Better Global Environmental Governance

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Hilary French: Director of the Global Governance Project and Senior Researcher

March 8, 2002 - 1:00pm EDT

This week's guest will be Hilary French, Director of the Global Governance Project and author of Chapter 8, "Reshaping Global Governance." The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 resulted in several major developments in international governance, including new treaties on climate change and biological diversity, the creation of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, and sections of Agenda 21 dedicated to broader questions of institutional reform, financing, and public participation. But only a few years later, the World Trade Organization was created, based on a very different vision of the future direction of the global economy. Hilary will take your questions on the effectiveness of the Rio governance reforms in reversing ecological decline. And she will lay out her ideas about how the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg later this year can be used to jumpstart initiatives that will make global governance for sustainable development more effective.

Dick Bell, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to this week's online discussion with Hilary French, author of "Rethinking Global Governance," chapter 8 in State of the World 2002. Hilary is very involved in the planning for the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development, starting in August in Johannesburg. Thanks for joining us today, Hilary.

Hilary French: Thanks, Dick. I look forward to our discussion.

Califonia: Should endangered species and habitats (such as rainforests and coral reefs) be protected at any cost? What is the economic value of biodiversity?

Hilary French: Evidence is accumulating that over the long term it is generally more costly not to protect endangered species and habitats than to protect them, when the value of intact ecological systems is taken fully into account. The value of ecological services includes things like water filtration and climate protection. When fully tallied, these services turn out to be worth trillions of dollars worldwide. So, as the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development approaches, one important question is how we can take advantage of this opportunity to make the 1992 U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity more effective in protecting threatened ecological systems worldwide.

Berlin, Germany: Dear Hilary, We are increasingly hearing calls for the creation of a World Environment Organization. These calls seem to arise out of the justifiable despair as to the lack of effectiveness of the existing international environmental regime. Yet, once one begins actually analyzing what a WEO could possibly do, how it could be structured, and how it would interact with other international institutions, one can't help wondering whether this "magic bullet" could actually be an improvement over the status quo. I wonder whether you have any ideas on this. One alternative, currently under discussion, is to strengthen UNEP, without actually creating a new organization. Have you any views on the present initiatives to increase the political impact of UNEP (e.g. through the creation of the GMEF and the EMG)?

Hilary French: Thanks for the question. One positive development of the last few years has been engagement at high political levels on the question of whether or not the time has come to create a World Environment Organization. The welcome attention to this issue springs in part from growing concern about the environmental implications of the World Trade Organization's rules, and a feeling that there is a need for an equally powerful institution at the global level charged with environmental protection. But of course, we do already have a World Environment Organization is a sense--the U.N. Environment Programme--although it suffers from a limited mandate and insufficient funding. So I agree with those who feel that rather than spending a lot of energy designing an entirely new organization, we should be looking at what needs to be done to give UNEP the clout it needs to be a more visible and effective player on the global stage.

New York: Is globalization lead to a more cultural homogeny or heterogeny?

Hilary French: One of the most deeply held fears about globalization is that it will destroy cultural diversity. These fears are easily understood as one travels the world, and witnesses the rapid spread of fast-food chains and other symbols of western and in particular American culture. At the same time, it does work the other way around as well, as globalization emcompasses the growth in migration and trade that has helped to bring a greater diversity of peoples and products into the U.S. and other western, industrial countries.

Geneva: How can outcomes of the WSSD feed into negotiations at the WTO?

Hilary French: There is a major opportunity in Johannesburg to send a strong signal to WTO negotiators that further efforts to liberalize world trade must take place in the context of sustainable development. This message can come both from above (heads of state) and from below (from the tens of thousands of non-governmental organizations expected to convene in Johannesburg). Of course, we also must go beyond shallow rhetoric and begin to define what it really means for trade to respect sustainability. This is a challenging question, although lots of good work has been done on it in the decade since Rio. At a minimum, it will be important for the Johannesburg Declaration to send a strong signal that the WTO must respect the terms of multilateral environmental agreements and of international labor accords.

Boulder, Colorado: In South Africa there is a wild life part that spans the borders of three south African nations, will we be seeing a push for this kind of cooperation over territory in Johannesburg this summer?

Hilary French: Thanks for highlighting this successful example of transboundary environmental cooperation. It is significant that the World Summit on Sustainable Development is taking place in South Africa, a country where so many environmental and social challenges are immediately apparent, but also a country whose stunning political change has provided inspiration to billions of people all over the world. Highlighing both local successes and remaining local challenges will help bring the abstract concept of sustainable development down to earth so that people can understand what we need to do to move forward.

