Comparing the global processes for Climate Resilience (Paris Agreement) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG, 2030 Agenda) the first seems to be better organized and governed. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations agreed to hold global warming to well below 2℃, and preferably limit it to 1.5℃, compared to pre-industrial levels. And many scientists and the Conference of Parties (CoP) monitor goal achievement. The 2030 Agenda doesn't have a comparable single goal. Instead, there are 17 goals and 169 targets and these are interrelated, interdependent and the monitoring through the National Voluntary Reviews (NVR) presented by member states to the High Level Political Forum HLPF is no effective tool.
The State of Global Environmental Governance 2021 is an important report published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. It puts a critical eye on the fact that to achieve the Paris Agreement there is an ongoing prominence of voluntary pledges:
Whether known as "pledges," "contributions," "voluntary commitments" or "compacts," flexibility is central. Those making the pledge choose the content, with little or no oversight. (page 5)
In addition, sometimes new pledges are just repackages of existing actions.
There is a well-developed framework for transparency, implementation, and compliance of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) but not for the various other initiatives announced at the Glasgow Climate Change Conference in 2021. This applies e.g. to the Food Summit and Energy Dialogue or the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Transparency is even more difficult when companies, cities, and civil society pledge.
Despite these well-known questions, the allure of pledges evidently remains strong.
For many, they still hold the promise of catalyzing political will into action,
creating new partnerships, enabling broad participation, and allowing for agile
mobilization. In 2022, we may yet see more evidence of pledges’ popularity—and of
whether pledges lead to positive change for the environment. (page 9)
The report rightly states that global environmental governance does not happen in a vacuum but in a world of socioeconomic disparities, geopolitical tensions, and broader equity issues that amplify environmental injustices and outcomes. In addition, hybrid conference, such as the Glasgow Climate Change Conference were also less inclusive than past climate conferences. For some the Corona pandemic offered an opportunity to advance discussions while biodiversity loss, chemical pollution, and the illegal trade of endangered species have not stopped for the pandemic, indicating that more time may not necessarily better.
After two years of pandemic (and postponed meetings), there is a backlog of conferences and upcoming events in 2022 may bring relevant outcomes for the process.
The report with its focus on global environment environmental challenge is very important and insightful. However, it reconfirms the two blind spots which are related to global environmental policy processes since the 1990s and are continued with the Paris Agreement:
While the thematic and global focus have its advantages a better cross thematic and multilevel analysis is necessary to assess the full dimension of the state of global environmental governance.
_________________
Note:
The full report can be downloaded directly from the website of IISD following this ling
https://www.iisd.org/publications/state-global-environmental-governance-2021