Optimal Power Flow Solution of the Algerian Electrical

12 Pages·2012·0.22 MB·English

ARTICLE IN PRESS
GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337
www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme
of global change research
(cid:2)
Frank Biermann
DepartmentofEnvironmentalPolicyAnalysis,InstituteforEnvironmentalStudies,VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam,DeBoelelaan1087,
1081HVAmsterdam,TheNetherlands
Received22August2006;receivedinrevisedform27November2006;accepted28November2006
Abstract
In2001,thefourglobalchangeresearchprogrammes‘urgently’calledfor‘anethicalframeworkforglobalstewardshipandstrategies
for Earth System management’. Yet this notion of ‘earth system management’ remains vaguely defined: It is too elusive for natural
scientists,andtooambitiousortoonormativeforsocialscientists.Inthisarticle,Idevelopanalternativeconceptthatisbettergrounded
in social science theory: ‘earth system governance’. I introduce, first, the concept of earth system governance as a new social
phenomenon,apoliticalprogrammeandacrosscuttingthemeofresearchinthefieldofglobalenvironmentalchange.Ithensketchthe
fivekeyproblemstructuresthatcomplicateearthsystemgovernance,andderivefromthesefouroverarchingprinciplesforearthsystem
governanceaspoliticalpractice,namelycredibility,stability,adaptiveness,andinclusiveness.Inthelastpartofthearticle,Iidentifyfive
research and governance challenges that lie at the core of earth system governance as a crosscutting theme in global change research.
These are the problems of the overall architecture of earth system governance, of agency beyond the state, of the adaptiveness of
governancemechanismsandoftheiraccountabilityandlegitimacy,andofthemodesofallocationinearthsystemgovernance—inshort,
the fiveA’sof earth system governanceresearch.
r2006Elsevier Ltd. Allrights reserved.
Keywords:Globalchange;Climatepolicy;Globalgovernance;Adaptation;Sustainabilityscience;Earthsystemanalysis;Researchprogrammes;Earth
system science partnership; International human dimensions programme on global environmental change; Equity; Accountability; Governance
architectures;Institutions
1. Introduction challenge, the four global change research programmes
have called ‘urgently’ for ‘an ethical framework for global
In2001,thefourglobalchangeprogrammesDIVERSITAS, stewardship and strategies for Earth System manage-
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, World ment’.1
Climate Research Programme, and International Human This concept of ‘earth system management’ is found
DimensionsProgrammeonGlobalEnvironmentalChange more and more often in the literature,2 yet it remains
agreed to intensify co-operation through setting up an
overarching Earth System Science Partnership. The re-
1See the mission statement of the Earth System Science Partnership
search communities represented in this Partnership con-
http://www.essp.org/about_essp.html. The text draws on the 2001
tend that the earth system now operates ‘well outside the
Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change, http://www.sciconf.igbp.k-
normalstateexhibitedoverthepast500,000years’andthat va.se/fr.html.Foracomprehensivescientifictreatment, seeSteffenetal.
‘human activity is generating change that extends well (2004).
beyondnaturalvariability—insomecases,alarminglyso— 2Onefindsthetermmostlyinrelationtonaturalscienceprogrammes,
forexamplewhenitcomestoprovidingdataonearthsystemparameters
and at rates that continue to accelerate.’ To cope with this
that are influenced by human action. For instance, earth system
management is one of the three research foci of the natural-science
orientedCentreforMarineandClimateResearchinHamburg,Germany,
(cid:2)
Tel.:[phone];fax:[phone]. there defined as provision of models and methods as instruments for
E-mailaddress:[email protected]. information,planningandlegislationonglobal,regionalandlocalscales.
