Conceptual framework of environmental governance and sustainability;

WEEK 2 PPT READER

Actors/Institutions· International Actors/InstitutionsUnited Nations Environmental ProgrammeThe UNEP is the benchmark institution for global environmental governance, but it has only had a partial success. It has been effective in two key areas: as a monitoring and advisory body, and in developing environmental agreements. It has also contributed to strengthening the institutional capacity of environment ministries the world over.Global Environment Facility (GEF)Created in 1991, the Global Environment Facility is an independent financial organization initiated by donor governments. It was the first financial organization entirely dedicated to the environment at the global level. It has 179 members. Donations are used for projects covering biodiversity, climate change, international waters, destruction of the ozone layer, soil degradation and persistent organic pollutants.United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)Intergovernmental institution meets twice a year to assess follow-up on Rio Summit goals. The CSD is made up of 53 member states elected every three years, and was reformed in 2004 to help improve implementation of Agenda 21. It now meets twice a year, focusing on a specific theme during each two-year period: 2004-2005 was dedicated to water and 2006-2007 to climate change. The CSD has been criticized for its low impact on state environmental policies, lack of presence generally, and the absence of Agenda 21 at the state level specifically, according to a report by the World.World Environment Organization (WEO)

The increasingly globalized nature of environmental dangers has led many actors, including a number of states, to advocate the creation of a World Environment Organization within the framework of the United Nations. The organization would be capable of adapting treaties and enforcing application of international standards.World Meteorogical Organization (WMO) which works on the climate and atmosphere.Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) working on the protection of agriculture, forests and fishing;Ethiopian Actors/InstitutionsEthiopian Protection AuthorityAuthority in coordination with other sectoral ministries and agencies work on environmental matters. The authority has mandates to undertake studies and research, to develop action plans etc, in the area of urban environmental governance.Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentThe powers and duties vested in the ministry includes, among others. Conservation and utilization of forest and wildlife resources, food security programme, water harvesting etc.Ministry of Federal AffairsResponsible to promote conflict management, social and environmentalawareness.National Meteorological Services AgencyResponsible for collecting and disseminating metrological data and monitoringthe climatic change.Ethiopian Rural Energy Development and Promotion CentreThe centre play important role in designing and implementing projects thatcontributes to combat desertification and mitigating the effects of drought. Alsoplay important role in identification of appropriate alternative energy sourcesand technologies.Regional Environmental Agencies

Under Proclamation No. 295/2002, all regional states should establish their ownenvironmental organs, with responsibility to coordinate environmental mattersincluding the issue of combating desertification in their respective region.NGOs/ CBOsThere are more than 650 registered NGOs/CBOs in Ethiopia. They are engagedin environmental protection and resources management. Recently they haveestablished a network called Ethiopian NGOs/CBOs Coordination Committeefor combating desertification.Other institutions like; Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Mines and Energyand respective local governments of the towns and cities are also playing viable rolein urban environmental governance system of the country.Major Conventions and Multilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs) for Environmental GovernanceConventionsThe main conventions for global environmental governance are as follows:· Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992-1993): aims to conservebiodiversity, in other words, to protect genetic resources, ecosystems andspecies, to use biological diversity in a sustainable fashion, to share thebenefits of biological diversity fairly and equitably, especially thoughproper access to genetic resources and the transfer of appropriatetechnology and funding. The agreements linked to the convention includethe Cartagena Protocol on bio safety.

· United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) (1992-1994): aims to stabilize concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere at a levelthat would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with theclimate system, and reach this level within a time scale that allowsecosystems to adapt naturally to climate changes without threatening foodproduction, and enabling the pursuit of sustainable economicdevelopment; it incorporates the Kyoto Protocol.· United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) (1994-1996):aims to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought anddesertification in countries seriously affected by these problems,particularly in Africa, thanks to effective measures at every level.Other conventions:· Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971-1975)· UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972-1975)· Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Floraand Fauna (CITES) (1973-1975)· Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (1979-1983)· Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans boundary Watercoursesand International Lakes (Water Convention) (1992-1996)· Basel Convention on the Control of Trans boundary Movements ofHazardous Wastes and their Disposal (1989-1992)· Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedures forCertain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade· Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (COP) (2001-2004).Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)These are agreements between several countries apply internationally or

regionally, and concern a variety of environmental questions including theatmosphere, living matter, marine life, desertification, ecosystem protection,refusal of dangerous substances and marine contamination. There are currentlyover 500 Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), including 45 of globalgeographical scope with at least 72 signatory countries. Several furtheragreements cover regional environmental problems, such as deforestation etc.Each agreement has a specific mission and objectives ratified by a variablenumber of states. The MEAs represent international environmental law.The environmental governance structure defined by the Rio and JohannesburgSummits is sustained by UNEP, MEAs and a developmental organizationconsists of assessment and policy development, as well as projectimplementation at the country level. The governance structure consists of a chainof phases:· Assessment of environment status;· International policy development;· Formulation of MEAs;· Policy implementation;· Policy assessment;· Enforcement;· Sustainable development.