Trivandrum, INDIA: The focus on renewable energy development has largely been on electricity generation technologies like wind power, small hydro, PV and hydrogen. But this does not satisfy the energy needs for cooking - a universally felt need of the poor. In my view it is necessary to focus also on small and handy solar thermal devices like the solar cooker which are the only RE devices the poor can afford and will have some meaning for them. Global governance seems quite unconcerned with the latter. Why isn't a major thrust being made towards 'sustainable development for the poor' by intensively promoting such devices?

Hilary French: Thanks for the question, and for the information. There is quite a bit of discussion in the run-up to Johannesburg on questions of sustainable energy, with a particular emphasis on the needs of the rural poor. Solar cookers are a great example of a type of technology that merits widespread dissemination. Hopefully, the poltical impetus at the global level of a major conference like Johannesburg can generate political will both within international organizations, but also by national and local governments and NGOs and private businesses, to jumpstart programs that will deliver solar cookers and other similar technologies on a widespread scale. This is a place where environmental and poverty eradication goals come together clearly, and this nexus will be the focus of many of the discussions and outcomes of the Johannesburg Summit.

Savannah, Georgia: How can you expect to get anything done without the support of the US?

Hilary French: Clearly, U.S. involvement is extremely important if we are to shift the world economy onto a more environmentally and socially sustainable course. To take just one example, the U.S. produces about one-quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, while accounting for only 4-5 percent of the Earth's population. So if we can't get the U.S. on board international efforts to stave off climate change, it is going to be impossible to solve the problem. That being said, I'm pleased that the Europeans and much of the rest of the world is forging ahead with the Kyoto Protocol despite the Bush Administration's decision to pull out of this landmark accord, as I feel that ultimately the U.S. will join in when we see that other countries have been able to address the problem without suffering untold economic harm. With a global economy, U.S. companies are going to have to live with the Kyoto Protocol in their oversees operations, and once they see that it is not as hard as they fear, maybe they will drop their opposition to U.S. participation in the accord. In fact, some companies are already eager for the U.S. to be a member, so that they can participate in the emissions trading and other mechanisms the protocol sets up.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Prior to Rio there was the "Limits to growth", Jay Forrester from MIT wrote a System Dynamics model. Has this model been updated? and if so would you care to comment?

Hilary French: Yes, this model has been updated in a book called "Beyond the Limits" that was written by Dana Meadows and Dennis Meadows and I believe also by Jay Forrester. (The three of them collaborated on the original "Limits to Growth.") I believe that further efforts to update the model and publish an updated version of "Beyond the Limits" were underway last year, before Dana Meadow's untimely death. But I think the book is still planned to come out before too long. The basic message is that there is an urgent need to act, if we are to set in motion the kinds of policies and societal responses that will make it possible to in effect transcend the limits. The status quo still has us on a dangerous course.

apple valley, ca: in your opinion, how can a balance be found between state sovereignty and globalization, when both are being used to further destruction of the environment...? a balance between free trade liberalization and ecosystem protection?

Hilary French: Interesting question... Some of those in the so-called "anti-globalization" movement (I don't think that's a particularly good name for it, but...), have put a lot of focus on the perceived threat to U.S. sovereignty posed by participation in the World Trade Organization and other global economic institutions. I feel that the protesters have put some important issues on the table about the process by which international institutions go about making decisions. For example, it is unacceptable that the WTO's dispute resolution panels operate in secret, when they are making decisions that can have the effect of eviscerating national environmental laws produced through a democratic process. But at the same time, I think we need to recognize that the whole concept of national sovereignty is evolving in light of current globalization trends. In fact, we want the U.S. to accept constraints on its actions through environmental treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol. So the issue for me isn't so much the fear of giving up sovereignty as the question of to what kind of institutions is it being ceeded? Are they dominated by business interests rather than the public interest? Is their primary purpose commercial goals, or are they looking after the well-being of the planet and its peoples??

Budapest, Hungary: The USA is not only one of the countries, but the strongest country of the world. Don't you feel controversy between the American economic policy based on the steady growing of consumtion and the sustainable development?

Hilary French: Yes, the issue of the U.S. high-consuming lifestyle is of course critically important. All the more so, because so many people in other parts of the world seem to aspire towards it. We have lots of work to do here at home to develop alternative models of consumption, production, and of mobility, so that people can see a positive vision of how to meet their needs and desires for a happy and healthy life, but in a way that places far less burden on the health of the planet's ecological systems.

Brooklyn, New York: My major concerns for the health of our planet are two: population and resource consumption. That being said, I would like to know your thoughts on the ability of foreign corporations to sue governments for future lost revenues based on the government's decision to take action to protect public health and/or the environment: eg. Methanex, a Canadian corportion is suing the State of California for phasing out a cancer-causing gasoline additive, MTBE, a component of which is manufactured by Methanex. This is allowed under an international trade agreement, specifically, Chapter 11 of the agreement. What do you see as the possible outcome on governments' right to protect public health and the environment?

