|
This summary captures the main outcomes of the Earth System Governance Hakone Vision Factory, held
27-29 September 2011, in Hakone, Kanagawa, Japan. This workshop addressed the key issues required for
a fundamental transformation of global sustainability governance in the 21st century.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The "Earth System Governance Hakone Vision Factory: Bridging Science Policy Boundaries" was organised by the International Environmental Governance Architecture Research Group and the Earth System Governance Project, in collaboration with the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and United Nations University Institute for Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), and the Tokyo Institute of Technology and was supported by the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership. The Hakone Vision Factory is further built on the Conversation Café at the Colorado Conference on Earth System Governance in May 2011, and the Policy
Brief Transforming Governance and Institutions for a Planet under Pressure: Revitalizing the Institutional Framework for Global Sustainability. For further correspondence, please contact
Norichika Kanie.
|
INTRODUCTION
The issues and political dynamics in the 21st century are different from
those in 1945 when the institutions in the United Nations were founded.
Today’s problems are characterized by temporal, spatial, and sectoral
interdependencies, complexity, as well as uncertainty. While incremental
changes have enabled certain progress towards sustainability, the current
system governing sustainable development is no longer sufficient given the
number, impact, interdependence and complexity of problems associated
with global change. Governance for sustainability requires transformative
reforms with clear vision. The 2012 United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development (Rio+20) could be a charter moment —
the beginning of a reform process leading to transformative change of
sustainability governance (by “charter moment”, we mean the need to establish a constitution of governance for sustainable development that better reflects the challenges of the 21st century, which does not necessarily imply the immediate amendment of the UN Charter).
The Hakone Vision Factory proposes principles and recommendations to guide this transformation clustered around three interrelated issues: Aspirations, Actors, and Architecture.
ASPIRATIONS
We are living in a highly dynamic, human-dominated earth system in which
non-linear, abrupt, and irreversible changes are not only possible but also
probable. Governance for sustainability in the era of “anthropocene”
requires that objectives, underlying values and norms, as well as knowledge
and uncertainty be refined and operationalized.
-
Governance goals have changed from those in 1945 when the post-WWII institutions
were established. This requires changes in governance systems. The international
community should discuss the priorities, pathways and qualitative and normative
goals of sustainability.
-
The emerging discussion on Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in line with
and complementing the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), could become
an important political target, providing momentum and attention to sustainable
development. Careful consideration is required to determine how the SDG’s can be
positioned alongside the successful MDG’s, which continue to be of high relevance
and importance.
-
Approaches to sustainability governance based on economic values are insufficient
- and partly the cause of unsustainable development. There is a clear need to go
beyond GDP and market-value in measuring development. Human well-being and
the quality of life are important additional values, as are considerations of ecosystem
services and the non-anthropocentric values of other living beings.
-
Alternative metrics to GDP have been developed, such as the
Human Development Index. Further development of the goals of sustainable
development and methodologies could result in a sustainable development indicator,
combining variables from the three pillars of sustainable development, or a small
suite of indices that have to be pursued simultaneously and without tradeoffs. This
is considered to have potential as a useful and policy relevant tool, but only when
institutional and financial underpinnings are provided.
ACTORS
Governance for sustainability demands the broadening of meaningful and
accountable participation and solutions from people for people.
-
Information technologies, including social media, have the potential to support
governance for sustainability by giving voice to those groups and individuals that have
been marginalized in the decision making process, and stimulating and facilitating
trans-boundary communication and deliberation. However, contentious issues
remain regarding the legitimacy and accountability of decentralized participation
(e.g. referenda), in particular because these technologies are not universally available
and affordable.
-
The evolving nature of governance and the problems of global change have engaged
a wide variety and large number of non-state actors. Mechanisms to include nonstate
actors in the intergovernmental UN system (for example through Major Groups
in the CSD) are laudable but insufficient and not truly inclusive, often leading to
misrepresentation.
-
One way to improve representation in the current intergovernmental system
would be to add a mechanism of checks and balances (between governments and
non-state actors) that could be inspired by the example of the EU Parliament in
relation to the EU Council. In designing such a mechanism, attention should also
be paid to the risk of paralysis.
-
Mechanisms to enable meaningful involvement of other actors, including persons
or organisations of high respect, cities, communities, and social movements in
governance for sustainability are needed.
-
The emergence of new actors requires a governance system with a larger range of
instruments. While states are the central actors, non-state actors are necessary for
accountable and effective governance for sustainability. Options include improved
private governance (such as the Forest Stewardship Council or Marine Stewardship
Council) and public-private partnerships. Safeguards need to be in place to ensure
the accountability and legitimacy of non-state actors.
ARCHITECTURE
The architecture for sustainability governance needs to be re-built to
include better integration, as well as improved institutions and decisionmaking
mechanisms.
Proposals for the required transformative changes in the architecture of
governance for sustainability need to be assessed based on a set of criteria,
including:
-
Membership: Meaningful participatory approaches that are inclusive
and account for power differentials between nation states, non-state
actors, and other groups in society.
-
Funding: Appropriate and stable levels of funding.
-
Authority/Mandate: Appropriate authority and efficiency.
-
Compliance and Implementation: Appropriate capacity to address compliance and implementation.
