![](\"https:\/\/www.commondreams.org\/media-library\/visitors-hike-on-the-ice-along-a-crevasse.jpg?id=33206796&width=1200&height=600&coordinates=0%2C85%2C0%2C86\"\/)
The United Nations has convened 27 conferences on climate change. For nearly three decades, the international community has come together at a different location every year to pool its collective wisdom, resources, and resolve to address this global threat. These Conferences of Parties (COPs) have produced important agreements, such as the Paris Accords of 2015 on the reduction of carbon emissions and most recently at Sharm el-Sheikh a Loss & Damage Fund to help countries currently experiencing the most impact from climate change.<\/p>
And yet the threat of climate change has only grown larger. In 2022, carbon emissions grew by nearly 2 percent<\/a>.<\/p> This failure is not for want of institutions. There\u2019s the UN Environment Program (UNEP), which oversees the complex of international treaties and protocols, helps implement climate financing, and coordinates with other agencies to meet sustainable development goals (SDGs). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has marshaled all the relevant scientific data and recommendations. The Green Climate Fund is attempting to funnel resources to developing countries to advance their energy transitions. The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, begun in 2020 at the instigation of the Biden administration, has been focusing on reducing methane. International financial institutions like the World Bank have their own staff devoted to global energy transition efforts.<\/p> Still, with the notable exception of the global effort to repair<\/a> the ozone layer, more institutions have not translated into better results.<\/p> On climate change, notes Miriam Lang. a professor of environmental and sustainability studies at the Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar in Ecuador and a member of the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South<\/a>, \u201cit seems that the more we know, the less we are able to take effective action. The same can be said about the accelerated loss of biodiversity. We live in an era of mass extinctions, and there\u2019s been little progress at the governance level despite many good intentions.\u201d<\/p> One major reason for the failure of collective action is the persistent refusal to think beyond the nation-state. \u201cIt\u2019s weird that nationalism has become so dominant when the challenges that we face are global,\u201d observes Jayati Ghosh, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. \u201cWe know that these problems can\u2019t be regulated within national borders. Yet governments and people within countries persist in treating these crises as ways in which one nation can benefit at the expense of another.\u201d<\/p> Can existing institutions be transformed to more adequately address the global problems of climate change and economic development? Or do we need different institutions altogether?<\/p> Another challenge is financial. \u201cAdequate funding at all levels is a fundamental prerequisite to improving climate governance and the implementation of sustainable development goals,\u201d argues Jens Martens, executive director of the Global Policy Forum Europe<\/a>. \u201cAt a global level, this requires predictable and reliable funding for the UN system. The total assessed contributions to the UN regular budget in 2022 were just about $3 billion. In comparison, the New York City budget alone is over $100 billion.\u201d<\/p> In part because of these budgetary shortfalls, international institutions have increasingly relied on what they call \u201cmultistakeholderism.\u201d On the face of it, the effort to bring other voices into policymaking at the international level\u2014the various \u201cstakeholders\u201d\u2014sounds eminently democratic. The inclusion of civil society and popular movements is certainly a step in the right direction, as is the incorporation of the perspectives of academics.<\/p> But multistakeholderism has also meant bringing business on board, and corporations have the money not only to underwrite global meetings but to determine the outcomes.<\/p> \u201cI was at Sharm el-Sheikh in November,\u201d recalls Madhuresh Kumar, an Indian activist-researcher currently based in Paris as a Senior Fellow at Atlantic Institute. \u201cWe were welcomed at the airport by a banner that read \u2018Welcome to Cop 27.\u2019 And it listed the main partners: Vodaphone, Microsoft, Boston Consulting Group, IBM, Cisco, Coca Cola and so on. Most UN institutions face a growing monetary problem. But this monetary problem is not actually at the crux of the issue. It is astonishing how through multistakeholderism, which has evolved over the last four decades, corporations have captured multilateral institutions, the global governance space, and even the big International NGOs.\u201d He adds that 630 energy lobbyists<\/a> were registered at COP 27, a 25 percent increase from the previous year\u2019s meeting.