Скачать презентацию International Environmental Governance Links to National Sustainable Скачать презентацию International Environmental Governance Links to National Sustainable

bf4552e1ca59a10dafd58a6bf4ad3139.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 29

International Environmental Governance & Links to National Sustainable Development Strategies / Policy? • Timeline International Environmental Governance & Links to National Sustainable Development Strategies / Policy? • Timeline of key events / policies • Contemporary debates • Botswana Case Study – Anti-Desertification & Development Policies

Global Environmental Conventions / Protocols • 1972 – UN Conference on Human Development, Stockholm Global Environmental Conventions / Protocols • 1972 – UN Conference on Human Development, Stockholm – created UNEP • 1987 – World Commission on Environment & Development published Brundtland Report, Our Common Future • 1992 – Rio Earth Summit published Agenda 21, • 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) & 1997 Kyoto Protocol • 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) • 1995 UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) • 2000 – Millennium Development Goals • 2002 – Johannesburg Declaration (WSSD) ALL UNDERPIN NATIONAL POLICY PLANNING!

International Environmental Law “In the absence of genuine world govt, intl envtl politics is International Environmental Law “In the absence of genuine world govt, intl envtl politics is said to take place in the context of anarchy” O’Riordan and Jordan, 2000; p. 488 Theories of transboundary externalities led to Joint Implementation principles International law is a set of principles, obligations and rules that bind intl behavior - needs – Mutual advantage – Credible threat – Credible enforcement (a problem even in wellestablished bodies such as EU)

Forms of Intl Environmental Law • Treaties, conventions, protocols - ‘Hard’ law (on countries Forms of Intl Environmental Law • Treaties, conventions, protocols - ‘Hard’ law (on countries who ratify) • Framework or Custom Conventions - ‘Soft’ law allowing countries scope in interpretation of ambiguous concepts • Soft law remains central to the evolution of intl agreements on global commons, due to – – Scientific doubt & uncertainty Freedom of action (within body such as EU) Social learning - adaptation and reinterpretation Face saving at International meetings

Common Principles of Intl Entl Law • No binding charter, or coherently organised laws Common Principles of Intl Entl Law • No binding charter, or coherently organised laws - distinct move to multilateral agreements at Jo’burg WSSD Remaining “Agreed principles” from UNCHD (1972), UNCED (1992) & WSSD (2002) • Polluter-pays • Non-discrimination between states • Precautionary • Common but differentiated responsibilities • Intergenerational equity • All states should have ‘effective envt legislation’

Environmental ‘Mega-Conferences’ – An Analysis (Seyfang, 2003) • UN Summit’s seek to perform – Environmental ‘Mega-Conferences’ – An Analysis (Seyfang, 2003) • UN Summit’s seek to perform – – – – Setting Global Agenda’s Facilitating ‘joined-up’ thinking (interdisciplinary) Endorsing common principles Providing global leadership Building institutional capacity Legitimising global governance through inclusivity • “(they) do serve an important function … even though they are not the panaceas that some had originally hoped they might be” (Seyfang, 2003; p. 224) • Task remains for UN to incorporate citizen’s and NGO views, and build on bottom-up activism, at the same time as topdown governmental decision-making • UN undermined by US’s stance on Kyoto

UNCCD (1995) • International agreement ratified by 191 nations • Views land degradation as UNCCD (1995) • International agreement ratified by 191 nations • Views land degradation as a sustainable development issue • People-centred - sees land users as part of the solution to degradation • Promotes ‘local level decision-making’ and ‘community participation’ • All countries produced a National Action Programme (NAP) = national control still paramount • Funding issues (as with UNCBD) still unclear and need clarification • See - http: //www. unccd. int/

Dryland Degradation and Management: What, Who, Why & Where ? Dryland Degradation and Management: What, Who, Why & Where ?

Dryland Degradation and Management – Who? • “Drylands cover 40 % of the Earth’s Dryland Degradation and Management – Who? • “Drylands cover 40 % of the Earth’s land surface and support almost 20 % of the human population, a figure that rises to 50 % in Africa” Thomas et al. , 2002; p. 193.