0959-3780/$-seefrontmatterr2006ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.010
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337 327
vaguely defined and operationalised. It appears elusive for 2.1. Earth system analysis and social science
natural scientists, and too ambitious or too normative for
social scientists. For social scientists, ‘management’ is a The notion of integrated ‘earth system analysis’ has
term often related to notions of hierarchical steering, emerged from the complexities of global environmental
planning and controlling of social relations. From a social change that require the involvement of most academic
science perspective, ‘earth system management’ as an disciplines at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Espe-
analytical or normative concept would be both infeasible cially in the natural sciences that build on quantification
and—initsconnotationofhierarchicalplanning—undesir- and computer-based modelling, efforts have long been
able. underway to combine and integrate models of different
Inthisarticle, Ithereforedevelop analternativeconcept strands of research to gain understanding not of isolated
that is better grounded in social science theory: ‘earth elements of global change, but of the totality of processes
system governance’. I introduce, first, the concept of earth in nature and human civilisation. Integrated earth system
systemgovernanceasanewsocialphenomenon,apolitical analysisasascientificenterpriseistheconsequenceofthese
programme and a crosscutting theme of research in the efforts. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (1998, 1999), a key
fieldofglobalenvironmentalchange.Ithensketchthefive proponent of the concept, ascribes earth system analysis
key problem structures that complicate earth system the status of a science in statu nascendi, because, as he
governance, and derive from these four overarching writes (with Volker Wenzel), it has ‘1. a genuine subject,
principlesforearthsystemgovernanceaspoliticalpractice. namely the total Earth in the sense of a fragile and
In the last parts of the article, I identify five research and ‘‘gullible’’ dynamic system, 2. a genuine methodology,
governance challenges that lie at the core of earth system namely transdisciplinary systems analysis based on, i.a.,
governance as a crosscutting theme in global change planetary monitoring, global modelling and simulation, 3.
research, and discuss problems of research practice. This a genuine purpose, namely the satisfactory (or at least
conceptualisationofearthsystemgovernanceisalsomeant tolerable) coevolution of the ecosphere and the anthropo-
to contribute to the current debates on the future of sphere (vulgo: Sustainable Development) in the times of
institutional research within the International Human Global Change and beyond’ (Schellnhuber and Wenzel,
DimensionsProgrammeonGlobalEnvironmentalChange 1998, p. vii).
(IHDP)andtheoverarchingEarthSystemSciencePartner- Earthsystemanalysisrelatesto‘sustainabilityscience’,a
ship.3 closely connected concept that integrates different disci-
plines and communities in the larger quest for a transition
to sustainability.4 As Robert Kates, William Clark and
colleagues argue, the challenge of sustainable development
2. The concept is so complex that it requires a ‘sustainability science’ as a
new integrative field of study (Kates et al., 2001). A
I understand ‘earth system governance’ as the interface sustainability science shall improve collaboration of
of two broad strands of academic inquiry, earth system natural and social scientists as well as deliver research
analysis and governance theory. This section briefly designs that better integrate all scales from local to global.
introduces these two research areas. I first review earth It would also imply modifications of the traditional model
system analysis from the perspective of social science, and ofknowledgegenerationandanewwayinwhichscienceis
then continue with the proposal of a two-pillar model of conducted (Social Learning Group, 2001; Siebenhu¨ner,
researchwithintheearthsystemsciencecommunityandan 2004).
outline of earth system governance as a subfield within Research on institutions and governance mechanisms is
social science. often viewed as part of earth system analysis and is
formallyincluded inmosttheoreticalconceptualisationsin
this field. The physicist Schellnhuber, for example, has
formalised the notion of a ‘global subject’ S, which he
conceptualisesaspartofthehumancivilisationHtogether
(footnotecontinued)
The first time the term has been used—to my knowledge—was at the with the anthroposphere A (the totality of human life,
SeventhInternationalRemoteSensingSystemsConferenceinMelbourne
in1994byarepresentativeoftheUNEnvironmentProgramme,NoelJ.
Brown,inhispresentationAgenda21:BlueprintforGlobalSustainability, 4Keytextsareavailableathttp://sustsci.harvard.edu/.SeealsoClarket
NewOpportunitiesfor EarthSystemManagement (personalcommunica- al.(2005),Schellnhuberetal.(2004),aswellasthereportsoftheFriibergh
tionHeinerBenking,August2005). Workshop on Sustainability Science, held 11–14 October 2000 in
3SeetheinformationonthesynthesisprocessoftheIHDPcoreproject Friibergh Manor, O¨ rsundsbro, Sweden. The workshop concluded that
‘Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change’—which sustainabilityrequiresanewfieldofsustainabilitysciencethatwouldneed
culminates in a Synthesis Conference in December 2006 in Bali, to differ by structure, method and content from traditional science.