<\/p> The challenges facing global governance are well known, whether it\u2019s nationalism, funding, or corporate capture. Less clear is how to overcome these challenges. Can existing institutions be transformed to more adequately address the global problems of climate change and economic development? Or do we need different institutions altogether? These were the questions addressed at a recent webinar on global governance<\/a> sponsored by Global Just Transition.<\/p> Transforming the current system of global governance around climate, energy, and economic development is like trying to repairing an ocean liner that has sprung multiple leaks in the middle of its voyage with no land in sight. But there\u2019s an additional twist: all the crew members have to agree on the proposed fixes.<\/p> Jayati Ghosh is a member of the new UN High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism<\/a>. \u201cThe challenge is in its very title,\u201d Ghosh explains. \u201cMultilateralism itself is under threat in part because it hasn\u2019t been effective. But also the imbalances that are rendering it ineffective are not likely to go away any time soon. We\u2019re all aware of this on the board. But without much broader political will, there\u2019s a limit to any given individual or group proposals.\u201d<\/p> In addition to nationalism, she believes that four other broad \u201cisms\u201d have prevented a cooperative response to the global problems facing the planet. Take imperialism, for instance, which Ghosh prefers to define \u201cas the struggle of large capital over economic territories when supported by nation-states. We see evidence of that in continuous subsidies of fossil fuels or the greenwashing of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments. The ability of large capital to sway international policies and national politics in its own interests persists unabated. That\u2019s a major constraint to doing anything serious about climate change.\u201d<\/p> Short-termism is another such constraint. In the wake of the Ukraine war, food and fuel corporations sought to profit in the short term by manufacturing a sense of scarcity. The rise in fuel and food prices, Ghosh notes, were created not so much by constraints on supply, but from market imperfections and control over markets by large corporations. That short-term profiteering in turn led to equally short-sighted decisions by the most powerful countries to reverse their previous climate commitments and make fewer such commitments at the last COP in Egypt. Politicians \u201creversed those commitments because they have midterm elections coming up,\u201d she points out. \u201cThey\u2019re worried that voters will support the far right, so they argue that they have to do whatever it takes to increase fuel supplies.\u201d<\/p> Classism, in various forms of inequality, has also prevented effective action. \u201cGlobally, the top 10 percent, the rich, are responsible for one third to more than one half of all carbon emissions,\u201d Ghosh notes. \u201cEven within countries that is the case. The rich have the power to influence national government policies to ensure that they continue to take the bulk of the carbon budget of the world.\u201d<\/p> Finally, she points to \u201cstatus-quo-ism,\u201d by which she means the tyranny of the international economic architecture, not only the legal and regulatory framework but also the associated global agreements and institutions. \u201cWe really have to reconsider the role played by international financial institutions, by the World Trade Organization, the multilateral development banks, and legal frameworks like economic partnership agreements and bilateral investment treaties that actually prevent governments from doing something about climate change,\u201d she argues.<\/p> One way of addressing especially these last four obstacles is to reverse privatization. \u201cThe privatizations of the last three decades have been absolutely critical in generating both inequality and more aggressive carbon emissions globally,\u201d Ghosh concludes. She urges the return of utilities, cyberspace, even land to the public sphere.<\/p> In 2015, the UN endorsed 17 sustainable development goals. These SDGs include pledges to end poverty and hunger, combat inequalities within and among countries, protect human rights and promote gender equality, and protect the planet and its natural resources. But climate change, COVID, and conflicts like the war in Ukraine have all pushed the SDG targets further from reach\u2014and made them considerably more expensive<\/a> to achieve.<\/p> \u201cThe implementation of the 2030 agenda is not just a matter of better policies,\u201d observes Jens Martens. \u201cThe current problems of growing inequality and unsustainable models of consumption and production are deeply connected with powerful hierarchies and institutions. Policy reform is necessary, but it is not sufficient. It will require more sweeping shifts in how and where power is vested. A simple software update is not enough. We have to revisit and reshape the hardware of sustainable development.