# Session Overview · Outline the key characteristics of global environmental governance (GEG); · Describe and critically discuss the components of GEG – actors, institutions, multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); · Evaluate the different limitations on attainment of effective solutions for environmental problems at the global level and critically consider whether new approaches (e.g. planetary health) might be more successful in improving health outcomes. · Discuss the interactions between the policy fields of environmental and health politics. # 1. Introduction A recent report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (Willetts et al 2022) argues that the health community has not engaged sufficiently in global environmental governance, but engagement between these experts is needed to reflect more accurately the interconnectedness of the challenges that environmental and health politics are facing. # 2. Nature, scope and key characteristics of global environmental politics Two key assumptions in international relations are relevant here – that states have a responsibility to protect and look after their citizens, and that relations between states tend to be characterised by conflict and the selfish pursuit of power and security. ==The readiness to engage in cooperative relations to tackle problems affecting the natural environment, therefore, puzzled international relations scholars in the 1970s.== Some theories have been put forward to try and explain inter-state cooperation – e.g. complex interdependence (Keohane and Nye 1977), or the theory of an anarchical society of states promoted by the English School (see the work of Bull 2002/1977; Bull and Watson 1984)1 - which was considered counterintuitive to the predictions of perpetual war made by most international relations scholars at the time. Obtaining in-depth understanding of global politics dynamics in the realm of environmental politics can benefit public health professionals in two main ways – firstly, because environmental problems (hazards) can have a significant impact on health, policy analysts have called for public health professionals to seek greater involvement in negotiating agreements and plans for action on environmental problems (Willetts et al 2022); and secondly, because some argue there may be parallels that can be drawn between the fields of environmental and health politics from which global health policy practitioners can learn (Sandberg, Hoffman and Pearcey 2019). ## 2.1 Nature Cooperative in nature, but does not prevent disagreement, coercion, resistance, contestation and bargaining in multilateral negotiation. Some explained this cooperative approach with the ‘technical’ nature of environmental issues and common interests of humanity as a whole, in contrast with geopolitical issues – such as security politics, where problems were considered political in nature (Bull 2002/1977: 170). Others, such as Keohane and Nye (1977), argued that the complex interdependence of states in the international system required them to work together, rather than in opposition to one another to resolve world problems. Global environmental politics are underpinned by a system of governance, which includes organizations, policy instruments, financing mechanisms, norms and procedures aimed at regulating environmental protection. This system is multi-layered, complex and highly networked. ## 2.2 Scope Environmental governance encompasses bilateral, regional, multilateral and global efforts to address a broad and complex set of problems associated with the natural environment. Local issues such as pollution and biodiversity conservation has shifted from more local and meddiate to a pattern of global environmental change representing more sustained, long-term, distant, and extensive human impact on the environment, inlcuding on food production, land use, changes to the hydrological cycle, and resulting in depletion of fresh water supplies, etc. [[Environmental justice]] [[Power asymmetry]] An added complication to this multiscale, multidirectional, and rarely coordinated system of governance is that the effects or impacts of environmental degradation are often felt differently in different regions, and often not in the same geographic region as the causal activity, and tend to impact less affluent countries and groups disproportionately, which are often those least able to respond or recover. This makes it even harder to reach multilateral agreements and can lead to agreements that are not particularly ambitious, but only cover the lowest common denominator of concern, and leads to questions about equity The subject matter of global environmental governance also varies vastly, covering almost every aspect of our natural environment - from the regulation of whaling; the governance of the Antarctic (the only continent without a native human population and now considered common heritage of humanity); trade in endangered species; the governance of fresh water resources; and as we have seen in earlier sessions those considerations relating to the impacts on health arising from many and varied sources, including protection of the ozone layer; addressing impacts arising from industrial activity - climate change, persistent organic pollutants, mercury, transboundary air pollution, the movement and disposal of hazardous waste, and so on. Environmental politics are inherently complex, due to the high degree of interconnectedness between the different elements of our natural environment. ## 2.3 Key characteristics Global environmental governance is most visibly conducted by means of ==conference diplomacy==. The