Indonesia—available at http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/(cid:2)idgec/ (last visit 18 Sustainability science would also require new forms of institutional
July 2006). On the current science plan of the IDGEC project, cf. organisation to support interdisciplinary research and to integrate such
InstitutionalDimensionsofGlobalEnvironmentalChangeProject(1999) research in coherent systems of research planning, assessment and
andYoung(2002). decision-support.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
328 F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337
actions and products that affect other components of the 2.2. Towards a two-pillar model for global change research
earth system). Translated into social science language, this
‘global subject’ S could be seen as the political system at Consequently, I argue that students of governance
the global level including its national and subnational should resist subjecting their governance and institutional
subparts, all of which share the collective ability to bring analysisofhuman–natureinteractionstocomputer-model-
the ‘human impact’ in line with the needs of the ecosphere ling,quantificationandepistemologicaluniformismandto
(Schellnhuber, 1999, pp. C20–C22; Schellnhuber and methods that are unfeasible to implement and impossible
Biermann, 2000). Likewise, the Earth System Science to trust in the social sciences. Instead, social scientists will
Partnership asserts that ‘the core’ of its activities will be need to continue to develop independent research pro-
the‘in-depthanalysisandadvancedmodellingoftheEarth grammes that are interdisciplinary across the different
System as a whole, incorporating data and information social sciences—for example, linking international rela-
from the diverse fields represented by the four global tions and law—but that follow the internal logic and
change programmes’.5 particular theoretical, epistemological and methodological
In practice, however, it remains unclear to what extent approachesofthesocialsciencesandthehumanities,which
institutional and governance research can contribute to, are essentially qualitative, case-based, context-dependent,
and integrate with, these more model-driven research and reflexive.
programmes, apart from problem-oriented, issue-specific Oneoverarchingthemeforsucharesearchprogramme,I
collaboration. Quantifiable hypotheses and computer- argue, is earth system governance. The study of earth
based modelling are problematic for most students of system governance is thereby part of the larger project of
institutions and governance—and are likely to remain so global change research, yet must also remain autonomous
(Young et al., 2005). Social science research groups that initsdistinctmethodological andtheoreticaldevelopment.
attempttousecomputer-modellingandquantificationasa Globalchangeresearchthereforerestsontwotheoretical
toolforintegratinggovernanceresearchintolargermodels and methodological pillars: One is earth system analysis
have still to provide convincing results. Qualitative driven by an integrated computer-based approach that
modelling projects to analyse international governance brings together models and modules of natural sciences as
processes and institutions are in their infancy (Eisenack, well as of some social sciences that are able to contribute
2003; Eisenack et al., 2006). Major problems in modelling models and quantified data, such as economics and some
governance processes remain, to name a few, the complex- strands of geography. The other pillar is the development
ity of relevant variables at multiple levels, human of an earth system governance theory that unites those
reflexivity, and difficulties in conceptualising key social social sciences that analyse organised human responses to
concepts such as ‘power’, ‘interest’ or ‘legitimacy’. earth system transformation, in particular the institutions
Given this mismatch between formalised methods and andagentsthatcauseglobalenvironmentalchangeandthe
fuzzy social realities, proponents of an integrated earth institutions, at all levels, that are created to steer human
system analysis often relegate governance research to an development in a way that secures a ‘safe’ co-evolution
auxiliary, advisory, and essentially non-scientific status. with natural processes. Both pillars are crowned by a
Quite typical is the conceptualisation of social science in common, collaborative roof that organises issue-specific
the 23 questions that the Global Analysis, Integration and co-operationbetweenthepillars,forexampleinthevarious
Modelling task force of the International Geosphere–Bio- joint projects of the Earth System Science Partnership.6
sphere Programme has put forward as overarching ques-
tions for the earth system analysis community
2.3. Earth system governance and social science
(Schellnhuber and Sahagian, 2002). Some of these ques-
tions relate to the social sciences. However, these social
This research programme on earth system governance
science questions are not viewed as part of the ‘analytical’
not only contributes to the scientific understanding of
questions(whichareexclusivelyrelatedtonaturalscience),
global change. It is also inherently part of the larger
but as part of the ‘strategic’ questions (for example
discourseinthesocialsciencesonnewinstitutionalismand
question no. 23, ‘What is the structure of an effective and
governance. Even though ‘governance’ is not uniformly
efficient system of global environment and development
defined in the social sciences (van Kersbergen and van
institutions?’), or ‘normative’ questions (for example,
Waarden,2004),itusuallydenotesnewformsofregulation
question no. 18, ‘What kind of nature do modern societies
that differ from traditional hierarchical state activity and
want?’).Thevalueofinstitutionalresearchasananalytical
implies some form of self-regulation by societal actors,
programme of inquiry is relegated to its policy-oriented,
private–public co-operation in the solving of societal
advisory dimensions. It appears that this is a logical
problems, and new forms of multilevel policy. (Other
outcome of an earth system analysis programme that is
motivated by computer-modelling and quantification.