Hilary French: I find the Methanex case, and other similar ones, as highly troubling. It seems that governments agreed to rules under Chapter 11 of NAFTA that give corporations rights they should not have to sue over losses due to legimiate environmental regulations. These rules should be revised, and we should resist efforts to put similar rules in place in other trade agreements such as those through the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or through any future discussions on investment at the WTO.

new york: How do we balance the cost of protecting endangered species and habitats versus the needs of developed and developing nations?

Hilary French: North-South politics are a big part of the tension in international environmental politics, and this is particularly true of issues related to biological diversity, given that so many of the world's most ecologically-rich places are in the developing world. It used to be seen as ecological imperialism of sorts for people in industrial countries to speak about preserving natural places in the developing world, given the fact that rich countries have decimited so many of their own forests and other rich eco-systems. But I find it encouraging that this view is changing as developing countries come to understand that their biological diversity is one of their greatest assets. One challenge is to determine how to make it economically in the interests of developing countries to preserve their biological wealth through stratgies like eco-tourism and biosprospecting. But both of these strategies are highly controversial. We have a lot of work to do to understand how to do them right.

August, Maine: How important is foreign aid anymore? Isn't there a lot of private capital now, so we don't need to worry so much about foreign aid?

Hilary French: That's a timely question, in part because the issue of foreign aid will be front and center at the Financing for Development Summit in Monterrey, Mexico the week after next that President Bush will be attending. The U.S. government argues that aid isn't so important any more, particularly given the growth of private capital flows into the developing world. But many other governments don't see it that way. In fact, there is an effort to get countries to double overall spending on foreign aid in order to meet the poverty reduction targets laid out in the U.N. Millennium Declaration. I think there's some truth on both sides in this debate. It is true that aid funds have often been mispent, propping up corrupt governments and in some cases exacerbating environmental destructions. At the same time, if it well spent, evidence is growing that foreign aid can make a real different in both combatting poverty and in protecting the environment. So we should be putting a lot of energy into rechanneling our aid spending into programs that are truly supportive of sustainable development, but we also need to step up spending overall if we are to solve these pressing problems. (That's not to say that there isn't a big role for the private sector as well.)

New York, New York: What can we do to get Bush to go to Johannesburg? And how about signing the Kyoto treaty before he goes? Thanks.

Hilary French: It would be terrific if Bush would sign the Kyoto treaty before going to Johannesburg, but that unfortunately does not appear to be in the cards. The Bush Administration is pretty adadament at this point that they reject Kyoto in anything like its current form. At the same time, the Europeans are moving ahead with it, with a decision earlier this week by the European Council to expedite the ratification process. More power to them! Re getting Bush to go to Johannesburg, he needs to know that people care whether or not he shows up. Sending an email to the White House would be one easy thing to do to begin building some momentum for him to attend. And the government as a whole will take the Summit a lot more seriously if they too expect Bush to attend...

Seattle, WA: Do you think the anti-globalization protests are helpful? Would the media pay attention if people weren't in the streets?

Hilary French: Yes, I do think the protests have been extremely helpful in generating attention to the need for major reforms to redirect the global economy and the insitutions that underpin it towards sustainability. I just object a bit to the term "anti"-globalization, because in my mind the protest movements are in fact part of globalization--a positive part of it. Efforts to organize citizens at the international level have been greatly assisted by email and the web, etc.

Madison, WI: Do you think the World Summit should focus on some kind of grand outcome, like a global new deal, or a new Marshall Plan? Wouldn't something big like that be inspirational, instead of 47-eleven little recommendations?

Hilary French: There is in fact a lot of talk at the moment about striking some kind of Global New Deal at Johannesburg. The South African government has put out an interesting paper on this subject, and many European governments seem to like the idea as well. (The U.S. government has been a bit lukewarm...) The all-important question, I suppose, is what will be the key elements of this deal?? If we can answer that question in coming months, Johannesburg stands a good chance of being a great success.

Chicago, IL: How should the limited funds available for conservation be spent? Should "eco-tourism" be encouraged?

Hilary French: I'm not sure there is any easy answer on this one. As a general matter, closely involving local peoples in designing successful conservation programs has been cleary shown to be a prerequisite for success. On "eco-tourism," it depends very much on how it is done. Some "eco-tourism" has been misleadingly labelled as such, although in some cases it can be a good way to make conservation pay. The real expert on this subject here at Worldwatch is Lisa Mastny, who did a chat on the subject of tourism a few weeks back. You might want to read the transcript of it on the archives.

Dick Bell, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks so much Hilary. Please come back in two weeks at this same time (Friday, 12 noon EST) to talk with Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin about global energy issues. And please check out the first of a series of special briefs we are publishing on the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Go to http://worldwatch.org/worldsummit/briefs. Thanks for joining us today.

Hilary French: Thanks, Dick, and thanks to all of the participants for a stimulating discussion! Best wishes, Hilary