Although the contemporary debate on globalization has been contentious, it has not always been useful. No one doubts that some very significant global processes—economic, social, cultural, political and environmental—are underway and that they affect (nearly) everyone and (nearly) everything. Yet, there is no agreement on exactly how to define this thing we call “globalization,” nor on exactly which parts of it are good or bad, and for whom. For the most part, a polarized view of globalization, its potential and its pitfalls has taken hold of the public imagination. It has often been
projected either as a panacea for all the ills of the world or as their primary cause. The discussion on the links between environment and globalization has been similarly stuck in a quagmire of many
unjustified expectations and fears about the connections between these two domains.
There are nearly as many definitions of globalization as authors who write on the subject. One review, by Scholte, provides a classification of at least five broad sets of definitions:
Globalization as Internationalization- The “global” in globalization is viewed “as simply another adjective to describe cross-border relations between countries.” It describes the growth in international exchange and interdependence.
Globalization as Liberalization-Removing government imposed restrictions on movements between countries.
Globalization as Universalization - Process of spreading ideas and experiences to people at all corners of the earth so that aspirations and experiences around the world become harmonized.
Globalization as Westernization or Modernization- The social structures of modernity (capitalism, industrialism, etc.) are spread the world over, destroying cultures and local self-determination in the process.
Globalization as Deterritorialization - Process of the “reconfiguration of geography, so that social space is no longer wholly mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and territorial borders.” Although the debates on the definition and importance of globalization have been vigorous over time, we believe that the truly relevant policy questions today are about who benefits and who does not; how the benefits and the costs of these processes can be shared fairly; how the opportunities can be maximized by all; and how the risks can be minimized.
In addressing these questions, one can understand globalization to be a complex set of dynamics offering many opportunities to better the human condition, but also involving significant potential
threats. Contemporary globalization manifests itself in various ways, three of which are of particular relevance to policy-makers. They also comprise significant environmental opportunities and risks.
Globalization of the Economy- The world economy globalizes as national economies integrate into the international economy through trade; foreign direct investment; short-term capital flows; international movement of workers and people in general; and flows of technology. This has created new opportunities for many; but not for all. It has also placed pressures on the global environment and on natural resources, straining the capacity of the environment to sustain itself and exposing human dependence on our environment.6 A globalized economy can also produce globalized externalities and enhance global inequities. Local environmental and economic decisions can contribute to global solutions and prosperity, but the environmental costs, as well as the economic ramifications of our actions, can be externalized to places and people who are so faraway as to seem invisible.
Globalization of Knowledge- As economies open up, more people become involved in the processes of knowledge integration and the deepening of non-market connections, including flows of information, culture, ideology and technology. New technologies can solve old problems, but they can also create new ones. Technologies of environmental care can move across boundaries quicker, but so can technologies of environmental extraction. Information flows can connect workers and citizens across boundaries and oceans (e.g., the rise of global social movements as well as of outsourcing), but they can also threaten social and economic networks at the local level. Environmentalism as a norm has become truly global, but so has mass consumerism.
Globalization of Governance- Globalization places great stress on existing patterns of global governance with the shrinking of both time and space; the expanding role of non-state actors; and the increasingly complex inter-state interactions. The global nature of the environment demands global environmental governance, and indeed a worldwide infrastructure of international agreements and institutions has emerged and continues to grow. But many of today’s global environmental problems have outgrown the governance systems designed to solve them. Many of these institutions, however, struggle as they have to respond to an ever-increasing set of global challenges while remaining constrained by institutional design principles inherited from an earlier, more state-centric world. The relationship between the environment and globalization— although often overlooked—is critical to both domains. The environment itself is inherently global, with life-sustaining ecosystems and watersheds frequently crossing national boundaries; air pollution moving across entire continents and oceans; and a single. Shared atmosphere providing climate protection and shielding us from harsh UV rays. Monitoring and responding to environmental issues frequently provokes a need for coordinated global or regional governance. Moreover, the environment is intrinsically linked to economic development, providing natural resources that fuel growth and ecosystem services that underpin both life and livelihoods. Indeed, at least one author suggests that “the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ecology.” While the importance of the relationship between globalization and the environment is obvious, our understanding of how these twin dynamics interact remains weak. Much of the literature on globalization and the environment is vague (discussing generalities); myopic (focused disproportionately only on trade-related connections); and/or partial (highlighting the impacts of globalization on the environment, but not the other way around). It is important to highlight that not only does globalization impact the environment, but the environment impacts the pace, direction and quality of globalization. At the very least, this happens because environmental resources provide the fuel for economic globalization, but also because our social and policy responses to global environmental challenges constrain and influence the context in which globalization happens. This happens, for example, through the governance structures we establish and through the constellation of stakeholders and stakeholder interests that construct key policy debates. It also happens through the transfer of social norms, aspirations and ideas that criss-cross the globe to formulate extant and emergent social movements, including global environmentalism. In short, not only are the environment and globalization intrinsically linked, they are so deeply welded together that we simply cannot address the global environmental challenges facing us unless we are able to understand and harness the dynamics of globalization that influence them. By the same token, those who wish to capitalize on the potential of globalization will not be able to do so unless they are able to understand and address the great environmental challenges of our time, which are part of the context within which globalization takes place.
