Theorising Global Environmental Governance: Key Findings and Future Questions
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Author | Philipp Pattberg,Oscar Widerberg |
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829814561773 |
| Subject Matter | Forum: Global Governance in the Interregnum |
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2015, Vol. 43(2) 684 –705
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829814561773
mil.sagepub.com
MILLENNIUM
Journal of International Studies
Theorising Global
Environmental Governance:
Key Findings and Future
Questions
Philipp Pattberg
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Oscar Widerberg
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Global environmental governance in the Anthropocene is fundamentally different from older
conceptions of environmental policy-making and sustainable development. Environmental
problem-solving is no longer concerned with isolated problems, but rather with reorganising
the overall relation between humans and natural systems. Empirically, this is reflected in the
ever greater attention to questions of institutional interactions (e.g. between the issue areas of
economics and environment) and functional overlaps between parallel governance approaches.
Normatively, environmental governance in the Anthropocene is concerned with questions of
equity and fairness on a finite planet. This article scrutinises the theoretical interregnum in global
environmental governance by first sketching the key empirical trends in global environmental
governance; secondly, discussing theory-building with regards to four broad areas of inquiry: the
questions of agency and authority; the structural dimension of global environmental governance;
the related normative questions about legitimacy, accountability, equity and fairness in the
Anthropocene; and finally the integration of governance research into formal approaches and the
related incorporation of non-social science concepts into environmental governance research. In
our conclusions, we propose some initial ideas on how to move forward in the study of global
(environmental) governance.
Keywords
global governance, environment, Anthropocene, fragmentation, authority, inter-disciplinarity
Corresponding author:
Philipp Pattberg, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081
HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: philipp.pattberg@vu.nl
561773MIL0010.1177/0305829814561773Millennium: Journal of International StudiesPattberg and Widerberg
research-article2014
Forum: Global Governance in the Interregnum
Pattberg and Widerberg 685
1. Johan Rockström et al., ‘Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for
Humanity’, Ecology and Society 14, no. 2 (2009): 32.
2. Frank Biermann et al., ‘Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance’,
Science 335, no. 6074 (2012): 1306–7.
3. Data from Ronald B. Mitchell. 2002–2014. International Environmental Agreements
Database Project (Version 2013.2). Available at: http://iea.uoregon.edu/
4. Joost Pauwelyn, Ramses A. Wessel and Jan Wouters, Informal International Lawmaking
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Introduction
Surveying the theoretical ‘interregnum’ in the global governance of the environment
(Global Environmental Governance, GEG), two central observations stand out: first,
environmental governance at the beginning of the third millennium is fundamentally
different from earlier periods of environmental policy-making as we are collectively
entering the Anthropocene as an epoch of planetary-scale change. The term Anthropocene
denotes a new geological period in planetary history, one that is characterised by the
unprecedented impact of human activities on the Earth’s ecosystems. In fact, humans
have become the main drivers of planetary change. Largely as a result of unsustainable
economic structures and practices, scientists today see mounting evidence that the entire
earth system now operates well outside safe boundaries.1 Societies are therefore urgently
required to change course and stay clear of critical tipping points that might lead to rapid
and irreversible change, while at the same time ensuring sustainable livelihoods for a
growing human population.2 But while the natural sciences have advanced their under-
standing of the drivers and processes of global change considerably over the last two
decades, the social sciences lag behind in developing and implementing a coherent
research paradigm to address this fundamental challenge of politics and governance in
the Anthropocene. The key question from a social science perspective is how to organise
the co-evolution of societies and their surrounding environment, while balancing between
effectiveness and equitable and fair governance solutions for today’s global challenges.
Second, our responses to environmental problems have been broadened significantly
to reach beyond the confines of formal, legally binding and multilaterally negotiated
agreements (so-called multilateral environmental agreements, MEAs) to include modes
of regulation that are often transnational, informal and voluntary in character.
Consequently, global environmental governance in the Anthropocene poses new and
challenging questions to the analyst. Since the birth of global environmentalism in the
1960s and 70s, there has been a proliferation of cross-border environmental governance
arrangements. The 1990s witnessed a ‘golden age’ in international norm-setting where
the number and type of intergovernmental environmental regimes increased substan-
tially and states adopted milestone MEAs such as the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Today,
over 1100 MEAs3 and an additional 1500 bilateral agreements govern intergovernmental
relations across different environmental domains forming a dense web of environmental
legislation. From 2000 onwards, however, far less MEAs have been adopted and a general
‘stagnation’ in international law has been observed.4 Instead, the new millennium
To continue reading
Request your trial