first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972 managed to elevate and embed environmental concerns in global politics. This conference was followed by regular UN-sponsored summits – the UN Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, 1992; the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002 (Rio +10 Conference); the UN Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20, held in Rio in 2012. All of these made significant contributions – establishing various international institutions, treaties and agreements. - Issue complexity - Transnational - Scientific uncertainty - Multiplicity of actors and stakeholders - [[Power asymmetry]] - Coordination and treaty proliferation - Fragmentation Also defined by ==issue complexity== . The different aspects of our environment are interconnected, and chains of cause and effect are not always immediately identifiable. Even in cases where causality is clear, solutions come at a cost, which can make them unpopular with and undesirable for some stakeholders. Often addressing one problem may create others, which makes environmental politics that much more complicated. Many environmental problems are cross-border or transnational in character, requiring inter-state cooperation (regional or global), which can make finding mutually acceptable solutions difficult, particularly in the context of regional or inter-state tensions, but also amongst competing or conflicting interests and priorities of states, as well as competing priorities in terms of health alone. Due to the complexity and interconnectedness of our natural environment, however, scientists may not always be certain about the causes of environmental problems and the effects of proposed solutions. ==Scientific uncertainty== often plagues the search for solutions, the negotiation and implementation of environmental agreements. It can be a roadblock to achieving consensus on when and what action is needed, particularly in international negotiations. Multilateral negotiations increasingly involve a multiplicity of actors and stakeholders (both public – states, local authorities, regional and international organisations; and private – including for-profit and not-for-profit organisations, social movements, networks of scientists, advocacy coalitions etc). Actors often have diverse interests, agendas, and access to resources, resulting in enduring [[Power asymmetry|asymmetries of power]] among them, which shapes and influences the outcomes of negotiations and resulting agreements. Such asymmetries are evident between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, but also between petroleum producing and exporting countries and importing countries, between corporate actors and civil society, among corporate actors with different agendas – e.g. producers of ‘clean energy’, insurance companies, and companies producing and trading fossil fuels, and so on. There are issues with ==coordination== and ==treaty proliferation==, with over 500 multilateral environmental agreements, some of them overlaps and conflicts with each other. Even conflict between the provisions of treaties are often referred to collectively as ==fragmentation== in global environmental governance. # 3. Components of global environmental governance ## 3.1 Actors The environment and health sector can be said to ‘share the same challenges posed by highly complex systems, in which a large number of diverse actors – both state and non-state – present new dilemmas and opportunities’ (Sandberg et al 2015: 3). [[transnational expert networks (TENs)]] – also known as ‘epistemic communities’ - are one of the defining features of environmental governance. They have a vital role in environmental politics. Karns and Mingst (2010) note that the nature of the epistemic communities involved in environmental governance has itself changed over the decades with early epistemic communities comprising mostly resource managers and economists (in the 1970s), while ecologists and environmental scientists from more specialised fields have been at the heart of environmental governance since the 1990s. Notable TENs include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and UNEP’s Mediterranean Action Plan (Karns and Mingst 2010: 510-11), but TENs can also operate on less prominent levels – at universities or in the consultative capacity for local and regional governments. Private for-profit entities include any business and industry entities, as well as multinational corporations. These entities are characterised by the pursuit of profit and market orientation (for a more detailed discussion of these entities in relation to health policy see: Buse, Mays and Walt 2012: 55-62). Some have substantive economic power and are able to influence governments. Private for-profit entities have vested interests in environmental governance too as it can directly impact their operations and profits (in both positive and negative ways). ==Not all business entities for example are opposed to policies for the protection of the environment – some, like the insurance industry or companies producing solar panels and wind turbines, can lobby for greener policies and policies that reduce the risks from natural disasters.