Roles of Stakeholders in Environmental GovernanceCritical to the effective participation are partnerships, commitment and genuineinvolvement of all Local stakeholders. Major stakeholders include the: public

sector, local authorities, private enterprises, local residents, NGOs, women, theyouth, employees, scientific community and farmers or land users. To ensure fairparticipation, all stakeholders must have enough information.· Roles of Local AuthoritiesBecause many of the urban environmental problems and solutions have theirroots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities willbe a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives urban environmentalgovernance. Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, socialand environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish localenvironmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national andsub-national environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to thepeople, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to thepublic to promote sustainable development.· Roles of WorkersWorkers are among those most affected by the changes needed to achievesustainable development. They have experience in dealing with industrialchange and can play vital role in achieving the objectives of urban environmentalgovernance. They can see the protection of the workplace and the relatedenvironment and the promotion of socially responsible development aspriorities. Governments, business and industry should foster the active andinformed participation of workers in shaping and implementing environment

and development strategies at both the national and international levels. Thesestrategies will affect employment policies, industrial strategies, labouradjustment programmes and technology transfers.· Roles of Business and IndustryResponsible entrepreneurship can play a major role in improving the efficiencyof resource use, minimizing wastes and protecting human health andenvironmental quality. Environmental management must be given the highestpriority since it is a key to moving to sustainable practices. As part of this move,business and industry need to develop techniques and technologies that reduceharmful environmental impacts. The prices of goods and services shouldincreasingly show the environmental costs of their production, use, recycling anddisposal. They should fostering openness and dialogue with employees and thepublic and are carrying out environmental audits and assessments of compliancewith environmental laws and regulations. They should also take voluntarymeasures to see that their activities have minimal impact on human health andthe environment.· Roles NGOsNon-governmental organizations play a vital role in the shaping andimplementation of participatory democracy. Independence from governmentand other sectors of society is one of their major attributes. In addition to theirindependence, non-governmental organizations have diverse and wellestablishedexpertise in fields needed to implement environmentally sound and

socially responsible sustainable development.· Roles of Scientists and TechnologistsScientists and technologists have special responsibilities to search for knowledge,and to help protect the biosphere. This group, which includes engineers,architects, industrial designers, urban planners and other professionals, shoulddevelop codes of practice and guidelines that reconcile human needs andenvironmental protection. These codes should help them to value the integrity ofthe planet’s life support systems. To be effective and credible, the principles,codes and guidelines must be recognized by society as a whole.· Roles of Indigenous PeopleIndigenous people, who represent a significant part of the world’s population,depend on renewable resources and ecosystems to maintain their well-being.Over many generations, they have evolved a holistic, traditional scientificknowledge of their land, natural resources and environment. The ability ofindigenous people to practice sustainable development on their lands has beenlimited by economic, social and historical actors.· Roles of WomenWomen have considerable knowledge and experience in managing andconserving natural resources. However, the role of women in urbanenvironmental governance has been limited by such barriers as discriminationand lack of access to schooling, land and equal employment.· Roles of YouthsYouth makes up nearly one-third of the world’s population, and they need a

voice in determining their own future. Their active role in the protection of theenvironment and involvement in decisions on environment and development iscritical to the long-term success of urban environmental governance.Challenges of Environmental GovernanceSome of the obstacles and challenges facing urban environmental governance include:At global level, numerous multilateral agreements have been signed andratified over the past 30 years, but implementing those poses a serious problemat the local, national, regional and international levels whilst environmentaldegradation continues.Lack of political will is at the root of the governance crisis. By persistentlyshowing a lack of political will for solving environmental problems and seekinginstead to develop policies in favour of the sustainable use of the earth’sresources, environmental regulations produce effects that include lack offunding, imbalance and absence of links with the economy, and the limitedapplication of Multilateral Environment Agreements.Financial resources are limited and direct investment in the environmentinsufficient. In concrete terms, although the UNEP, the main UN bodyforenvironmental issues, has obtained noteworthy results during its mandate, thelack of long-term stable financing hinders its chances of tackling new challenges.Uncoordinated methods at the global, regional and national levels, alongside

a multiplication and fragmentation of mandates, have exacerbated the situation.Environmental governance is currently characterized by a stark lack ofintegration of sector policies, inadequate institutional capacities, ill-definedpriorities and unclear operational objectives: in short, bad governance. It alsoexists in governments, the private sector and civil society. Cooperation isdifficult, since it arises only from occasional action taken by stakeholders withoutany shared vision or regulation.There is increasing recognition that environmental issues are interdependent,not only with development and sustainable economic growth, but also withtrade, agriculture, health, peace and security. Despite this fact, there is nopermanent cooperation with stakeholders managing these questions.The lack of political will and other economic development priorities hasprevented the environmental question being incorporated into the key domain ofthe macro economy, whilst market forces continue to generate errors anddistortions that speed up environmental degradation and make it difficult toapply environmental decisions.The obligations undertaken as part of MEAs on the national level are usuallydifficult to comply with due to the lack of capacity. Many governments feeloverwhelmed by the proliferation of standards involved in presenting reports,leaks made by technical experts and the multiplication of international meetings.

Gender perspective and the interests of equity are not included in themanagement of environmental degradation.Despite the reasonable popularity of certain issues related to theenvironmental crisis, there is no real impact on public opinion in terms ofenvironmental governance organization or decision-making.

DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCEFor the purposes of this review, environmental governance is synonymous withinterventions aiming at changes in environment-related incentives, knowledge,institutions, decision making, and behaviors. More specifically, we use “environmentalgovernance” to refer to the set of regulatory processes, mechanisms andorganizations through which political actors influence environmental actions andoutcomes. Governance is not the same as government. It includes the actions ofthe state and, in addition, encompasses actors such as communities, businesses,and NGOs. Key to different forms of environmental governance are the politicaleconomicrelationships that institutions embody and how these relationships shapeidentities, actions, and outcomes (4–6). International accords, national policiesand legislation, local decision-making structures, transnational institutions, andenvironmental NGOs are all examples of the forms through which environmental governance takes place. Because governance can be shaped through nonorganizationalinstitutional mechanisms as well (for example, when it is based on marketincentives and self-regulatory processes), there is no escaping it for anyone concerned

about environmental outcomes. Environmental governance is varied inform, critical in importance, and near ubiquitous in spread.

