The Global Environmental Governance: Strengths and Weaknesses - Term Paper Example

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES By The of the The of the School (University) The City and State where it is located The Date Introduction One of the topics that have drawn numerous debates and controversies is the environmental protection and preservation. Following climate change, the environment is facing threats mainly through global warming. Human activities have majorly contributed to these unpredictable of the environment conditions. In order to address this issue of environment, a global environmental governance committee was established. Although successful in addressing climate change and the surrounding environmental issues, the governance policies have not been without challenges and criticisms. The existing system of global environmental governance prompts numerous strengths and weakness around the process of managing the environmental pollution worldwide. The entire policies established create intertwining positive and negative outcomes on the general management of the environmental matters. The notable outcomes are assessable as model that can be undertaken to create a solemn model results oriented basis for general results. Arising concerns and principles or precaution are intergenerational and intergenerational equity essence, technical uncertainty, sustainable progress has been adopted over years and now are not applied articulately and consistently following further development of applicable regimes (Speth & Haas, 2006, pp.142). Strengths The strength is exposed in several ways with regards to smooth and effective running the proper of environmental policies. Three decades following the Stockholm conference, the policies outlined by the UN commissions have improved the highlight and concern on the general conservation and management of the environmental matters. The incorporation of the intergovernmental bodies, allied institutions and other organizations prompt clear progress of the environmental policies. The multilateral process of the UN commissions revealed through sub-sectional division of roles for the diverse countries entailed in the process. Networks have been significantly consolidated to include various corporations in the management of the environmental issues globally. The effects have been notable in terms of sound, proper and result oriented mechanism in countering the negative effects of the environment. The institutional development and establishment have been incorporated following the summit in the Rio in 1992. The inclusion of the national level environmental management process has spurred the establishment of the sound method of addressing and main challenge and environmental threats by allocation the authority on the countries entailed. The effectiveness of the national level model is conspicuously helpful in stringent management of the environmental factor globally. Inclusion of the national model is instrumental in the proper and well directed running of the environmental conservation mechanism at close range and thus it is even more effective as compared to the general running of the mechanisms. Another strength of the existing measure entailed by the UN is the extensive roles exposed under the environmental policies assessment and the subsequent informational or decisions making process concerned. The presented information regarding the general data on management of the environmental fiasco is highly commendable in the ultimate running of the environmental obligations worldwide (Lipschutz, 1996, pp.55). The recurrent provision of the data to the end user is applied by the UNEP. The contribution of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum, has been instrumental in the formation of the and generation if the proliferation of the of cogent policies aimed at eventual proper and resulted oriented mechanism towards creating sound management roles and thus augmenting the general and coherent policies. The current measures provide sound consultative and proper forums for highly scaled output. Discussion and negotiation forums have been conducted under the auspices of UNEP to enlarge global and regional ecological agreements for catalytic and responsive actions to sustain the activities of various governments and synchronize those of relevant allied organisations organizations. UNEP has backed environmental actions and policies at various levels with national and global partners, this include both governmental and non-governmental bodies. Several multilateral green conventions and associated agreements have been initiated to address sectoral environmental matters, providing an internationally accepted framework for environmental domination. Montevideo Programme initiated by UNEP for the advancement and Periodic Review of ecological Law has created the international community with a noteworthy impetus to this conclusion for the past decades thus contributing to the progress of regional seas conferences and protocols. And signed action plans worldwide in combination with global treaties overriding the shielding of the ozone layer, the running of transboundary movements of dangerous wastes, biological assortment, information swap on hazardous element in trade and unrelenting organic pollutants. Furthermore, the