Search

Precaution is a key issue in environmental governance. Variously defined, intensively debated and introduced in many regulations, its meaning, scope and application remain problematic. This article argues that the controversy on precaution is a matter of culturally patterned expectations concerning the production and use of knowledge and the related social positions and responsibilities. The way uncertainty and its role in the policy process are understood is crucial. For some precaution is a flawed concept, to be accommodated to the current expert-based cooperative scheme. For others it is a major innovation requiring a rearrangement of the latter. Precautionary policies may evolve in different directions. They may either strengthen the role of means-ends rationality, increasing people's dependence on expert knowledge and shrinking the opportunity and scope of public debate or, on the contrary, enhance the role of value-commitments, leading to a decline in the legitimacy of established hierarchies and an intensification of intractable controversies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transboundary and global environmental harm present substantial challenges to state-centered (territorial) modalities of accountability and responsibility. The globalization of environmental degradation has triggered regulatory responses at various jurisdictional scales. These governance efforts, featuring various articulations of state and/or private authority, have struggled to address so-called "accountability deficits" in global environmental politics. Yet, it has also become clear that accountability and responsibility norms forged in domestic regulatory contexts cannot simply be transposed across borders. This special issue explores various conceptual perspectives on accountability and responsibility for transnational harm, and examines their application to different actor groups and environmental governance regimes. This introductory paper provides an overview of the major theoretical positions and examines some of the analytical challenges raised by the transnational (re)scaling of accountability and responsibility norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At present, progress in mitigating global GHG emissions is impeded by political stalemate at the national level in the United States and the People's Republic of China. Through the conceptual lenses of multilevel governance and framing politics, the article analyzes emerging policy initiatives among subnational governments in both countries. Effective subnational emission-mitigating action requires framing climatic-stabilization policies in terms of local co-benefits associated with environmental protection, health promotion, and economic advantage. In an impressive group of US states and cities, and increasingly at the local level in China, public concerns about air pollution, consumption and waste management, traffic congestion, health threats, the ability to attract tourists, and/or diminishing resources are legitimizing policy developments that carry the co-benefit of controlling GHG emissions. A co-benefits framing strategy that links individual and community concerns for morbidity, mortality, stress reduction, and healthy human development for all with GHG-emission limitation/reduction is especially likely to resonate powerfully at the subnational level throughout China and the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the complex interconnections between global environmental politics and trade politics against the background of biodiversity politics. Genetic resources are one of the most important inputs in post-Fordist economies: they are the raw materials of the new biotechnology companies. The system of global environmental governance that has emerged in recent years was established by a number of international institutions and organizations to serve as a political-institutional framework for emerging global markets. To date, this system has not proved to be an effective regulative framework. On the contrary, it is highly contradictory and contested. We develop theoretical and empirical arguments why and in which form the transforming national state remains crucial in global environmental politics. We call this transformation the "internationalization of the state." It is argued that the emerging post-Fordist relationships with nature, as a highly contested process, are stabilized by a new kind of global political regulation and domination. This article is theoretically informed by the concept of "societal relationships with nature," regulation and critical state theory as well as Gramsci's concept of hegemony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a tool for making decisions about long-term environmental policy, environmental economics does not work on its own terms. It works well as a tool for analyzing environmental policy given clear, exogenously defined costs and benefits. As such, environmental economics can work well as a tool for analyzing policy in the short term. But many of the most salient issues in international environmental politics are salient specifically because they have a fundamental long-term component. Economic tools have trouble pricing environmental goods, and the farther the cost element of cost/benefit analysis is projected into the future, particularly through the analytical tool of the discount rate, the less reliable estimates are likely to be. At a certain point, the compounding of this decreasing reliability makes the cost estimates analytically counterproductive. As such, this paper concludes that fundamental decisions about the relationship between economic activity and the natural environment in the long term need to be informed by ecocentric rather than economic thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents several abstracts of research on environmental policy. "The Making of the 2003 EU Emissions Trading Directive: An Ultra-Quick Process Due to the Entrepreneurial Proficiency," by Jørgen Wettestad; "A Herd Mentality in the Design of International Environmental Agreements," by David G. Victor and Lesley A. Coben; "Governing GMOs in the EU: A Deviant Case of Environmental Policy-Making," by G. Kristin Rosendal.