To investigate emerging trends in environmental governance in a way that isboth sufficiently general for a review and reflects ongoing changes in the world ofgovernance, we focus on four themes around which some of the most interestingwritings on environmental governance cluster. The ensuing discussion first reviewsthe scholarship on globalization, decentralized environmental governance, marketandindividual-focused instruments (MAFIs), and governance across scales to uncoverhowthe conventional roles and capacities of important actors and institutionsare getting reconfigured. This discussion leads us to a framework through whichapproaches to environmental governance and the terrain of environmental governancecan usefully be explored.We apply insights from this framework to two setsof consequential environmental problems: global climate change and ecosystemdegradation. We identify important limitations of hybrid forms of environmentalgovernance and conclude with a discussion of some of the implications of ongoingdevelopments related to environmental governance. THEMES IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCEThe four themes upon which we focus below—globalization, decentralized environmentalgovernance, market- and individual-focused instruments, and governance

across scales—are among the most important emerging trends that areshaping environmental governance. They are generating pressures for innovativeways to address environmental and natural resource crises and challenging existingforms of governance. They are emblematic of the possibilities present in effortsto engage seriously with environmental problems, and their shortcomings are areason to be concerned about the extent to which environmental actors have thecapacity to deal with worsening environmental dilemmas. Although we treat eachof these themes distinctly below, it goes without saying that there are close, perhapseven causal, connections among them, even if a review permits only speculationabout how they may be related

THE TERRAIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCEThe elaboration above of environmental governance-related changes and challengesinvolving four different themes shows that there are intriguing parallelsacross them despite the many (and expected) differences in how governance isbecoming reconfigured as a result of globalization and decentralization. It alsoshows the increasing importance of cross-scale governance, market instruments,and individual incentives. Perhaps the most obvious of these parallels relates to theemergence of alternative institutional forms of governance. Some of the new formsof governance are innovative hybrids between the conventionally recognized social

roles that markets, states, and, more recently, communities play. Others are theresult of a clearer appreciation that the effectiveness of whatwas conventionally understoodas a pure form of governance based in the market or the state may be the resultof existing relationships among market, state, and civil society actors. Figure 1presents a schematic structure to classify strategies of environmental governanceas they are founded upon the actions of three different social mechanisms.

Figure 1 Mechanisms and strategies of environmental governance. Abbreviation:CBNRM, community-based natural resource management.

The triangle connecting state, market, and community constitutes the core of thefigure. The emphasis in the figure on these social mechanisms is a reflection of earlyconversations related to the environment that viewed environmental governancestrategies as being especially necessary to address the externalities stemming fromthe public goods nature of environmental resources and processes. To overcomethese externalities, some writers saw state action as necessary; others, surmisingthat externalities could lead to market failure, advocated clearer definition of propertyrights to allow functioning markets to emerge (43, 105). Arguments advancedby scholars of the commons engaged these policy prescriptions and identified communities

as a third potential locus of environmental governance (51). These efforts,championing state-, market-, and community-based governance strategies, werebuilt around perceived strengths of the particular social arena or mechanism beingconsidered: the capacity for action across jurisdictions backed by state authority;the mobilization of basic human incentives through market exchanges; and thedeployment of solidaristic relationships and time- and place-specific knowledgeembodied in communities (107).In the past decade and a half, however, an exciting array of research hasidentified opportunities for more nuanced arguments regarding hybrid forms of collaborations across the dividing lines represented by markets, states, and communities.The three major forms we identify in Figure 1—comanagement (betweenstate agencies and communities), public-private partnerships (between state agenciesand market actors), and private-social partnerships (between market actorsand communities)—each incorporate joint action across at least two of the socialmechanisms/arenas in the core triangle and correspond to scores if not hundredsof specific experiments in which constituent social actors find differing levels ofemphasis. They simultaneously illustrate the dynamic and fast-changing nature ofcontemporary environmental governance. The emergence of these hybrid formsof environmental governance is based upon the recognition that no single agent

possesses the capabilities to address the multiple facets, interdependencies, andscales of environmental problems that may appear at first blush to be quite simple.The hope embodied in hybrid forms of environmental governance is evident ineach case. They seek simultaneously to address the weaknesses of a particular socialagent and to build upon the strength of the other partner. Thus, the involvementof market actors in environmental collaboration is typically aimed at addressing theinefficiencies of state action, often by injecting competitive pressures in the provisionof environmental services. In the same vein, market actors are also viewedas enabling greater profitability in the utilization of environmental resources. Theaddition of community and local voices to environmental governance is seen asproviding the benefit of time- and place-specific information that may help solvecomplex environmental problems and, at the same time, allow a more equitableallocation of benefits from environmental assets. Higher levels of participation bydifferent stakeholders and the blessings of state authorities can help overcome thedemocratic deficit and lack of legitimacy often associated with market-focused instruments.Moreover, state actors, ostensibly, create the possibility that fragmentedsocial action by decentralized communities and market actors can be made morecoherent and simultaneously more authoritative.

Asecond obvious parallel across the discussion of the different themes related toenvironmental governance is that within hybrid strategies one can discern a mobilizationof individual incentives that had initially been the core of market-orientedinstruments and is now becoming increasingly common. Thus, contemporary cogovernancestrategies, in contrast to their historic counterparts, focus on how theindividual subject will respond to efforts at governance. Through such a calculationof individual responses, decentralized environmental governance aims to elicitthe willing cooperation of those subject to the goals of governance (6, 108). Theemphasis on willing cooperation has even prompted some scholars of incentivebasedgovernance strategies to term them “governance without government” (109,p. 652).In view of the extent to which an appeal to individual self-interest is a partof new environmental governance strategies, it is reasonable to conclude that apervasive attempt to restructure agent-level incentives and attitudes toward theenvironment underpins governance instruments related to civil society-based solidarities,market-based policies, and voluntary compliance mechanisms (110, 111).Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2006.31:297-325. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.orgby University of Michigan on 08/09/07. For personal use only.312 LEMOS _ AGRAWAL

The same is true for public-private and social-private partnerships, each of which isenabled by a level of valorization of corporate entities and market actors thatwouldhave been quite unimaginable in the 1970s (112–114). Here, the logic of efficiency,which is the hallmark of capitalist organization of production, is also coming tocolonize the goal of environmental conservation and sustainable development.