The dominant discourse on globalization has tended to highlight the promise of economic opportunity. On the other hand, there is a parallel global discourse on environmental responsibility. A more nuanced understanding needs to be developed—one that seeks to actualize the global opportunities offered by globalization while fulfilling global ecological responsibilities and advancing equity. Such an understanding would, in fact, make sustainable development a goal of globalization, rather than a victim. As a contribution towards this more nuanced understanding of these two dynamics, we will now outline five propositions related to how environment and globalization are linked and how they are likely to interact.
The Five Propositions
By way of exploring the linkages between environment and globalization, let us posit five key propositions on how these two areas are linked, with a special focus on those linkages that are particularly pertinent for policy-making and policy-makers. The purpose of these propositions is to highlight the possible implications of the dominant trends. This is neither an exhaustive list nor a set of predictions. It is rather an identification of the five important trajectories which are of particular importance to policy-makers because (a) these are areas that have a direct bearing on national and international policy and, (b) importantly, they can be influenced by national and international policy.
1: The rapid acceleration in global economic activity and our dramatically increased demands for critical, finite natural resources undermine our pursuit of continued economic prosperity.
2:The linked processes of globalization and environmental degradation pose new security threats to an already insecure world. They impact the vulnerability of ecosystems and societies, and the least resilient ecosystems. The livelihoods of the poorest communities are most at risk.
3: The newly prosperous and the established wealthy will have to come to terms with the limitations of the ecological space in which both must operate, and also with the needs and rights of those who have not been as lucky.
4:Consumption—in both North and South—will define the future of globalization as well as the global environment..
5: Concerns about the global market and global environment will become even more intertwined and each will become increasingly dependent on the other.
Avenues for Action: What Can We Do?
Better global governance is the key to managing both globalization and the global environment. More importantly, it is also the key to managing the relationship between the two. The processes of environment and globalization are sweepingly broad, sometimes overwhelming , but they are not immune to policy influence. Indeed, the processes as we know them have been shaped by the policies that we have—or have not—put in place in the past. Equally, the direction that globalization, the global environment and the interaction of the two will take in the years to come will be shaped by the policy decisions of the future. Governance, therefore, is the key avenue for action by decision-makers today. However, it is also quite clear that both globalization and environment challenge the current architecture of the international system as it now exists. Both dynamics limit a state’s ability to decide on and control key issues affecting it. Globalization does it largely by design as states commit to liberalize trade and embrace new technologies. The environment challenges the system by default as ecosystem boundaries rarely overlap with national boundaries and ecological systems are nearly always supra-state. The role of the state in the management of the international system has to evolve to respond to the evolution of the challenges facing it This evolution is already happening, but often in painful, even contorted, ways. Having outgrown its old structure, the international system is designing a new, more inclusive one.85 Many problems have been identified in the current system of global governance: it is too large; it is chronically short of money and yet also wasteful of the resources it has; it has expanded in an ad hoc fashion; it lacks coordination and a sense of direction; it is often duplicative and sometimes different organizations within the system work at cross purposes to each other, etc. In terms of environment and globalization, we see three important goals for the global governance system as it exists today.