6For example the Global Environmental Change and Food Systems
Project,theGlobalWaterSystemProject,theGlobalCarbonProject,and
theGlobalEnvironmentalChangeandHumanHealthProject.Informa-
5SeethePartnership’smissionstatementat/www.essp.orgS. tionandlinkstoallprojectwebsitesatwww.essp.org.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337 329
usageslessrelevantherearenormativeinthesenseof‘good studies, now ranging from changes in geophysical systems
governance’ and management-oriented in the sense of to the global loss of biological diversity. Key questions—
‘corporate governance’.) such as how Bangladesh could adapt to rising sea levels,
Earth system governance thus also relates to the how deterioration of African soils could be halted or how
discourse on ‘global governance’ (Commission on Global land-use changes in Brazil could be analysed—have barely
Governance, 1995; Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006; Kanie been covered by environmental policy research. Yet they
and Haas, 2004; Rosenau, 1995; Young, 1994, 1997). areinevitablypartofthestudyofearthsystemgovernance.
‘Global governance’ is often used as a description of On the other hand, earth system governance covers more
modern world politics, sometimes limited to traditional than problems of the ‘global commons’, but also local
formsofinternationalrelations (Finkelstein,1995,p.369), problems from air pollution to the preservation of waters,
sometimes broader to encompass a variety of social and waste treatment or desertification and soil degradation.
political interactions at all levels (Rosenau, 1995, p. Earth system governance thus requires the integration of
13).The term is also used as a political prescription to cope governanceresearchatalllevels.Itmustbridgescalesfrom
with problems of modernity, for example in calls for global to local.
‘global governance’ as a counterweight to globalisation
(CommissiononGlobalGovernance,1995;Smouts,1998). 3. Problems and principles
As a political project, global governance has also been
criticised, for instance from the perspective of historical This section further expands on the concept of earth
materialism (Overbeek, 2005) or of developing countries system governance. It begins with laying out the problem
(South Centre, 1996, p. 32). Yet notwithstanding these structureofearthsystemgovernancethatmakesitaspecial
differences in conceptualisation, much of the advance in and unprecedented challenge for both researchers and
theoretical and empirical knowledge on global governance decisionmakers(Section3.1).Fromthisproblemstructure,
willbefruitfulalsoforthedevelopmentofatheoryofearth I derive four general governance principles that could
system governance. underpin an earth system governance system for the 21st
Insum,earthsystemgovernanceisnotconfinedtostates century (Section 3.2). Section 4 then lays out the core
and governments as sole actors. It is marked by participa- research questions that, based on the current state of
tion of myriad public and private non-state actors at all knowledge, flow from the identification of problems and
levels of decision-making, ranging from networks of principles.
experts, environmentalists and multinational corporations
to agencies set up by governments. Earth system govern- 3.1. Problem structure
ance can therefore be defined as the sum of the formal and
informal rule systems and actor-networks at all levels of Earth system governance must cope with at least five
human society that are set up in order to influence the co- problem characteristics that make it a particular difficult
evolutionofhumanandnaturalsystemsinawaythatsecures governance challenge.