Institutional design of governance solutionsThe key argument of this section is that the institutional design ofgovernance solutions can be understood to have three core aspects:1) . functional and structural tiers; 2) governance functions and their organization, and 3) formulation of key institutionalrules. The configuration of these aspects of institutional designfor a governance solution has significant implications forgovernance outcomes such as the range, magnitude anddistribution of benefit streams, as well as for the distribution ofcosts of provision.5.1. Functional and structural tiers of institutions;

Governance institutions have three functional tiers. Forexample, Kiser and Ostrom (1980: 208–215) and Ciriacy-Wantrup (1971: 44–46) discuss the “three worlds of action”and the “three-level hierarchy of decision-systems”. Thefunctional tiers are governed by corresponding rules. At the“operational level”, individuals make choices within theconstraints of “operational” rules which define their choicesets. A decision to catch fish within the constraints set forth byregulations regarding approved gear or catch is an example. Atthe “collective choice” level, authorized actors make collectivechoices such as what constitutes acceptable gear or catch.These decisions are based on “institutional” rules. Finally,

decisions regarding the authority of collective actors and theprocedures they are supposed to follow form the “constitutional”level of action. Accordingly, these decisions aregoverned by “constitutional rules”.Operational, institutional and constitutional levels refer toinstitutional functions rather than to the vertical structure ofgovernance solutions. Some governance solutions such ascustomary common property arrangements exhibit all threefunctional levels while being frequently based on single-levelor uniplanar institutions. However, today many governancesolutions have both the three functional levels and a multilevelstructure. For example, the U.S. Clean Water Act directlyestablishesmany rules of water use, but it also provides for theestablishment of state-administered permit programs underwhich permit conditions are set for individual polluters.Constitutional, institutional and operational levels exist bothat the federal and state levels of governing water quality.Multi-level governance solutions may emerge because anupper level of governance is established to coordinatebetween lower-level solutions, or because lower levels ofgovernance are established to implement higher-level strategies.There are instances where federations and over-archinginstitutions have been created through bottom-up processesto coordinate the functioning of local governance solutions(Ostrom, 1990; Sengupta, 2004). The opposite, top–downprocess creates many formal multi-level governance solutions.Many federal environmental and natural resourcepolicies provide for or mandate the establishment of stateprograms in the United States. Many European Union'sdirectives also require both national legislation and localsolutions (Paavola, 2004b). The United Nations FrameworkConvention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) similarly requiresnational actions, programs or solutions for the purposes ofplanning, coordination and implementation (Paavola, 2005).The bottom up and top down processes often generate

nested institutional structures where the governance solutionswith a smaller jurisdiction are nested within largerjurisdictionsolutions. But this is not all that there is to multilevelgovernance solutions. As will be explained in greater detail in the next sub-section, all governance solutionsperform certain generic governance functions such as exclusionand provisioning. Multi-level governance solutions mayemerge to realise economies of scale or scope in theimplementation of these governance functions (Le Quesne,2005). That is, governance functions may be implemented atdifferent levels of governance and the different levels ofgovernance may be functionally complementary, instead ofjust being nested. But this is not to say that multi-levelgovernance solutions are tightly focused on their goals. Thereare always “degrees of freedom” between the levels ofgovernance in multi-level solutions, because at each levelthe surrounding institutional framework partly determineswhat the effective rules are.5.2. Governance functionsWhen discussing common property arrangements, Schlagerand Ostrom (1992) distinguish between “ownership functions”and “management functions” (see also McCay, 1996). I suggestthat a more detailed and analytically highly useful typology ofgovernance functions can be distilled from the lists ofcommon features of successful governance solutions presentedfor example by Ostrom (1990: 88–102) and Agrawal(2002). On the basis of these lists, generic environmentalgovernance functions include:1) exclusion of unauthorized users;2) regulation of authorized resource uses and distribution oftheir benefits;3) provisioning and the recovery of its costs;4) monitoring;5) enforcement;6) conflict resolution;

7) collective choice.Different governance solutions organize these governancefunctions differently. In a small, customary common propertyregime, resource users are often members of a communitysuch as a village or a fishermen's association which makes,enforces and adjudicates the rules of resource use. Thecommunity performs all governmental functions withoutseparation of powers and the resource users can participatedirectly in environmental decision-making affecting them.Resource users may themselves perform some governancefunctions such as monitoring of compliance with the rules ofexclusion and authorized resource use. Alternatively, posts of“officials” can be created for the purpose.Formal national policies entail deeper division of labor betweengovernmental organizations and multi-level solutionsmay organize different functions at different levels. Generalpurposelegislaturesmake some of the collective choices at thelocal, state or federal levels while delegating others to be madein specialized agencieswhichmay involve interested and affectedparties directly and/or through representation. Specializedagencies also frequently monitor and enforce rules whileconflict resolution can be split between these agencies andgeneral-purpose courts. Most contemporary environmental policiesalso require the resource users to practice self-monitoringand reporting. International environmental conventions are “constitutions” for special-purpose jurisdictions which havetheir own decision-making, monitoring and implementationbodies and designated conflict resolution processes. It isimportant to appreciate that the complexity of formal governancesolutions, and the associated division of labor anddecision-making authority, are not obstacles for effectivegovernance of environmental resources: they create a systemof checks and balances which disperses power, creates transparencyand accountability, and fosters democracy in environmentalmatters (see e.g. Hukkinen, 1999: 147–166).