== Companies involved in the production and trade in fossil fuels may work to oppose legislation mandating the reduction in use of such fuels. [[Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)]] has amplified the voice of its members in climate change and sustainable development negotiations. Political power alone does not guarantee the influence needed for promoting consensus, concerted action and global change. Powerful states, however, can act as barriers to international cooperation, as has been the case in recent years of the United States in making climate change policy. ## 3.2 Multilateral cooperation and intergovernmental organisations [[UNEP]] is a key organisation. The UN's specialised environmental agency, established by UNGA in 1972. It works closely with member states, representatives from civil society, business, other major groups and stakeholders. [[Global Environment Facility (GEF)]] was set up in 1991 under the auspices of the [[World Bank (WB)]] and is the most prominent funder of environmetal projects in LMICs. GEF works closely with UNEP, which provides scientific oversight and participates in the selection of funding priorities. Some critics of GEF argue that the organisation overrepresents the interests of high-income countries, being funded by the WB, and fails to engage with more localised priorities - e.g. soil erosion or urban air pollution in the South (Karns and Mingst 2010). [[The Commission on Sustainable Development]] was created in 1992 Rio Conference to facilitate and monitor the implementation of [[Agenda 21]] and The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Agenda 21 can be described as a plan of action to be taken at different levels in all areas of human impact on the environment (Agenda 21 n.d.). The Commission’s main task is to promote sustainable development. It receives reports from and advises states, UN bodies and NGOs, on questions of sustainable development and the use of forests, the oceans, freshwater resources. Delegates to the commission are from environmental ministries, which are traditionally not very influential (Karns and Mingst 2010). [[World Bank (WB)]] (through its role as being the largest donor for economic development) and the [[World Trade Organization (WTO)]] (through its role in regulating international trade and creating trade agreements). > The [[World Health Organization (WHO)]] has sought some influence in environmental governance, as previously noted by producing reports and guidance on the relationship between health and the environment (WHO 2021a, 2021b, 2022), so has provided both a technical advisory (scientific information) and an advocacy role, but analysts argue that has still not been enough, given how significant environmental impacts are for human and population health (Morin and Blouin 2019). ## 3.3 Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) International treaties or agreements are ==signed== by states. States are then required to ==ratify== them, which is a process of approving international treaties by the national legislature and affirming a state’s commitment to the treaty. Once enough ratifications are received, the treaty ==comes into force== and becomes binding on its signatories. Mechanisms for punishing deviation from or non-compliance with international treaties are not well-established and there is no sovereign authority above the state that can make states act in accordance with the obligations that they have agreed and accepted. Unlike domestic law, sanctions are not usually what motivates states to comply with international treaties and conventions – states internalize norms, they act out of a sense of obligation, they consider agreements as fair and valid (von Stein 2010). Most multilateral treaties on environmental issues are titled ==conventions==, while bilateral or regional agreements are called treaties. # 4. Global environmental governance and health policy ## 4.1 The impact of environmental change on health The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health (Whitmee et al 2015) provides a useful overview of more recent studies and reports. The Commission notes that ‘[t]he risks to human beings from global environmental change arise from the interaction between specific hazards, exposure and vulnerability… and that important factors that make people more sensitive to environmental change include undernutrition, age and the presence of pre-existing disease burden’ (Whitmee et al 2015: 1986). The Rockefeller-Lancet Commission advocates for the adoption of a [[Planetary health]] approach, ‘based on the understanding that human health and human civilisation depend on flourishing natural systems and the wise stewardship of those natural systems… [however] The present systems of governance and organisation of human knowledge are inadequate to address the threats to planetary health’ (Whitmee et al 2015: 1974). Taking such an integrated approach to health and environmental policy, however, presents significant challenges. Morin and Blouin (2019) analysed 2280 environmental treaties, measuring the type and number of health-related provisions in these treaties. They conclude that environmental and health law remain two distinct bodies of law and around 338 environmental treaties they analysed include at least one health-related provision (2019: p. 3 of 8). Also there are treaties containing clauses, which permits state parties to derogate from their obligations under the treaty for the purpose of protecting population and human health. The authors further observe that negotiators of environmental treaties often include the protection of human health as one of their goals, which strengthens the case for cooperation on environmental issues (2019: p.6 of 8). Morin and Blouin conclude that their findings are quite optimistic for the cross-disciplinary connections between health and environmental governance, but one could argue that given the level of interconnectedness between our environment and different aspects of our health, 338 out of 2280 treaties incorporating health provisions is a very small percentage. Why is it significant to study the interconnectedness between environment and health? 