\u201d<\/p> In terms of governance, this means strengthening bottom-up approaches. \u201cThe major challenge for more effective global governance is a lack of coherence at the national level,\u201d Martens continues. \u201cAny attempt to create more effective global institutions will not work if it\u2019s not reflected in effective national counterparts. For instance, as long as environmental ministries are weak at the national level we cannot expect UNEP to be strong at the global level.\u201d<\/p> Stronger local and national institutions, however, operate within what Martens calls a \u201cdisabling environment\u201d where, for instance, \u201cthe IMF\u2019s neoliberal approach has proven incompatible with the achievement of the SDGs as well as the climate goals in many countries. IMF recommendations and loan conditionalities have led to a deepening of social and economic inequalities.\u201d Also disabling is the disproportionate power wielded by international financial institutions. \u201cOne striking example is the Investor-State Dispute settlement system, which awards investors the right to sue governments, for instance, for environmental policies that reduce profits,\u201d he notes. \u201cThis system undermines the ability of governments to implement stronger domestic regulations of fossil fuel industries or to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.\u201d<\/p> Enhancing coherence also means strengthening UN bodies such as the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development<\/a>, which is responsible for reviewing and following up on the SDGs. \u201cCompared to the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, the HLPF remains extremely weak,\u201d he points out. \u201cIt meets only eight days per year. It has a small budget and no decision-making power.\u201d<\/p> Some additional institutions are needed to fill global governance gaps, such as an Intergovernmental Tax Body under the auspices of the United Nations, that would ensure that all UN member states, and not only the rich, participate equally in the reform of global tax Rules. Another oft-cited recommendation would be an institution within the UN system independent of both creditors and debtors to facilitate debt restructuring.<\/p> All of this requires sufficient funding. Around $40 billion goes toward the development activities of UN agencies, Martens notes, \u201cbut far more than half of these funds are project-tied non-core resources mainly earmarked to favor individual donor priorities. That means mainly the priorities of rich donors.\u201d UNEP, meanwhile, gets a mere $25 million from the regular UN budget, which is about $3 billion and doesn\u2019t include separate assessments<\/a> for activities like peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.<\/p> More democratic funding would have the side benefit of shrinking reliance on foundations and corporate contributions, which \u201creduce the flexibility and autonomy of all UN organizations,\u201d he concludes.<\/p> One path that global institutions have taken to address the funding shortfall is \u201cmultistakeholderism.\u201d As with corporations pushing for privatization at a national level with arguments about the inefficiencies of state enterprises or the bureaucratic state, the advocates of multistakeholder initiatives (MSI) point to the failures of global public institutions to tackle common problems as a reason for greater corporate involvement. In effect, this boils down<\/a> to large corporations buying more seats at the table for themselves.<\/p> Madhuresh Kumar has produced a recent book<\/a> with Mary Ann Manahan that looks at how multistakeholderism has evolved in five key sectors: education, health, environment, agriculture, and communications. In the forestry sector, for instance, they looked at initiatives like the Tropical Forest Alliance, the Global Commons Alliance, and the Forest for Life Partnership. \u201cWe found that in their first decade, the initiatives primarily established the problem by arguing that the multilateral institutions are failing and that\u2019s why we need solutions,\u201d he reports. With the rise in global demand for raw materials, particularly in the context of a \u201cgreen economy,\u201d there was also greater demand to regulate the industries. The corporate sector responded with initiatives that emphasized \u201cresponsible\u201d mining, forestry, and the like.<\/p> These \u201cresponsible\u201d corporate initiatives revolved around \u201cnature-based\u201d solutions that rely on markets to \u201cget the price right.\u201d Kumar notes that \u201cat the heart of these false, \u2018nature-based\u2019 solutions promoted by MSI is the notion that if nature does not have a price, human beings are not incentivized to take care of it, that we have to use nature and also replace it. Carbon offsets, for instance, come out of the principle that you can continue to produce as much carbon as you want as long as you also plant some trees somewhere else.\u201d<\/p> According to this logic, nature can be priced according to various \u201cecosystem services.\u201d He continues: \u201cSeventeen ecosystem services have been identified along with 16 biomes. Together they have an estimated value of $16-54 trillion. If they can be unlocked, the idea is that this money can be put toward solving the climate crisis. But we won\u2019t see that money. Ultimately, what rolls out on the ground won\u2019t help our communities.