Governance solutions thus perform broadly similar functionsbut organize them in different ways which have theirparticular transaction cost implications. The nature and scaleof the governance problem, the institutional design ofgovernance solutions, and its transaction cost implicationsinfluence the choice and performance of governance solutions(Paavola and Adger, 2005). For example, community-basedsolutions can work when the scale of the governance problemis limited and homogeneity and social capital reduce transactioncosts and foster collective action among the involvedactors. Co-management solutions may work when extra-localfunding or transfers are involved but implementation dependson local knowledge and collective action. State-based solutionsrequire state capacity, social capital and rule of law to beeffective. When governance functions such as collectivechoice or provisioning are best organized at different spatiallevels, multi-level solutions emerge.5.3. Institutional rulesInstitutional analysis should also examine central institutionalrules of the above discussed generic governance functions,because their formulation has implications for transactioncosts and distributive, procedural and governance outcomes. Iwill discuss below those rules that provide for the exclusion ofunauthorized users from the resource, create entitlements toand regulate authorized resource use, provide for monitoringof resource use and structure participation and decisionmakingin environmental governance.Rules of exclusion influence (together with the attributes ofthe resource in question) how effectively unauthorized userscan be excluded. For example, early state water pollutioncontrol programs in the United States often prohibited “thecreation of public nuisances” or “harmful pollution of water”(Paavola, 2004a). The purpose of these rules was to excludecertain uses and users from watercourses. However, it wasdifficult to monitor compliance with and to enforce these

kinds of rules — it required expensive litigation to find outwhether a public nuisance had been created. Frequently thiskind of exclusion rules resulted in lax (if any) enforcement. Incontrast, contemporary water and air pollution policiestypically contain a blanket prohibition of unlicensed dischargeswhich provides a better basis for the exclusion of unauthorizedusers and for the regulation authorized use.Entitlement rules are key rules in governance solutions,because their formulation has significant implications forenvironmental outcomes and the distribution of benefits ofresource use. For example, riparian law – which establishescommonrights of riparians to the use of water in a watercourseabutted by their land – underwent several changes in the 19th century United States (Paavola, 2002b; Rose, 1994). Early in the19th century, the doctrine of natural flow entitled riparians toundiminished quantity and quality of water. Industrializationput pressure on the use of water resources in the followingdecades. The adoption of the rule of reasonable use in the late1820smadeit possible for water users to change the quantity orquality of water somewhat without legal liability for damages.In the mid-19th century, the rule of reasonable use wastransformed into a balancing test, which confirmed the morevaluable water use as the reasonable one and extinguished lessvaluable rights without compensation. This was a part of whatMorton Horwitz (1977) has called the capital subsidy to thenascent industry in the 19th century United States.Monitoring rules determine what is being monitored and bywhom. For example, in the 19th century United States,common law of water rights required water users to monitoreach others' water use and to actively seek the protection oftheir own interests when they were harmed. This was firstrelatively straightforward as most discharges contained solidsthat caused obvious damages such as the clogging of waterwheelsof downstream mills (see Paavola, 2002b). Waterpollution that endangered public health was not as obvious

to the naked eye, which brought about water qualitymonitoring by government agencies. Today monitoring ofcompliance with the U.S. federal water pollution controllegislation consists of a complex mix of state and federalinspections and water quality monitoring as well as selfmonitoringand reporting by the polluters (e.g. Magat et al.,1986).Decision-making rules determine whose interests are recognizedand who can participate in environmental decisions,and what are the rules and procedures that have to beobserved when making decisions. These rules largely determinethe procedural justice implications of governancesolutions. Decision rules influence distributive outcomes aswell. For example, the governance of water quality under thecommon law in the 19th century United States was organizedso that decisions were made in the courts as a result of privatelitigation (see Paavola, 2002b). This granted participation indecision-making according to the ability and willingness ofplaintiffs and defendants to pay for litigation. This was theprimary reason for the gradual relaxation of rules of water usediscussed above. Decision rules have important implicationsfor the contemporary environmental governance solutions aswell. For example, the implementation, effectiveness andlegitimacy of the European Union's Habitats Directive sufferedwhen stakeholder groups angered by the lack of opportunityto participate and to voice their concerns over the designationof habitat preservation sites staged protests across themember states (Paavola, 2004b).To conclude, the formulation of key institutional rules hasimplications for transaction costs and distributive and proceduraljustice and influences the performance and legitimacyof governance solutions. Judgments regarding the implicationsof institutional rules require simultaneous considerationof the governance problem and its context because theyfundamentally shape the governance challenges (Adger et al.,

2003): institutional designs are just one variable which canaffect the governance outcomes. In practice, institutionalanalysis has to analyze and compare the implications of alternative rule formulations and institutional designs thatcould be or could have been applied to the governanceproblem at hand.

Environmental Sustainability;

a definition of “environmental sustainabilityas the maintenance of natural capital” and as aconcept apart from, but connected to, both socialsustainability and economic sustainability. While the concept of sustainability is increasinglydiscredited as a useful concept by itself, it appearsto be serving some purpose when precededby a delineating modifier like “ecological” or“agricultural” or “economic.” Efforts have beenmade by members of various professions to givemeaning to the term within the context of thoserespective professions. Callicott and Mumford, forexample, develop the meaning of the term “ecologicalsustainability” as a useful concept for conservationbiologists; In “Ecological Sustainability as aConservation Concept,” these authors advance anecological definition of sustainability that connectshuman needs and ecosystem services: “meetinghuman needs without compromising the healthof ecosystems.” They propose this concept as aguiding principle for areas where human activitiestake place.In “Economic Sustainability and thePreservation of Environmental Assets,” Foyexplains that from an economic standpoint,sustainability requires that current economic activity