the sustainable development of human society—that is, a
development that meets the needs of present generations (1) First,theanthropogenicearthsystemtransformationis
without compromising the ability of future generations to marked by persistent uncertainty regarding the causes
meet their own needs. of global environmental change, its impacts, the
This notion of earth system governance is phenomen- interlinkage of various causes and response options,
ological inasmuch as it describes an emerging social and the effects of possible response options. Most
phenomenon expressed in hundreds of international transformations, such as global climate change, are
regimes, international bureaucracies, national agencies, non-linear and might accelerate, or slow down, at any
local and transnational activists groups and expert net- time. Surprises in system behaviour can be expected,
works. At the same time, earth system governance can be but are by definition unforeseeable. The history of the
understood as a political project that engages more and belated and partially accidental scientific discovery of
moreactorswhoseektostrengthenthecurrentarchitecture stratospheric ozone depletion and its human-made
ofinstitutionsandnetworksatlocalandgloballevels.And causes has been particularly well documented in the
inbothmeanings,earthsystemgovernanceisademanding literature,withitsintriguingstoryofcomputersystems
and vital subject of research for the social sciences. that excluded high ozone depletion as measurement
As such, earth system governance bridges traditional errors, of scientists who first did not report their
levels of analysis in governance and policy studies. On the findings, and of politicians who first refused to act
one hand, it goes beyond environmental policy analysis as (Litfin, 1994). Uncertainty has found its institutional
it emerged in the 1970s with its focus on managing response in repeated rounds of global environmental
environmental problems of industrialised countries. The assessments that have brought together the world’s
anthropogenic transformation of the earth system encom- leading scientistsin complex institutional settings,with
passes more puzzles and problems than have been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a
traditionally examined within environmental policy prime example. Yet these scientific assessment and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
330 F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337
research institutions cannot resolve the persistent areas.Functionalinterdependencealsorelates,inmany
uncertainty that continues to complicate earth system problem segments, to the mutual substitutability of
governance. response options, which poses particular problems of
Uncertainty is not only analytical, but also normative. international allocation. In climate governance, for
Most problems of earth system transformation are example, for every global policy target there are an
unprecedented. The adequate policies, polities and, unlimited number of possible combinations of local
especially, modes of allocation are uncertain, initially responses across nations and time frames with equal
alwayscontested,andneedtobedevelopedandagreed degrees of effectiveness. Functional interdependence
upon by societies over time. Uncertainty hence poses requires policy co-ordination and integration to the
particular governance challenges. It requires govern- extent possible. It lies at the heart of the discourse on
ance to be stable over decades and centuries to environmentalpolicyintegrationatthenationallevelas
withstand sudden changes of earth system parameters well as of recent attempts to cluster the plethora of
(orchanges inour knowledgeaboutthese parameters), international regimes into core groups, such as a
but also to be flexible enough to adapt to changes ‘chemicalscluster’or‘biodiversitycluster’(vonMoltke,
within the larger stable framework. Governance must 2005).
be oriented towards the long term, but must also (4) Fourth, the anthropogenic transformation of the earth
provide solutions for the near future. Normative systemcreatesnewformsanddegreesof(global)spatial
uncertainty requires the development of new norms interdependence. This relates to both natural (direct)
andconceptualframeworksforglobalcollectiveaction and social (indirect) interdependencies. Natural inter-
in uncharted territory. The global allocation of ‘emis- dependencies are functions of the earth system that
sions rights’ in climate governance, which oscillates transform local environmental pollution into changes
betweentheextremesofequalpercapitaallocationand of the global system that affect other localities.
allocationaccordingtoexistinguse,isaprimeexample Prominent examples are climate change, stratospheric
(Biermann, 2005). Analytical and normative uncer- ozone depletion, the global distribution of persistent
taintyispartofanycollectivedecision-making.Inearth organic pollutants, and the global spread of species
system governance, it is extreme. with potential harm for local ecosystems. Social
(2) Second, the anthropogenic transformation of the earth interdependencies are functions of the (global) social
system creates intergenerational dependencies that pose systemthattransformlocalenvironmentaldegradation
further exceptional governance challenges. Cause and into transregional or global social, economic and
effect of earth system transformations are usually political crises. This includes negative influences on
separated by decades, often by generations. The same the world economy, for example because of large-scale
holds for the decoupling over decades of the costs of flooding, drought or disease. It also includes negative
mitigation and the benefits of avoided harm. Sea-level influences on the material security of human popula-
rise,forexample,isexpectedwithinatime-rangeof100 tions, for example, when regional climatic change
years: such planning horizons exceed the tenure and causes decreases in food production and thus increases
even the lifetime of present decision-makers and in global food demand and food prices. Eventually,
stakeholders. Among other things, this poses the these social interdependencies will affect global and
challenge of international credibility and trust that regional security. Economic crises or mass migration
future governments will reciprocate and comply, and due to transformation of the earth system will not be
the problem of democratic legitimacy of policies in the confined to some states. They will affect all. Spatial
intergenerational context. What rights and responsi- ecological interdependence binds all nations. This
bilitiesdopresentgenerations,andtheirrepresentatives creates a new dependence of states, even the most
in parliament, have towards their unborn successors? powerful ones, on the community of all others. This
Intergenerational equity and responsibility is not spatial interdependence is a defining characteristic as
confined to earth system governance—it is also, for wellasakeychallengeofearthsystemgovernancethat
example, part of many social security systems. Yet in requires an effective institutional framework for global
earth system governance, intergenerational interdepen- co-operation,moresothanmostotherareasofforeign
dence is at the core. policy.