Extent of Dryland Degradation – Where? • Over 1000 million ha classed as degraded Extent of Dryland Degradation – Where? • Over 1000 million ha classed as degraded (UNEP, 1997 - World Atlas of Desertification)

Drylands and Desertification Extent Drylands and Desertification Extent

Dryland Env Management and Policy Context • Drylands seen an unprecedented expansion of human Dryland Env Management and Policy Context • Drylands seen an unprecedented expansion of human activities in the late 20 th C, particularly linked to post-colonial African development • Yet dryland development has often been challenged and compromised: – by replacing indigenous agriculture with inappropriate practices & technologies; – by desire of dvpg Governments to engage more in global trade; – & by the ever-present (and increasing) threat of drought • United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (1995) an intergovernmental agreement that is a sustainable dvpt policy, embodying economic, social and environmental needs • Matches outputs of WSSD (2002) with African food security and poverty top of the global sustainable development agenda

Desertification : The Issue and Controversy • Portrayed as the first big global environmental Desertification : The Issue and Controversy • Portrayed as the first big global environmental issue with African famines & link to desertification driving much debate from UNCHD (1972) to WSSD (2002) • Contrasting views that – • “desertification affects 3. 6 billion hectares & threatens livelihoods of over 1 billion people” (UN, 1992, 1997; 2002) • “desertification is an institutional myth … one that an institution wanted to believe & served its purposes” (Warren & Agnew, 1988; Thomas & Middleton, 1994)

Reasons for ‘Myth / Fact’ Controversy • Uncertainties over definitions of terms – desertification, Reasons for ‘Myth / Fact’ Controversy • Uncertainties over definitions of terms – desertification, degradation, desiccation, drought etc. • Problems with subjective nature of expert-led assessments used to portray desertification extent (UNCOD, 1977; UN 1984; GLASOD, 1990; UNEP, 1992; 1997) • Natural variability of drylands leading to environmental changes & suffering in droughts • Lack of engagement with local people or Government extension staff

Link to Policy Process • A slow move away from crisis narratives on African Link to Policy Process • A slow move away from crisis narratives on African environments, but much aid spending & policy formulation still justified on such grounds (Scoones & Toulmin, 1999) • Policy process needs flexibility to respond to complex livelihood dynamics • Need to build on social capacity (e. g. droughtcoping strategies, farmer innovations) & maximise existing opportunities (e. g micro-credit schemes, dissemination of good practice) • Needs formalised recognition of community based natural resource management & land ownership rights

Role of UNCCD and UNDP funds • Technical & financial support provided to National Role of UNCCD and UNDP funds • Technical & financial support provided to National Actions Programmes (NAP’s) in 28 African countries & to sub-regional programmes • Provision of catalytic funding to local level community projects • Thematic support provided for projects on – – Promoting farmer innovation Drought preparedness and mitigation Environmental information systems (EIS) support Local community level initiatives • New funding provided for Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) • Case studies – Botswana (today) & Swaziland (next week)

Botswana : Socio-Economic Profile • Approx. 2 million people, but < 200, 000 in Botswana : Socio-Economic Profile • Approx. 2 million people, but < 200, 000 in ‘Kalahari sandveld’ • Wealthy GDP ($8, 170 per capita), but highly skewed with > 30 % below ‘poverty line’ • Low life expectancy rate (41. 4 years) due to HIV/AIDS & poverty • Despite view as an African success story, social problems remain; rural livelihoods livestock focused & vulnerable (as with most of dryland Africa)

Botswana : Environmental Profile • Kalahari sand soils cover 2. 5 million km 2 Botswana : Environmental Profile • Kalahari sand soils cover 2. 5 million km 2 of Southern Africa, typified by open shrub savanna’s • Climate is semi-arid with high inter-annual variability, increasing as mean rainfall decreases to SW

Botswana & Desertification : Past Portrayals • “Botswana is one of the most desertified Botswana & Desertification : Past Portrayals • “Botswana is one of the most desertified countries in sub-Saharan Africa” (Barrow, 1991) • View supported by academic literature in 1970 s and 80 s • View still drives agricultural policy development nationally & (inter)national support of livestock industry