inclusion of the legally binding instruments, varying and numerous non-binding worldwide instruments have been created to provide norms and policies, principles, procedures, strategies and codes of demeanor to address ecological issues. A central mechanism under which international cooperation has been fostered is through the arbitration and adoption of intercontinental laws aimed at nurturing the sustainable administration of shared natural resources. Varying conventions and protocols on the surroundings represent outstanding achievements of the worldwide community in the ecological field to date. Subsequent to Rio, the development of a dissimilar international law on the admirable environment has been than remarkable. Such accords are rising, whilst the regular time taken to confer each treaty is steadily declining. The magnitude of challenges addressed has enlarged from the regional level via hemispheric to the eventual global while the whole number of sovereign States sit down to negotiate such deals has progressively burgeoned (Lipschutz, 1996, pp.78-9). Weakness While the policies adopted have shown intensive improvement in the regulation of the environmental matters, the adopted measure has presented equal segment of undesirable roles in the underlying control of the environment. Subsequent to The Malmö Ministerial Declaration which was adopted by the primary Global Ministerial Environment Forum conducted in May 2000 noted an increasing rate of worsening of the atmospheric and the natural resource pedestal, an alarming inconsistency between pledges and actions, an insufficient level of combinations of environmental deliberations into the conventional of decision-making in monetary and social expansion, and confrontations to the functioning of multilateral environmental conventions. Presently, many governments and other bodies and experts have revised the state of intercontinental environmental authority (Kotzé, 2012, pp.54). They have noted well designed problems and structural weaknesses in present international ecological governance, which are listed in an outlined summary. Present approaches to international environmental organization and sustainability are progressively felt to be insufficient. Currently, international exploit has been focused chiefly on the transboundary lobby group of toxic waste and sectoral subjects. There is a necessity to move towards a consistent and integrated administration framework that solves individual setbacks in the context of the global ecological unit. New scientific information is illustrating the close up interconnectedness of ecological issues thus calling the established "issue-by-issue" analytical approach into subject. Elevating globalization, both fiscal and social is concertedly complicating matters furthermore. The present structure of worldwide environmental organizations belongs to a dissimilar age. As we enter a new century, our approach to managing the global environment must reflect what we have learned over the past decades, and whether new and stronger arrangements and approaches are required to deal with global environmental issues. Subsequent, given the expansion of environmental schedule and the fragmented advance to international achievement, the international commune needs to munch over whether the existing global institutional machinery can meet the problems of the twenty-first century. The current machinery remains disjointed, often having vague mandates, insufficient resources and insignificant political sustenance. The essential premise for creating a new course for systematic strengthening is that eminent institutions may not adequately address existing and future needs (Kotzé, 2012, pp.89). The advancement of a many multilateral agreements on the surrounding has resulted in a very multifaceted body of rules. The institution -oriented structures that oversee international ecological agreements are patchy. Agreements are often controlled independently and thus steps should be conducted to improve their coordination and subsequent coherence. Perpetually growing number of the environmental institutions, matters and agreements are conducting stress on existing systems and the capability to manage them. The continuous increment on international bodies with environmental skills carry the risk of significantly reduced contribution by States due to inadequate capacity in the face of an augmented workload, and thus makes it necessary to establish or fortify the synergies between all the bodies. Pathetic support and speckled direction have left system inclined institutions less effective than they should as demands on their potential resources perpetuate growth. The proliferation of global demands has created particularly heavy burden on emerging countries, which are not equipped to contribute meaningfully in the growth and implementation of worldwide environmental policy (Kannan, 2012, pp.91). Outlined structures which administer production, observable trade and investment happen under inadequate attention to allay task of shielding the environment and creature life. Existing economic authority structures should make policies aimed at actively enhancing existing environmental and communal safeguards and reinforcing the ability of countrywide governments to counter to adequately address the new environmental