(3) Third, earth system governance must respond to the (5) Fifth, earth system governance has to cope with, and
functional interdependence of earth system transforma- gains its particular relevance from, the extraordinary
tion and of potential response options. Functional degree of harm that is possible, and that current
interdependence relates to the interdependence of governance systems might not be fully prepared for.
natural subsystems—linking, for instance, climate Sea-level rise, food shortage, drought, storms, land
change to biodiversity or land degradation—as well degradation, reproductive disorder and many other
as to the interdependence of social systems and policy consequences of earth system transformation—if un-
areas. Response strategies in one problem area or one checked—areconceivable.Somemightbecatastrophic,
policydomainarelikelytohaverepercussionsforother such as changes in monsoon patterns or in the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337 331
thermohaline circulation, large-scale breakdown of with its 2000-year stable leadership succession and
ecosystems, or rising sea levels in low-lying countries. decision-making mechanisms is probably the only
Developing countries in particular are ill prepared to transnational empirical example. It will be a key task
adapttothesechangesthatmightrequireinsomecases for analysts to chart ways for such stable systems of
large-scalemigrationandtransnationalfoodassistance. earth system governance in the 21st century.
Earth system governance is challenged in many ways. (3) Adaptiveness. Within this stable framework, actors
Extreme impacts could exceed the regulatory capacity must have the ability to change governance elements
ofindividualstates,bothinaffectedregionsandinless to respond to new situations, without harming both
affected potential donor regions. Global assistance, credibility and stability of the entire system. The
including globally co-ordinated planning and prepar- tension between stability and credibility, on the one
ing, is needed. Global solidarity led states and private hand,andtheneedtorespondquicklytonewscientific
citizens to transfer substantial funds to victims of findings and new interest constellations is one of the
disasters in the past, from the flood assistance to the keychallengesforearthsystemgovernance.Governing
Dutchin1953totheTsunamiaidprogrammesinearly has always implied a degree of social learning and of
2005. Yet the extent of potential impacts of earth adaptation to changed circumstances. Earth system
system transformation will put global solidarity to the transformation brings with it new challenges regarding
test, in particular when mass migration—for example the degree and speed of potential change. The condi-
from low-lying islands—is the only practical and tions for effective and equitable ‘adaptive governance’
financially viable option. are increasingly discussed at the local and regional
levels,forexampleconcerningwatersystemgovernance
(Huitema et al., 2006). The conditions for effective
global adaptive governance of large-scale earth system
3.2. Governance principles transformationsduringthe21stcenturywithinastable
and credible global institutional order are less under-
These problem characteristics of the global transforma- stood.
tion of earth system parameters through human action— (4) Inclusiveness. The interdependence of earth system
high analytic and normative uncertainty, high temporal, governance, as well as the complexity and uncertainty
functional and spatial interdependence, and potentially oftheentiresystemthatmaychangetheoverallinterest
extreme impacts—are unprecedented in the governance of constellationwithinafewyears,requirethegovernance
human affairs. From these characteristics of earth system system to be as inclusive as possible regarding the
transformation, I derive four core principles of earth stakeholders involved. This requirement of ‘participa-
system governance. torygovernance’includesweakerstatesthatmightlack
influence in world politics but are important both for
(1) Credibility. First, effective earth system governance mitigation and adaptation efforts. In particular devel-
requiresgovernmentstocommitresourcesbothdomes- oping countries are significantly more relevant, and
tically and through transnational transfer mechanisms hencemorepowerful,inkeyissueareasofearthsystem
for mitigation and increasingly adaptation policies. governance, from climate change to biodiversity
Given the uncertainty and temporal and spatial governance. Participatory governance is also the
interdependence of anthropogenic earth system trans- challenge of including non-state stakeholders in deci-
formation, governments will need to commit these sion-making at local and global levels, since the
resources based on the assumption that other govern- complexityanduncertaintyofearthsystemgovernance
ments will reciprocate when it is their turn—including cannot be resolved through action by public agents
thestill unknownfuture governments ofothernations. alone. However, this inclusion of private actors and
Earth system governance must thus produce the ‘civil society’ requires methods and mechanisms that
necessary credibility for governments and others to areperceivedbyallstakeholdersaslegitimate,effective,
believe in this reciprocity of interaction partners over and fair.
time and space.