Botswana & Desertification: Research Critiques • Soil erosion far less significant than past portrayal Botswana & Desertification: Research Critiques • Soil erosion far less significant than past portrayal (Biot, 1988; Dougill & Thomas, 2002) • Extent & causes of ecological changes (bush encroachment) remain unclear (Dougill et al. , 1999; Moleele et al. , 2002) • No economic evidence of decline in pastoral productivity (White, 1993) • BUT, maps remain subjective & powerful

Botswana & Desertification: Research Priorities • Different portrayals of degradation leaves science open to Botswana & Desertification: Research Priorities • Different portrayals of degradation leaves science open to political mis-representation • Assessments must extend beyond soil degradation to include economically important ecological changes • Involvement of local communities in rangeland monitoring & management a key component of UNCCD

Case Study 1 - Botswana Policy Development • • • 1966 Independence from Britain Case Study 1 - Botswana Policy Development • • • 1966 Independence from Britain 1970 National Agricultural Policy 1975 Tribal Grazing Lands Policy 1991 New Agricultural Policy 2001 National Action Programme to Combat Desertification ratified – See http: //www. unccd. int/ • 2002 Indigenous Vegetation Project initiated – See http: //www. env. leeds. ac. uk/~mreed/IVP/ • 2004 – National Report on UNCCD including draft National Action Programme • Now – Submitted UN funding proposal for development of a national ‘Land Degradation Policy’

Botswana Draft NAP & Ongoing National Policy Debates • Draft NAP recognises the link Botswana Draft NAP & Ongoing National Policy Debates • Draft NAP recognises the link between poverty & land degradation & the need to adopt plans, strategies & legislation aimed at addressing poverty at community level • Notable policies cross many spheres / Depts – – eg. National Development Plan 9; Agricultural Resources Conservation Act, Forestry Policy, NR Conservation and Development Policy, Wildlife Conservation & NPs Act • Institutional support split between Dept of Agriculture & Ministry of Envt & Wildlife

Challenges for UNCCD implementation in Botswana • Consultations & project experiences identify the following Challenges for UNCCD implementation in Botswana • Consultations & project experiences identify the following major challenges – – Need formal Govt approval of NAP – Lack of clear framework for implementation at national level (e. g. which Ministry to co-ordinate? ) – Lack of co-ordination between Govt, NGO’s, CBO’s and research efforts – Inadequate awareness among communities with regard to how to access money for projects – Limited capacity and resources to implement community projects

Recent Success Stories / Projects • UNCCD and donor aid support has led to Recent Success Stories / Projects • UNCCD and donor aid support has led to a number of positive developments throughout Africa - e. g. – Bassett & Crummey (2004) – East Africa – Reij & Waters-Bayer (2001) E. Africa, Zimbabwe & Burkina Faso – Scoones (2001) - Ethiopia, Mali & Zimbabwe – Reed & Dougill (2002); Dougill & Reed (2005) – Botswana – van Rooyen (1998) - South Africa – Seeley (1998) - Namibia – Reij et al. (1996) - Continent wide range of examples • Key message is one of starting from farmers experimentation and then joint research with farmers then linking findings to policy frameworks and livelihood support projects

Key Features of Successful Projects • See Table 1 of van Rooyen (1998) as Key Features of Successful Projects • See Table 1 of van Rooyen (1998) as suggested guide to a ‘perfect project’ - where rural communities can apply the information received in partnership with researchers to improve their environment • Termed Participatory Technology Development - move to train extension workers in such approaches across Africa (Reij & Waters-Bayer, 2001) • Approaches need to be institutionalised and supported by policy frameworks and land tenure security

Facilitating Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation POL Policy development, sector planning, and programme formulation Facilitating Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation POL Policy development, sector planning, and programme formulation ID Programme and project identification PREP Programme and project preparation APP Programme and project appraisal and approval IMP Implementation and monitoring OP Operation and monitoring NEXT Extensions or Next phase programme and project identification EVAL Evaluation

Stages in Participatory Technology Development Stages in Participatory Technology Development