not disproportionately burden future generations.Economists will allocate environmental assetsas only part of the value of natural and manmadecapital, and their preservation becomes a functionof an overall financial analysis. In contrast, theecologist will seek to preserve minimum levelsof environmental assets in physical terms. Hesuggests that since an ecological approach willbetter characterize the present situation, it shouldserve to limit conventional economic reasoningto ensure sustainability. Economic sustainabilityshould involve analysis to minimize the social costsof meeting standards for protecting environmentalassets but not for determining what those standardsshould be.In “Social Sustainability: towards somedefinitions,” McKenzie identifies several attempts todefine social sustainability and concludes it generallyto be, “a positive condition within communities, anda process within communities that can achieve thatcondition.” This definition is supplemented with alist of corresponding principles, including:• equity of access to key services• equity between generations• a system of relations valuing disparatecultures• political participation of citizens,particularly at a local level• a sense of community ownership• a system for transmitting awarenessof social sustainability from one_______________• mechanisms for a community to fulfill itsown needs where possible• political advocacy to meet needs that

cannot be met by community actionOthers attempt to capture its use for thoseworking in agriculture (Harwood) or in thevarious functional units of business organizations(Morelli et al., “Sustainable Consumption”)Not surprisingly, environmental managers haveidentified “environmental sustainability” as aconcept that has a professional meaning for them,”(Morelli and Lockwood).There is ample evidence in the literatureby Chan, Ionescu-Somers, Rothenberg, and othersindicating that above and beyond all other pursuits,achieving regulatory compliance is the primaryand principal role of the environmental managerin industry. Markusson enriches the related bodyof knowledge by exploring the characteristic of“environmental championing,” defined as “any effortmade by an (individual or collective) actor in a firmto promote environmental issues.” However, untilfairly recently, there had been little that discussed the professional goal of the environmental manageras an independent and commonly held meaning ofthe profession itself.In 2009 Butler concluded that a commonprofessional goal for environmental managersdoes exist separate from, though related to, that ofthe industries that employ them, and he tentativelyidentified that goal as “ecological balance.” Hisefforts were unique in that they were supportedby a collaborative international research program,established at Rochester Institute of Technology,called the Environmental Management LeadershipInitiative (EMLI), which was created specifically“to define and develop the evolving role of theprofessional environmental manager in moving our

social economic systems toward a more sustainablefuture,” (“Statement of Purpose”).The author supported and has continuedthis work during the past four years toward furtherrefining this goal and vetting the evolving resultsthrough presentations and corresponding workshopsat a series of EMLI symposia hosted by CorvinusUniversity in Budapest, Hungary; AmericanCollege of Management and Technology inDubrovnik, Croatia; Bocconi University in Milan,Italy; Leuphana University in Luneburg, Germany;and Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester,New York in the US. The outcome of this processwas a determination of strong support by membersof the profession for establishing “environmentalsustainability” as the professional goal of theenvironmental manager.

A CASE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYWhether one considers sustainability to exist as athree-legged table consisting of the environment, theeconomy, and society, or as a dualistic relationshipbetween human beings and the ecosystem they inhabit, there should at least be agreement thatensuring the provision of clean air, clean water,and clean and productive land is foundational to aresponsible socioeconomic system. Examining, for amoment, the three-legged model, the question mightbe raised, Do these legs provide equal support oris there some associated hierarchy of values amongthem? It is apparent that, without a sustainablyproductive environment to provide a resourcefoundation, it would be difficult or impossible toimagine having a sustainable society. Similarly, asustainable economy depends upon a sustainable

flow of material, energy, and environmentalresources. Without it, economic systems will fail.However, a sustainable environment need not bedependent on the existence of either society oreconomy and, as evidenced in the wild, can standalone as a sustainable system. As the only piece ofthe puzzle that can actually stand by itself, it shouldbe the model to emulate, and indeed there have beenattempts to do so.“The human species, while buffered againstenvironmental changes by culture and technology, isfundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosystemservices.” Such services include:• Provisioning services, the productsobtained from ecosystems, including food,fiber, genetic resources, biochemicals,natural medicines, pharmaceuticals,ornamental resources, fresh water, and allforms of energy resources;• Regulating services, the benefits obtainedfrom the regulation of ecosystemprocesses, including air quality regulation,water purification and waste treatment,pest regulation, disease regulation, climateregulation, water regulation, erosionregulation, pollination, and natural hazardregulation;• Supporting services, including soilformation, photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling and dispersal,seed dispersal, and water cycling; and• Cultural services, the nonmaterialbenefits people obtain from ecosystemsthrough spiritual enrichment, cognitivedevelopment, reflection, recreation, and

aesthetic experiences (“Ecosystems andHuman Well-Being”).If it can be agreed that a sustainable environmentis a necessary prerequisite to a sustainable socioeconomicsystem, then it also should make sense thatthe actions we take to remove threats to and fosterenvironmental sustainability should contributeto such a system. While ecosystems range “fromthose that are relatively undisturbed, such asnatural forests, to landscapes with mixed patternsof human use, to ecosystems intensively managedand modified by humans, such as agriculturalland and urban areas,” the “environmental” focusproposed here delineates the portion of that rangewhere there exists significant patterns of human use(“Ecosystems and Human Well-Being”). A generaldefinition of “environmental sustainability” cannow be crafted in recognition of these linkagesbetween human well-being and ecosystems and, inparticular, “ecosystem services.”A DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYUnderstanding and use of the word “environmental”quite often tends to be associated with some kindof human impact on natural systems. This contextdistinguishes it from the word “ecological,” whichcan be characterized as a concept of interdependenceof elements within a system. As discussed abovein the essay, “Ecological Sustainability as aConservation Concept,” the authors suggest that anecological definition of sustainability be advanced that is in better accord with biological conservation.Their suggestion was that ecological sustainabilityis “meeting human needs without compromising thehealth of ecosystems.” This seems inappropriate inthat the general perception of the word “ecological”