concerns. Eminent reluctance on the segment of some organizations to cooperate with others is highly negating the roles played by the UN. Differing conventions are inwardly-looking and hence are reluctant to apportion or give away section of what they observe as their “sovereignty” (Speth & Haas, 2006, pp.142-4). Presently, insufficient attention is forwarded to the harmonization of multinational reporting, despite presence of initiative on environmental agreements entailed in UNEP for the process of streamlining of nationwide reporting focus on the entire global biodiversity-related conventions. Concentration is accorded to harmonizing reporting process under trade-related signed agreements in regions of dual interest, instance the customs and port-oriented authorities. Presence of inadequate performance, coordination, observance and enforcement at the nationwide level, environmental and output indicators for measurement of effectiveness of conformity are lacking. Financial funding for some unions is clearly deficient to address increasing demands. Inability to keep in view the abutting between "distinct phenomena" like ambience change, ozone diminution and biodiversity loss challenges can ignite at best, dissipate of effort and resources and, at worst, augmenting of the predicament that was aimed at solving in the initial case. This is typically an enhanced dexterity between dissimilar environmental bodies, structures and ascertained multilateral environmental notable agreements. Intercontinental dispute resolution mechanisms are feeble hence the potential disagreement between environmental directive and the trade command is often cited as a worry (Speth & Haas, 2006, pp.122). In summary, the international and UN conventions on or governance creates both positive and negative impacts on the environmental safeguarding mechanisms. The missions of existing arrangements consistent with the responses to the secretariats plans entail include the following: conglomerating provides opportunities for formation of synergies, predominantly within each huddle, where conventions have much in familiarity in terms of concerns to be addressed; issues of frequent interest consists of clusters for instance, capacity-building, trade, and the development of countrywide legislation that backs the implementation of protocols at the national level; vacancies exist for quicker cooperation of scientific bodies of the conformity; an increasing in subsequent arrangements which facilitate conventions to work smoothly together in an integrated manner, aiming at development of unified programmes of work in regions of universal interest. The presence of some demerits prompts critical thinking of the most satisfying option of outlining the relevant approach in reverting the current undoing factor in the environmental management. Competing for limited funds and opinionated commitment, current institutions are commonly torn between rival priorities which are determined by overlapping and nonspecific demands. There is absence of financial income for international ecological cooperation. The intellect of disillusionment on varying developing countries exhibit augmented concern on performance of Agenda 21 promises by the developed countries persists to be an obstruction on further progress. The absence financial and scientific resources to facilitate emerging countries to arrange for, partake in and execute international accords are a matter of solemn concern. Bibliography Arts, B., & Leroy, P, 2006, Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance. Dordrecht, Springer. http://Public.Eblib.Com/Eblpublic/Publicview.Do?Ptiid=303652. Aspinwall, M, 2012, Side Effects Mexican Governance Under Naftas Labor and Environmental Agreements. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press. Backstrand, K, 2010, Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. H, 2012, Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered. Cambridge, Mit Press. Enderlein, H., WäLti, S., & ZüRn, M, 2010, Handbook on Multi-Level Governance. Cheltenham, Uk, Edward Elgar. http://Public.Eblib.Com/Eblpublic/Publicview.Do?Ptiid=631211. Hempel, L. C, 1996, Environmental Governance: The Global Challenge. Washington, Dc [U.A.], Island Press. Kannan, A, 2012, Global Environmental Governance and Desertification: A Study of Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. New Delhi, Concept Pub. Co. Kotzé, L. J, 2012, Global Environmental Governance: Law and Regulation For The 21st Century. Cheltenham, U.K., Edward Elgar. Kotzé, L. J., & Paterson, A. R, 2009, The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Governance: Comparative Perspectives. Alphen Aan Den Rijn, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International. Lipschutz, R. D, 1996, Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet. Albany, State Univ. Of New York Press. Macrory, R, 2008, Regulation, Enforcement and Governance of Environmental Law. London: Cameron. OberthüR, S., & Gehring, T, 2006, Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, Mass, Mit Press. Speth, J. G., & Haas, P. M, 2006, Global Environmental Governance. Washington, Island Press. http://Site.Ebrary.Com/Id/10182344. Weale, A, 2005, Environmental Governance in Europe: An Ever Closer Ecological Union? Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More