Managing institutional fragmentation: Although there already exist organs within the system to address most problems thrown up by environment and globalization, the efforts of these institutions are fragmented and lack coordination or coherence. The efforts and the instruments for making the “system” work as a whole either do not exist or are under-utilized. The institutional architecture that we have remains focused on precise issues even though the pressing challenges of our times— particularly those related to environment and globalization—relate to the connections between issues (e.g., labour and trade; environment and investment; food and health; etc.). There is a pressing need, therefore, for meaningful global governance reform that creates viable and workable mechanisms for making existing institutions work together more efficiently and effectively than they have so far.
Broadening the base of our state-centric system: Despite some headway over the last two decades, the essential architecture of the international governance system remains state-centric, even though neither the problems nor the solutions are any longer so. In terms of environment and globalization dynamics, one now finds civil society and market actors playing defining roles in establishing the direction and sequence of events. Whether it is companies creating new global norms and standards through their procurement and supply chains, or NGOs establishing voluntary standards in areas such as forestry or organic products, we see that policy in practice is no longer the sole domain of the inter-state system. It should be acknowledged that both civil society and business are beginning to be integrated into global governance mechanisms—for example, through their presence and participation in global negotiations and summits and through closer interactions with environmentally progressive businesses. This process needs to be deepened and accelerated, and meaningful ways need to be found to incorporate them as real partners in the global governance
enterprise.
Establishing sustainable development as a common goal: The post-World War II international organizational architecture was originally designed to avoid another Great War. In terms of what the system does and in terms of the types of goals that it has set for itself (e.g., the Millennium Development Goals; stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of CO2; eradication of diseases such as Malaria; control of HIV/AIDS; etc.), the system has evolved to a broader understanding of what we mean by “security” as well as of what its own role is. Yet, it is not always clear that the entire system of global governance is moving towards a common goal. This creates undue friction between the organizations that make up the system and results in disjointed policies. To the extent that a new common global goal has emerged, it is sustainable development. Not only is sustainable development quintessentially about the linkages between environment and globalization, it is also a goal that has increasingly been adopted by various elements of the global system. For example, it is not only the overarching goal of all environmental organizations and instruments, it is also now a stated goal of the World Trade Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and many others. Laying out a detailed plan for achieving this shared goal is beyond the scope and mandate of this document. To a more limited extent, an earlier related report, begins doing so for the process of environmental governance only. While recommendations from that work are valid here, the challenge of environment and globalization lays out an even bigger agenda for us to think about. By way of prodding such thinking, a sampling of the types of initiatives that could be considered
is presented here.
• The last few years have seen a number of different initiatives on international institutional reform, and the next few will invariably see more. Many of these have been focused on organizational reform relating to management, operations, financing, etc. Some have been focused more precisely on strengthening key institutions in specific issue areas (e.g., UNEP for global environmental governance). The success of such initiatives is important in making the system efficient and these processes should be supported and strengthened. Bringing more coherence and coordination between sub-systems should also be a major priority: e.g., the global environmental governance system; the global financial governance system; the global economic development support system; etc.
• The challenge, however, is larger than efficiency alone. It is also about making the various components of the system work together and towards a shared vision. As an initial step, one could envisage choosing just one area with which to begin and establishing modalities for deep and permanent links between institutions that are dealing with clearly related issues. The obvious
candidate is the area of trade and environment. Given our earlier discussion and the steps that have already been taken in improving coherence between these intertwined areas, one could envisage an agreement between the two institutions that clearly defines the role of each and the “services” that each can provide to the other and the expertise that can be shared across the two domains. Such coordination at the global level could also serve to instill greater interaction between environmental
and trade decision-making at the domestic level.