is that it implies a broader context than just the humanexperience. The word “environmental,” however, isalmost always used in reference to human interactionwith the ecosystem. To increase precision, it thusseems reasonable to view “environmental” as asubset of the broader concept of “ecological,” i.e.,the intersection of human activities and ecologicalsystems.Understanding and use of the word“sustainable” or “sustainability” endured a periodof accelerated evolution commencing in 1987 withthe publication of Our Common Future, which wasthen followed by a more recent decline in coherencyto become an often-abused term simply meaning“good” and sometimes used even without aconnection to the natural environment or ecologicalhealth (Kiss). As discussed above, meanings forthis concept of sustainability have been evolving asindividual professions have attempted to developdefinitions that make sense in the context of theirrespective areas of expertise and contribution.The basic understanding of the term“environmental sustainability” set forth in thispaper essentially expands our common perceptionof human activity so as to more clearly connect itwith the ecological concept of interdependence,thus delineating the boundaries of this use of“sustainability” to correspond to the overlayof human activity upon the functioning of thesupporting ecosystem. Environmental sustainability,then, is limited to and, in fact, becomes a subset ofecological sustainability. Broadly speaking, thisconcept of “environmental sustainability” might beseen as adding depth to a portion of the meaningof the most common definition of sustainable

development, i.e., “meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their needs,” by takingon the general definition “meeting the resource andservices needs of current and future generationswithout compromising the health of the ecosystemsthat provide them,” (“Our Common Future”).More specifically, environmental sustainabilitycould be defined as a condition of balance, resilience,and interconnectedness that allows human society tosatisfy its needs while neither exceeding the capacityof its supporting ecosystems to continue to regeneratethe services necessary to meet those needs nor by ouractions diminishing biological diversity.

SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY;The primary purpose for this effort to developa definition of environmental sustainability wasto help environmental professionals and othersoperationalize a portion of the concept sustainabledevelopment as set forth in Our Common Future.The general understanding and conditions proposedin the preceding section do provide more clarity ofpurpose and direction but do not include instructionsfor serving that purpose or following that direction.The list below contains 15 guiding principles,collected from a variety sources by the author andhis students and colleagues. They are sorted intofive imperfect but helpful categories. They areincluded to stimulate thought as well as provideadvice. Readers are encouraged to visit the originalsources for greater depth and perspective.Societal Needs• Produce nothing that will require future

generations to maintain vigilance(“Sustainability Report”).• Design and deliver products and servicesthat contribute to a more sustainable economy (“MoffatSupport local employment (SouthamptonCity Concil)• Support fair trade (Williams).• Review the environmental attributes ofraw materials and make environmentalsustainability a key requirement in theselection of ingredients for new productsand services (“Global SustainabilityPrinciples ”).Preservation of Biodiversity• Select raw materials that maintainbiodiversity of natural resources (“GlobalSustainability Principles”).• Use environmentally responsible andsustainable energy sources and invest inimproving energy efficiency (“GlobalSustainability Principles”).Regenerative Capacity• Keep harvest rates of renewable resourceinputs within regenerative capacities ofthe natural system that generates them(Goodland).• Keep depletion rates of nonrenewableresource inputs below the rate at whichrenewable substitutes are developed(Goodland).Reuse and Recycle• Design for re-usability and recyclability(“Sustainable Living 101”).• Design (or redesign, as appropriate)manufacturing and business processes as

closed-loop systems, reducing emissionsand waste to zero (Robinson).Constraints of Nonrenewable Resources and WasteGeneration• The scale (population x consumption per capita x technology) of the humaneconomic subsystem should be limitedto a level that, if not optimal, is at leastwithin the carrying capacity and thereforesustainable (Goodland).• Keep waste emissions within theassimilative capacity of receivingecosystems without unacceptabledegradation of its future waste absorptivecapacity or other important ecologicalservices (Goodland).• Develop transportation criteria thatprioritize low-impact transportation modes(Moffat).• Approach all product development andproduct management decisions with fullconsideration of the environmental impactsof the product throughout its life cycle(Moffat).

The Idea of Sustainable DevelopmentAt the start of the twenty-first century, the problem of global sustainability iswidely recognised by world leaders, and a common topic of discussion byjournalists, scientists, teachers, students and citizens in many parts of the

world. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, 2002)confirmed that the first decade of the new century, at least, would be one ofreflection about the demands placed by humankind on the biosphere.The idea of sustainability dates back more than 30 years, to the new mandateadopted by IUCN in 19693. It was a key theme of the United NationsConference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 19724. The conceptwas coined explicitly to suggest that it was possible to achieve economicgrowth and industrialization without environmental damage. In the ensuingdecades, mainstream sustainable development thinking was progressivelydeveloped through the World Conservation Strategy (1980)5, the BrundtlandReport (1987)6, and the United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment in Rio (1992), as well as in national government planning andwider engagement from business leaders and non-governmentalorganisations of all kinds.Over these decades, the definition of sustainable development evolved. TheBrundtland Report defined sustainable as ‘development that meets the needsof the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’6. This definition was vague7, but it cleverly captured twofundamental issues, the problem of the environmental degradation that socommonly accompanies economic growth, and yet the need for such growthto alleviate poverty.The core of mainstream sustainability thinking has become the idea of three

dimensions, environmental, social and economic sustainability. These havebeen drawn in a variety of ways, as ‘pillars’, as concentric circles, or asinterlocking circles (Figure 1). The IUCN Programme 2005-8, adopted in2005, used the interlocking circles model to demonstrate that the threeobjectives need to be better integrated, with action to redress the balancebetween dimensions of sustainability (Figure 1 c).Figure 1. Three Visual Representations of Sustainable Development: Pillars, Circles, Interlocking Circles;

A. PillarsB. Concentric irclesC. Overlapping Circles

Governments, communities and businesses have all responded to thechallenge of sustainability to some extent.Almost every national government in the United Nations now has a ministerand a department tasked with policy on the environment, and many regionaland local governments have also developed this capacity. Since 1992 thevolume and quality of environmental legislation (international, national andlocal) has expanded hugely, and international agreements (such as the Kyotoprotocol) have not only raised the profile of environmental change but alsobegun to drive global policy change.Public awareness of environmental and social issues in development are inmany cases now well developed. Citizens in almost all countries not only know the issues, but tend to feel that the quality of the environment isimportant both to their own wellbeing and to the common good.