-
Adaptability: Effective adaptive approaches that could include sunset clauses and scheduled re-chartering moments in agreements, dynamic criteria to all selection and decision-making mechanisms to reflect
changes in natural and social systems, and network approaches.
-
Accountability: Strong accountability and transparency safeguards
The absence of suitable arrangements on one or more of these criteria will jeopardize prospects for transformative change.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Drawing on the discussion of Aspirations, Actors, and Architecture, the
Hakone Vision Factory discussed and evaluated many of the proposals
for a re-structured institutional framework for sustainable development
that would improve governance and determined that proposals for a
Sustainable Development Council deserve more serious consideration.
-
The process towards the establishment of the Sustainable Development Council needs
to be carefully balanced with other governance reforms for sustainable development
and with consideration to the oversight of the process, and the positioning and
configuration of the Council in the constellation of the institutional framework
for sustainable development, including but not limited to the UN System. The six
requirements for the architecture of the governance for sustainability, as mentioned
above, should be applied when assessing institutional framework for sustainable
development.
-
The mandate of the Sustainable Development Council needs to result from further
research and a deliberative process that could be set in motion at the 2012 United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Amongst others, the mandate and
charter of such a Council could include mechanisms and authority for governance
of crisis, for example along the lines of the WHO.
-
Membership of the Sustainable Development Council could include the following
set of members, whereby different responsibilities could be assigned to different
member groups. The optimal number of members for each member group needs
further exploration.
-
Primary member states. Countries with high capacity to contribute to
implementation of sustainable development through various forms of capital.
These same countries also have a high capacity to contribute to the problem of
unsustainable development if their actions are not changed in significant ways.
Selected based on a set of criteria (of which GDP could initially be an important
part until adequate alternative metrics are common and accepted, for example
also including scores of countries on the SDG’s). At set points in time (not too
frequent), membership will be re-assessed based on changed scores on criteria.
-
Rotating member states. Countries most affected by specific issues of sustainable
development and thus called into the group depending on the issue on the table.
-
Non-state actors. Selected through a mechanism that reflects the criteria for
architecture of governance for sustainability.
The total number of members should be kept sufficiently small to allow decisions to
be made reasonably efficiently.
-
Taking into account the evolving nature of governance, gradually, and over the
medium to long-term, the Council could create a dual-chamber system, consisting
of governments on one side and issue specific representatives from non-state actors
on the other.
-
Generally, qualified majority voting is a promising way to improve the quality and
decisiveness of decision making in governance for sustainable development. Given
the high level of the Council, careful development of decision-making procedures,
whether based on the common one-state one-vote unanimous decision making
procedures, re-definition of consensus, or on innovative other models, is needed.
-
The academic and political considerations and development of a Sustainable
Development Council should not exclude the required strengthening of the
environmental pillar (such as upgrading UNEP) of sustainable development; and
should take place with meaningful involvement and strengthening of integration
with economic governance. But such reform directions suggest a review on the role
and future of CSD.
RIO+20 AND BEYOND
Fundamental improvements in the economic system are necessary in
addition to improved governance for sustainability. Green economy
should be linked up with the institutional framework for sustainable
development in this regard. We see that Rio+20 is the beginning
of a charter moment. Ultimately, this may involve amending the
UN Charter to better reflect the challenges of the 21st century.
RIO+20 AND BEYOND
Fundamental improvements in the economic system are necessary in addition to improved governance for sustainability. Green economy should be linked up with the institutional framework for sustainable
development in this regard. We see that Rio+20 is the beginning of a charter moment. Ultimately, this may involve amending the UN Charter to better reflect the challenges of the 21st century.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Ahmad, Sohail, Post-doctoral Fellow, United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies
Andresen, Steinar, Research Professor, Fridtjof Nansen Institute
Betsill, Michele, Professor, Colorado State University
Biermann, Frank, Professor, VU University Amsterdam and Lund University
De Oliveira, Jose Puppim, Assistant Director and Senior Research Fellow, United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies
Elder, Mark, Director of Governance and Capacity Group, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Hiraishi, Takahiko, Senior Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Hu, Tao, Senior Environmental Economist, Policy Research Center of MEP, Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP)
Ichikawa, Akira, Post-doctoral Fellow, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Kanie, Norichika, Associate Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology and Research Fellow, United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies
Leiva-Roesch, Jimena, Third Secretary, Mission of Guatemala to the United Nations
Maki, Yoko, Senior Director, Environmental Division in Kawasaki City
Miyazawa, Ikuho, Associate Researcher of Programme Management Office, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Mori, Hideyuki, President, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Mullen, Karina, Graduate Research Assistant, Colorado State University
Olsen, Simon Hoiberg, Researcher of Governance and Capacity Group, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Roesch, Rita Maria, Columnist of Prensa Libre, Guatemala, and Cofounder of the ecological movement Alliance to protect the Pacific Coast of Guatemala
Shurestha, Surendra, Team Leader, Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development Secretariat for Rio+20, United Nations
Suginaka, Atsushi, Director, Global Environment Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan
Young, Oran, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara
Zondervan, Ruben, Executive Director, IHDP Earth System Governance Project
|
Solidarity reinforces Sustainability and vice versa
![[groups_small]](groups_small.gif)