1. To generate evidence-based understanding of the ways in which environmental and health politics interact in practice, and 2. To advocate for and promote further interaction between the two fields with the aim of creating policy action with dual benefits for both the protection of the environment and improving population and human health. An early example of this is the protocol on strategic environmental assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a transboundary context. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Protocol, which was negotiated by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and ratified in 2010 (although it is open to all UN members) aims to assess the likely environmental effects of plans and programmes, but also mandates the consideration of the impacts of these on human health. The UNECE states that “this reflects the involvement of the World Health Organization in the negotiations as well as the political commitments made at the 1999 London Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health”. [(UNECE)](https://unece.org/summary-procedure)). ## 4.2 The role of health policy actors in global environmental governance In a 2012 piece in _Global Environmental Governance_, Sari Kovats from the Department of Social and Environmental Health Research at LSHTM argued that ‘both the global health and global environment research communities need more interdisciplinary work’ (Kovats 2012:2). Since then, there are many progress, but most health professionals and other experts are not well connected. Improvements are underway, but the speed does not appear proportionate to the needs of both global environmental and health governance. Out of the 2,280 environmental treaties they analysed, they found only ‘six environmental treaties require their parties to cooperate with the WHO and three include a requirement to cooperate with another health organisation’ (Morin and Blouin 2019: 5 of 8). WHO is more effective in advocacy capacity of environmental issues, but less successful in its role in influencing policy Sharmila Devi’s World Report in the _Lancet_ draws attention to activism by the WHO and almost 200 global health associations calling on governments to agree a legally binding treaty to phase out the use of fossil fuels to protect human and planetary health. The call to action was supported by 100 Nobel laureates, more than 1,000 health professionals, and over 3,000 scientists and academics (Devi 2022: 985). It could therefore be suggested that WHO is more effective in an advocacy capacity, but less successful in its role in influencing policy. The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health further highlight the central role health professionals have in the pursuit and achievement of planetary health – e.g. by ‘working across sectors to integrate policies that advance health and environmental sustainability, tackling health inequities, reducing the environmental impacts of health systems, and increasing the resilience of health systems and populations to environmental change’ (Whitmee et al 2015: 1974). # 5. Summary This session outlined the nature, scope and some of the key characteristics of global environmental governance (GEG) from an international relations perspective. It described the main components of GEG - actors, institutions, and multilateral environmental agreements. This discussion is set in the context of the issue-specific sessions in the module (eg., air pollution, biodiversity, climate change etc) and aimed to draw attention to some recurring themes. The session then explored the interplay between environmental governance and health governance, looking at analyses of why and how these should be deepened and intensified to facilitate progress in addressing environmental and health impacts of human-induced environmental change. # 6. References ## 6.1 [[Essential readings]] Willetts, E. and L. Grant (2022) ‘The health-environmental nexus: global negotiations at a crossroads’. _Lancet._  399: 1677-78. Morin, J. and Blouin, C., (2019) ‘How environmental treaties contribute to global health governance’. _Globalization and Health_. 15:47. Stephens, C. (2022) ‘Globalization, environmental change and human health’ in C. Stephens, B. Hawkins and M. Liverani (eds.) _Globalization and Global Health – Critical Issues and Policy_. 3rd edn. London: McGraw Hill. Pp.97-116. ## 6.2 [[Recommended reading]] Sandberg, K., Hoffman, S. and Pearcey, M. (2019) ‘Lessons for Global Health from Global Environmental Governance’, Research Paper, Centre for Global Health Security, Chatham House. Available online: [https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/globalstrategylab/files/lessons_for_global_health_from_global_en.pdf](https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/globalstrategylab/files/lessons_for_global_health_from_global_en.pdf). Accessed 1 Oct 2022. Willetts, E., Grant, L., Bansard, J., Kohler, P. M., Rosen, T., Bettelli, P., & Schröder, M. (2022). _Health in the global environmental agenda: A policy guide._ International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/ publications/health-global-environment-agenda-policy-guide.  Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., et al. (2015) ‘Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health’. _Lancet_ 386, no. 10007: 1973–2028. Biermann, F. and Pattberg, P. (2008) ‘Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock Moving Forward’. _Annual Review of Environment and Resources_. 33:277-94.