The ‘greening’ of business has grown to be a central issue in corporate socialresponsibility for many global companies, although for many it is still aboutique concern within wider relationship management, rather thansomething that drives structural change in the nature or scale of corebusiness.There is a profound paradox here. On the one hand, the twenty-first centuryis widely heralded as the era of sustainability, with a rainbow alliance ofgovernment, civil society and business devising novel strategies for increasinghuman welfare within planetary limits. On the other hand, the evidence is thatthe global human enterprise rapidly becoming less sustainable and not more.Much has been achieved - but is it enough? Are global trends towardssustainability or away from it? Have the concepts of sustainability and

sustainable development offered a coherent basis for change.Critiques of Sustainable Development

Is it clear what sustainable developments means?The phrase sustainable development covers a complex range of ideas andmeanings8. Our Common Future located environmental issues within aneconomic and political frame, moving sustainability to the core of internationaldevelopment debate. Rio emphasised global environmental change, and theproblems of biodiversity and resource depletion and climate change. TheWorld Summit on Sustainable Development returned poverty to the top of theagenda, reflecting the Millennium Development Goals agreed at the UnitedNations Millennium Summit in September 20009. Sustainability was one ofeight Goals, associated with 18 targets and 48 indicators intended to be

yardsticks for measuring improvements in people's lives10.Analysts agree that one reason for the widespread acceptance of the idea ofsustainable development is precisely this looseness. It can be used to coververy divergent ideas11. Environmentalists, governments, economic andpolitical planners and business people use ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainabledevelopment’ to express sometimes very diverse visions of how economy andenvironment should be managed. The Brundtland definition was neat butinexact. The concept is holistic, attractive, elastic but imprecise. The idea ofsustainable development may bring people together but it does notnecessarily help them to agree goals. In implying everything sustainabledevelopment arguably ends up meaning nothing.2.2 The problem of trade-offsThe conventional understanding of sustainable development, based on the‘three pillars’ model is flawed because it implies that trade-offs can always bemade between environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability. In response to this, a distinction is often drawn between‘strong’ sustainability (where such trade-offs are not allowed or are restricted)and ‘weak’ sustainability (where they are permissible). The concept of ‘criticalnatural capital’ is also used to describe elements of the biosphere that cannotbe traded off (e.g. critical ecosystems or species). However, in practice,development decisions by governments, businesses and other actors do allowtrade-offs and put greatest emphasis on the economy above other dimensionsof sustainability. This is a major reason why the environment continues to be

degraded and development does not achieve desirable equity goals.The three ‘pillars’ cannot be treated as if equivalent. First, the economy is aninstitution that emerges from society: these are in many ways the same, theone a mechanism or set of rules created by society to mediate the exchangeof economic goods or value. The environment is different, since it is notcreated by society. Thinking about trade-offs rarely acknowledges this.Second, the environment underpins both society and economy. Theresources available on earth and the solar system effectively present a finitelimit on human activity. Effective limits are often much more specific andframing, in that the capacity of the biosphere to absorb pollutants, provideresources and services is clearly limited in space and time. In many areas(e.g. warm shallow coastal waters adjacent to industrialised regions) thatcapacity is close to its limits.2.3 The Problem of MetricsThere is no agreed way of defining the extent to which sustainability is beingachieved in any policy programme. Sustainability and sustainabledevelopment are effectively ethical concepts, expressing desirable outcomesfrom economic and social decisions. The term ‘sustainable’ is thereforeapplied loosely to policies to express this aspiration, or to imply that the policychoice is ‘greener than it might otherwise be (e.g. the idea of a ‘sustainableroad building programme’). Everywhere the rhetoric of sustainabledevelopment is ignored in practical decisions. Often sustainable developmentends up being development as usual, with a brief embarrassed genuflection

towards the desirability of sustainability. The important matter of principletherefore becomes a victim of the desire to set targets and measure progress.3. Is There a Problem with the State of the World?The issue of environmental limits to the human project on earth was broughtto international attention in the early 1970s, particularly by the Club of Rome’sprecocious computer modelling in Limits to Growth12. The WorldConservation Strategy, published in 1980, offered the first coherent a analysisof environmental sustainability. It emphasised the need to maintain essentialecological processes and life support systems, to preserve genetic diversity,

and to ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems.In 2005, exactly a quarter of a century later, the findings of the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment offered a stark commentary on the state of the earthand the sustainability of humankind’s management (See Box)The significance and scale of the global human footprint is not in doubt.Consumption of living resources as raw material and sinks for waste materialsis high and growing13. In 1997, Peter Vitousek and colleagues noted inScience that the rate and scale of change in the biosphere as well as thekinds and combinations of change were fundamentally different from those atany other time in planetary history14. The results of these transformations arealmost universally negative in their impacts on the biosphere. In 1992,Edward Wilson noted that human activities have increased 'background'extinction rates by between 100 and 10,000 times. 'We are’, he said, ‘in the

midst of one of the great extinction spasms of geological history'.15The message is no better on poverty. The Millennium Assessment makesquite clear that not only does the level of poverty remain high, but inequality is

growing (Box 2).

WEEK3 ; Governance & environmental: inter linkages;