(2) Stability. High uncertainty and high temporal, func- 4. Research challenges
tional and spatial interdependencies require that earth
system governance is stable enough over decades to Earth system governance is an emerging empirical
withstandpoliticalchangesinparticipatingcountriesor phenomenon as well as a political project of the 21st
changes in the world political system. Governments century. In both dimensions, it is a demanding challenge
that commit resources within a global normative for the study of the human dimensions of global environ-
frameworkinthepresentmustrelyontheperseverance mentalchangeandforsocialscienceingeneral,whichmust
ofthisframeworkovertime.Yeteffectivetransnational generate theoretical insights and practical tools to develop
institutions and governance systems with a time- effective structures of earth system governance. In the
horizon of centuries are rare—the Catholic Church following section, I develop five key clusters of questions
ARTICLE IN PRESS
332 F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337
that could guide a focussed research effort in earth system complementary research programme that analyses this
governancetheoryasacrosscuttingthemeofglobalchange macro-level. I call this the ‘architecture’ of earth system
research.7 These are the research problems of the overall governance, that is, the interlocking web of principles,
architecture of earth system governance, of agency beyond institutions and practices that shape decisions by stake-
the state, of the adaptiveness of governance mechanisms holders at all levels.
andoftheiraccountabilityandlegitimacy,andofthemode The structure and effectiveness of this overall architec-
ofallocationinearthsystemgovernance—inshort,thefive turestillremainsaresearchfrontier.Keyquestionsare,for
A’s of earth system governance research. example, the extent to which such an architecture must
restrict state sovereignty; the kind and character of the
universally accepted constitutional norms needed to sup-
4.1. Architecture
port such an architecture; the kind of mechanisms that
guarantee effective vertical interaction of governance
First, I argue that the governance principles of stability,
systemsacross levelsandscales;andtheneedforuniversal
credibility and inclusiveness require refocusing research
inclusion and participationamongstates. The questforan
efforts on the overall ‘architecture’ of earth system
overarchingarchitectureofearthsystemgovernancerelates
governance. Most research in this field in the last 30 years
also to recent debates on strengthening the UN system in
has focussed on single institutions. We now have a better
thisfield,inparticularwithaviewtopolicyproposalsfora
understanding of the creation, maintenance, and effective-
larger integrated organisation such as a ‘world environ-
ness of international environmental regimes, as well as
ment organisation’ or a ‘UN environment organisation’
bettermethodological toolstostudy thesephenomena(for
(Biermann and Bauer, 2005; Rechkemmer, 2005).
overviews, cf. Helm and Sprinz, 2000; Mitchell, 2003;
Young, 2001). It has been shown, for example, that
4.2. Agency beyond the state
different international norms and verification procedures,
compliance management systems, modes of regime alloca-
Second, credible, stable, adaptive, and inclusive earth
tionaswellasexternalfactors,suchasthestructureofthe
systemgovernancerequirestheconsentandinvolvementof
problem, all influence regime effectiveness. Most of these
actors beyond governments and state agencies. Many vital
studies have focussed on the effectiveness of single
institutionsofearthsystemgovernancearethereforetoday
institutions, often within larger comparative projects
inclusive of, or even driven by, non-state actors, ranging
(e.g.,GuptaandFalkner,2006;Haasetal.,1993;Keohane
from public non-state actors such as intergovernmental
and Levy, 1996; Miles et al., 2002; Victor et al., 1998;
bureaucracies (Biermann and Bauer, 2004; Bauer, 2006;
Young, 1997; Young et al., 1999). More recently, the
Busch, 2006) to purely private actors such an environmen-
increasing number and scope of international environ-
talist alliances, scientific networks, and business associa-
mental institutions has led to new research on their
tions (Arts, 1998, 2002; Betsill and Corell, 2001; Conca,
interaction,forexampleinstudiesonregimeinterlinkages,
1995;vanderGrijpandBrander,2004;Gupta,2003;Levy
regime ‘clusters’ or regime ‘complexes’ (van Asselt et al.,
and Newell, 2004; Princen et al., 1995; Raustiala, 1997;
2005; Chambers, 2001; Oberthu¨r and Gehring, 2006;
Wapner, 1996). These activities of non-state actors are no
Rosendal, 2001a,b; Stokke, 2000; Velasquez, 2000).