Increased international attention to water resource management and integration has resulted in the creation of new institutional arrangements and environmental funding mechanisms. The Global Environmental Facility's (GEF) International Waters Program is at the heart of such novel collaborative approaches to managing transboundary resources. This paper assesses GEF-led efforts in twenty-three projects across ten geographic regions. It finds that the GEF has been successful in building scientific knowledge and creating linkages across social, economic and environmental issues. However, challenges of enhancing the contractual environment and building national capacity remain. While GEF efforts thus far do indicate that institutions can affect the growth of knowledge and cooperation around transboundary waters, long-lasting achievements of the GEF's International Waters Program have yet to be realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is mounting concern about a global governance deficit for managing international environmental problems and sustainable development. This article reviews the proposals and justifications for reform, and suggests an alternative model of global governance based on diffuse networks of diverse actors performing multiple and overlapping functions. Some reform proposals are offered to improve the prospects of network-based global governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A de facto "system" of global environmental governance already exists. The de facto system of global environmental governance is neither neat nor simple; it works in a rather messy, non-linear, non-hierarchical, and intertwined fashion. However it is a system that has proved to be resilient as well as prolific. This paper argues that although there is no real reason to make the system less messy, it can be made more effective by taking a number of steps that would (a) support the positive trends already apparent in the emergent system (b) strengthen the system as it evolves, and (c) articulate a clear vision for the eventual system that we wish to move towards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The experience of the last ten years of global environmental negotiations suggests that a new and different approach to international cooperation is required if we are to achieve sustainable development. While multilateral environmental agreements have provided a valuable framework for building a consensus on broad objectives, their implementation requires a focus on the underlying activities that cause environmental degradation. Moreover, globalization encourages the development and use of innovative technologies, leading to a large degree of overlap between global environmental concerns and national sustainable development objectives. These shifts require wholly new perspectives that are based less on determining responsibilities and more on supporting mutually reinforcing transformations. The new approach also looks beyond the state to other stakeholders as contributors to achieving sustainable development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article outlines the theoretical problematique and some empirical knowledge regarding the impacts of global environmental change on the nation state; thereby it also introduces this special issue of Global Environmental Politics. We argue that global environmental change decreases the capacity of nation states to fulfilll their definitional functions without the cooperation of other states. The added stress due to environmental change also increases the demand for adaptive capacities of nation states, which further diminishes their resources to fulfill other core functions. Based on an overview of the complex interplay between global environmental change and the nation state, we focus on the various ways in which the nation state may mitigate, or adapt to, the impacts of global environmental change, including horizontal diffusionism and vertical institutionalism. In summarizing the other contributions to this special issue, we further argue that a reconsideration of key theoretical concepts such as sovereignty, agency, and multilevel governance is required in order to improve our understanding of the complexities of global environmental governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the environmental movements and politics in the La Plata River basin. Information on the boomerang strategy; International norms and domestic environmental institutions in Brazil and Argentina; Details on the Hidrovia project.

Discusses the transformation of global environmental policy and governance to liberal environmentalism. Information on liberal environmental norms for environmental governance; Explanations for the institutionalization of norms associated with liberal environmentalism; Implications of liberal environmentalism for global environmental governance.

Examines the condition of environmentalism and environmental policy of several countries. Background on the condition of environmentalism in the U.S. during the 1970s; Information on the dominance of economics over environmentalism; Comparison of the environmental policies of Norway and Germany.

The article presents abstracts on several environmental issues. They include "Making Environmental Self-Regulation Mandatory," "Institutional Designs for EMS-Based Government Procurement Policies," and "Discounting the Discount Rate: Ecocentrism and Environmental Economics."

Presents abstracts of several articles on environmental policies. "Addressing the Global Governance Deficit," by Peter M. Haas; "Trends in Global Environmental Governance: The Emergence of a Mutual Supportiveness Approach to Achieve Sustainable Development," by Mukul Sanwal; "NGO Influence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility Mechanisms and Sinks," by Lars H. Gulbrandsen and Steinar Andresen.

Presents several abstracts on issues related to global environmental politics. "Global Environmental Change and the Nation State," by Frank Biermann and Klaus Dingwerth; "The Role of the Nation State in International Environmental Policy," by Jürgen Trittin; "Lead Markets for Environmental Innovations: A New Role for the Nation State," by Martin Jänicke and Klaus Jacob; "Sovereignty Bounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources?," by Peter H. Sand.