• Effectively responding to the challenges of environment and globalization requires a concerted effort to find new and meaningful ways to engage non-state actors from business and civil society. A first generation of attempts towards public-private partnerships is already underway with efforts such as the UN Secretary General’s Global Compact Initiative, the Type 2 partnerships devised during WSSD in 2002, and increasing interaction between state and non-state actors at various global forum. There is a need to elevate this notion of partnerships to a new and higher level. One which seeks to establish not only shared goals and priorities, but to also devise a course of shared responsibility and joint action. Until now, for the most part, partnerships between state and non-state parties have meant seeking synergies in what they are already doing. In order to meet the challenges of environment and globalization, we need to move to deeper—possibly contractual—bargains that bring business and civil society as full partners into the enterprise of global governance. The type of partnerships that was discussed above in terms of e-waste may be one example of what this might look like.
• The existing instruments that do relate to environment and globalization tend to come either from the direction of environmental policy (e.g., the climate convention) or from the direction of economic policy (e.g. WTO rules). As a first step, and as elaborated above, the cross-cutting elements within these instruments need to be better understood, and actors from various domains need to be engaged in these discussions. However, we will soon also need to start creating new instruments that emerge not from one of the two dynamics—environment or globalization —but from the interaction of the two. For example, there is already an advanced body of interesting work done on “green accounting” and various forms of ecological accounting and ecological tax reform. There is both a need and an opportunity to begin thinking of integrating this work into our national and global accounting mechanisms. One option might be to promote systems of payment for ecological services (domestically, internationally and possibly globally). Or, at a minimum, to account for the value of such services in national accounts so that more reasoned and reasonable decision-analysis can be done for and by policy-makers. Another option, at a more extreme end of the spectrum of possibilities, may be to consider new legal instruments: a possible “Global Compact on Poverty
Reduction” or a “Global Treaty on Consumption.” The merits of particular instruments may be debatable, but the point to be made here is that if global opportunities are to be maximized while adhering to principles of global responsibility, then new and innovative mechanisms of
understanding, measuring and managing economic and ecological values will be needed.
• Another area of global governance that needs attention in terms of environment and globalization is that of security—and insecurity. An acknowledgement and appreciation of the importance of human insecurity and of the multiple drivers of societal as well as international conflict has begun to grow. However, our governance mechanisms for discussing security remain fixated on a much narrower conception of security. Institutions responsible for dealing with issues of security are slowly—but, again, too slowly—beginning to accommodate broader notions of the term. The UN Security Council, for example, held a special hearing on conflict diamonds.88 The U.S. military, as another example, has had for a number of years an Assistant Secretary for environmental security, and has been seriously studying the implications of global climate change on U.S. security.
There is a need to even more explicitly broaden the mandate of global security organizations to include non-traditional security mandates, including those related to environmental security.
• Although discussions of environment and globalization may take place at the global level, the implications of these dynamics are invariably national and local. It is evident that the ability to
manage these processes, to benefit from the potential of globalization and to minimize the threats of environmental degradation are all functions of preparedness, information and capacity.
Investments in these areas—and particularly in developing countries—can have immediate as well as long-term benefits vis-à-vis sustainable development. As has been suggested, globalization has great potential to bring economic prosperity to the poor. But this potential cannot be realized without the capacity to do so and a readiness within those communities and societies to actualize these benefits. The role of international assistance in creating such readiness and enhancing such capacities is critical. Addressing domestic capacity constraints—including, for example, in early warning; technology choice and innovation; decision analysis; long-term investment analysis; etc.—should,
therefore, be a key area of international cooperation.
• Finally, we do need better assessments of the full potential as well as the full costs of environment and globalization interactions. If any of the ideas presented here are to be adopted, we will need far more robust information and analysis than we now have. What is the full value of global ecological services? What are the best available instruments for ecological accounting? How are
the costs and benefits of globalization currently distributed? What are the economic costs of various environmental stresses? What are the long-term impacts of alternative technology decisions?
What is the potential for de-materialization and de-linking growth from consumption? These, and many others, are some of the many important questions that we need to think about. It may not be possible to get answers to all of the questions. But it is possible to get answers to many. In other cases, even if exact answers are not available, indicative assessments may be possible. A first step, therefore, would be to conduct a large-scale global assessment of the state of knowledge on environment and globalization. As we found with the global assessments on climate change and, more recently, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the act of conducting such systematic
studies is important not only for the answers that they bring out but also because they raise new and more important questions, they identify new and otherwise unexplored options, and they
help create the policy space for new discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment