies a substance, group of chemicals, or other releases into the environment that go beyond a defined level of threat or risk to human and environmental well-being, a legislative body then needs to negotiate and adopt a legal text with global authority defining the specific substances to be regulated to stay within an acceptable level of impact, the global limit or planetary boundary for the occurrence or concentration of the substance, and the principles or criteria for the equitable assignment of responsibilities to stay within the defined limit. This could include common but differentiated responsibilities relevant to national circumstances and historical contributions, and should cover non-state entities like public or private corporations, and even individuals in certain circumstances. The legislation could include definitions of liability and compensation for damage caused by the substance incriminated.
Enforcement: It will be important to avoid the creation of a giant bureaucracy, but to orchestrate a coherent global process of respect and control under the adopted legislation. The aim should be polynodal enforcement through existing institutions as far as possible, both within the UN system and international conventions, and through national and sub-national governments, with the collaboration of civil society. In some cases, new institutions might be necessary with specific technical capacities for monitoring and surveillance. There will need to be judicial and dispute settlement capacities, again where possible by expanding the authority of existing institutions. Some substances will need to be phased out, prohibited, or restricted to defined uses, with provisions for fines, global taxes and other disincentives.
The logical approach would be to build upon the existing capacities in the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) evolving into the legislative body, as it already has universal membership. The chemical conventions and the UNFCCC will also contribute much experience, and would benefit from a mechanism to add binding legislation on the substances that concern them the most. The aim should be to complement and not compete with what already exists.
The Stockholm+50 meeting in 2022 would be a most appropriate place to launch the process to upgrade UNEP to a global environment agency with these new functions, empowered to protect the planet as our common home from the many threats resulting from the uncontrolled and unlimited release of so many things into the environment.
Written by Arthur Lyon Dahl
Augusto Lopez-Claros & Daniel Perell | October 15, 2022
2020 Global Governance Forum Inc. All Rights Reserved