Suchergebnisse

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) constitute a major development policy effort with 2015 as its target year to which 189 countries agreed upon. Apart from social and economic objectives, the MDGs also put forward environmental goals. This is necessary because development and environment are intrinsically linked. This paper seeks to integrate environmental and social perspectives on sustainable poverty reduction in the context of the MDG‐agenda by exploring how a rights‐based approach (RBA) can contribute to the achievement of the MDGs, including both its social and environmental dimensions. The core idea of a RBA to development is to support individuals or groups whose rights have been violated, neglected or ignored, and who have a responsibility to act. Being poor is not solely a matter of shortages and deficiencies, but it is also a problem of powerlessness; not having rights and access to and control of natural, social and economic resources. Concurrently, due to the rise of environmental threats, a distinction needs to be made between human rights and the right to a healthy environment, which is an essential right within the human rights framework. While the former have already found its way into hard law and thus allowing individuals and groups to claim their rights (at least in countries that ratified human rights covenants); the latter is, internationally, often perceived as vague and subject to divergent interpretations. This paper will first present the MDG‐agenda and then the RBA. Next it will link the RBA to the MDGs and suggest, from a rights‐based perspective, possible directions for dealing with some of the limitations of the MDG agenda and its implementation. Lastly it will explore possible ways of how the RBA can contribute to the long‐term MDG/development agenda, with the view to effectively integrating social and environmental governance.

The integration of development and climate objectives is increasingly recognized as significant in research and policy making. In practice some development aims such as poverty alleviation enhancing energy security and access or improving health also have potential climate benefits. The challenge is to find a broadly applicable range of effective policies and actions that realize development objectives and at the same time result in real climate benefits. This special issue of the Climate Policy journal focuses on new evidence that identifies options for action examining how development strate.

AbstractWhile multilateral approaches and national policies have been unable to halt the unprecedented loss of biodiversity, responses from non-state and subnational initiatives are increasing. The successful implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF), to be agreed upon under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ultimately depends on commitments and action by state and non-state actors, including subnational actors. However, non-state and subnational actors have so far received little attention in academic analysis of global biodiversity governance. In order to better understand and harness the potential of non-state and subnational involvement, this paper addresses the ways in which non-state initiatives contribute to global biodiversity governance and how productive linkages can be built between state and non-state actors in the post-2020 GBF. This paper applies an explorative case study approach and analyses six international cooperative initiatives (ICIs) that highlight novel approaches in international biodiversity governance. We analyse the qualities of ICIs for biodiversity governance in terms of strengths and potential, the governance functions that they fulfil, and how they are engaging with the CBD and the post-2020 GBF. Based on this analysis, we discuss challenges and opportunities related to non-state and subnational actors involvement in global biodiversity governance and identify possible steps forward. We emphasise the importance of a collaborative framework for non-state action within the CBD that builds on existing and emerging activities of non-state actors, organises monitoring and review as part of an accountability framework of state and non-state actors, and provides for learning, capacity building and follow-up action.

"Dass internationale Top-down-Politik allein die globalen Probleme lösen kann, ist eine Illusion. Dagegen können drei neue Perspektiven auf nachhaltige Entwicklung dabei helfen, die Agenten des Wandels aus Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Zivilgesellschaft für die Umsetzung der neuen Nachhaltigkeitsziele zu mobilisieren." (Autorenreferat)

AbstractNon‐state and sub‐national actors (e.g. cities, regions and companies) are increasingly taking action to address biodiversity loss. They set up standards and commitments, provide funding, create and disseminate information, and execute projects on the ground. As part of the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) decided to implement the 'Sharm El‐Sheikh to Beijing Action Agenda for Nature and People'. While there is general support for a voluntary commitment process, the question now is how the Action agenda should look like, what form voluntary commitments for biodiversity should take and if and how the action agenda could become a meaningful pillar in the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework. A recent study by the authors reveals the actual depth and breadth of biodiversity governance beyond the CBD. This contribution argues that lessons learned from the ongoing climate change action agenda should urgently be taken into account when further developing the biodiversity action agenda.

The dynamics of smart governance for sustainable value chains
Traditional state-centered governance systems have failed to effectively tackle the transnational problem of the sustainability of global value chains (GVCs). To fill this 'institutional void', industry and NGOs established a series of global partnerships that designed standards and certification schemes for global commodities. This paper uses different theoretical lenses to address the question as to what extent these arrangements can be evaluated as smart, and for what and for whom they are smart? Despite their relative success, these partnerships face some serious challenges. Consequently, smart governance also requires adaptiveness and the prevention of path dependencies.