\u201d<\/p> Not only nature is commodified but knowledge itself, for instance through intellectual property rights. \u201cIncreasingly, we have a reinforcement of very rigid rules and very rigid systems that lead to the concentration of knowledge and to large corporations appropriating traditional knowledge,\u201d notes Jayati Ghosh.<\/p> Another essential part of MSI is the focus on technical fixes, like carbon capture technology, geoengineering, and various forms of hydrogen energy. \u201cThese divert a lot of attention from climate justice,\u201d Kumar notes. \u201cIt is also having an impact on indigenous communities. For instance, the One Trillion Trees Initiative that the UN backs is promoting a monoculture, the destruction of biodiversity, and the eviction of indigenous communities and many others.\u201d<\/p> The disenfranchisement of indigenous communities is especially worrisome. \u201cIndigenous peoples are responsible for preserving 80 percent of the biodiversity that still exists today, which is even confirmed by the World Bank,\u201d Miriam Lang explains. \u201cNevertheless, we somehow do everything to disrespect, weaken, and threaten indigenous people\u2019s modes of living. We still systematically treat indigenous people as poor and in need of development. We are reluctant to guarantee their land rights, their rights to clean water, their rights to the forest where they live. Instead, we propose to pay them money to compensate their losses, which is just another way of weakening their social organization and decision-making. It causes division and lures them into consumerism, individualism, and entrepreneurialism: precisely those aspects of capitalism that have brought about the current environmental breakdown.\u201d<\/p> In addition to corporations, large NGOs like World Wildlife Fund, and major funders like Michael Bloomberg, Kumar notes that \u201cthe UN has been a willing participant in all of this. Sustainable Energy for All, which is another MSI, was started by former UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon in 2011 as a response to a statement made by a group of countries. But Sustainable Energy for All later acquired an independent status of its own over which the UN has no control. The UN General Assembly plays an important role in shaping the agenda and setting standards. But then these institutions, like the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership that was initially backed by UNIDO, later go out on their own, become unaccountable, and fall into the lap of corporations.\u201d<\/p> In 1974, the UN declared a New International Economic Order to free countries from economic colonialism and dependency on an inequitable global economy. The developing world was unusually unified in supporting the NIEO. Though some elements of the NIEO can be seen in the Agenda 2030, the effort did not translate into any substantial changes in the Bretton Woods institutions\u2014IMF, World Bank\u2014that form the international financial architecture.<\/p> \u201cThe reason we had demands for a NIEO is precisely because developing countries felt that the global economy was not just or equitable,\u201d Jayati Ghosh observes. \u201cYes, it was a period of relatively more access to certain institutions. But some of the imbalances that we\u2019re talking about in trade or finance or technology existed even then. Of course, it\u2019s also absolutely true that neoliberal financial globalization has dramatically worsened conditions globally. But I would put it more in terms of the supremacy of large capital over everyone else.\u201d<\/p> Also, the United States and European Union continue to wield disproportionate power: appointing the leaders of the World Bank and IMF and controlling the majority of votes in these institutions. \u201cMiddle- and low-income countries, which together constitute 85 percent of the world\u2019s population, have only a minority share,\u201d observes Miriam Lang. \u201cThere is also a clear racial imbalance at play with the votes of people of color worth only a fraction of their counterparts. If this were the case in any particular country, we would call it apartheid. Yet, as economic anthropologist Jason Hickel points out, a form of apartheid operates right at the heart of international economic governance today and has come to be accepted as normal.\u201d<\/p> Developing countries have long demanded a reform of the governance of these IFIs. \u201cThe voting rights were originally allocated on the basis of a country\u2019s share of the global economy and of global trade,\u201d reports Jayati Ghosh. \u201cBut this was done based on the data of the 1940s, and the world has changed dramatically since then. Developing countries have significantly increased their share of both, and certain countries are much more significant while a number of European countries are much less significant.\u201d<\/p>Global Shortcomings<\/strong><\/h2>
Revisiting Sustainable Development<\/strong><\/h2>
Addressing Multistakeholderism<\/strong><\/h2>
Democratizing Governance<\/strong><\/h2>