longerconfinedtolobbyingoradvisinggovernmentsinthe
Institutional interplay is also one of the three research
creation and implementation of international rules. In-
themesoftheInstitutionalDimensionsofGlobalEnviron-
creasingly, non-state actors now participate in global
mentalChange project of IHDP(Institutional Dimensions
institutions and negotiate their own standards, as in the
of Global Environmental Change Project, 1999; Young,
Forest Stewardship Council, the Coalition for Environ-
2002;onIDGECandinterplayseeSchro¨der,forthcoming).
mentally Responsible Economies, or the Marine Steward-
Theseapproachestounderstandingtheeffectivenessand
ship Council (Falkner, 2003; Pattberg, 2005, 2006b).
the interaction of different institutions had to be metho-
Public–private co-operation has received even more im-
dologically reductionist to be successful. Distinct institu-
petus with the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on
tions, sometimes distinct elements of larger institutions,
Sustainable Development and its focus on partnerships of
have been analysed regarding their effectiveness and their
governments, non-governmental organisations and the
relationship to other institutions or institutional elements.
private sector—the so-called Partnerships for Sustainable
The macro-level—that is, the system of institutions that
Development (Glasbergen et al., forthcoming).
addressaspectsofearthsystemgovernance—hasremained
The effectiveness of such public–private or fully private
largely outside the focus of the major research pro-
initiatives, however, is insufficiently understood. Most
grammes. Given the advances in regime theory and
advances in the study of earth system governance have
institutional analysis, further progress now requires a
traditionally been linked to inter-governmental co-opera-
tion and to states as core actors. We have an elaborate
7While I believe that these five A’s are the key current research
literature on the foreign policy of states, including their
questions,thelistisnotmeanttobeexhaustive.ThefiveA’sarerelatedto,
environmental foreign policy, and on institutions
anddrawon,thecurrentdebateonanewresearchphasefortheIHDP
coreproject‘InstitutionalDimensionsofGlobalEnvironmentalChange’. created and regulated by states. We still lack comparable
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337 333
knowledgeonthebehaviourofnon-stateactorsandonthe through drought, regional climate changes or sea-level
institutions that they create. Moreover, most recent rise, but also through new mitigation requirements—the
literature on private co-operation still builds on single- more will state capacities be in danger of becoming
disciplinary case-study research with case selection often overstretched, with local and regional crises as a possible
influenced by practical considerations or flawed through consequence. Given the uneven geographic distribution of
case-selection on the dependent variable, in particular adverse consequences of global environmental change,
where only ‘success stories’ are chosen (e.g. Reinicke and some states will face more demands for adaptation than
Deng, 2000). The major effort of the 1990s on analysing others. Since developing countries will suffer most from a
inter-governmentalenvironmentalregimesthusneedstobe lack of capacities to address the social, economic and
complementedbyasimilarresearchprogrammeon‘global environmental problems within their boundaries, their
participatory governance’ that explores the public–private capacities are likely to be stretched most by global
and private institutions in earth system governance. environmental change. The added stress that earth system
transformationplacesonstateslimitstheiroptionstofulfil
otherfunctionssuchasguaranteeingpoliticalparticipation
4.3. Adaptive governance and the ‘adaptive state’
and creating minimal social conditions. Earth system
change requires states to prepare for and adapt to its
Third, the five problem characteristics of earth system
consequences and thus increases the demand for the
governancedevelopedaboveplacenewburdensonthecore
administrative, organisational, technological and financial
functions of the state, which needs to evolve into an
capacityofthe‘adaptivestate’—ademandthatsomestates
‘adaptive state’. The adaptive state will be challenged in
will find easier to meet than others.
three ways: by decreased autonomy through increased
Whilemuchresearchhasfocusedontheroleofthestate
dependence on other states, increased need for legitimacy,
in the advancement of public goals and public goods—
and increased stress through the need to adapt to sudden
economicdevelopment,individualfreedom,democracy—a
alterations of the natural environment.8
key question of earth system governance will be the
First, the spatial interdependence—regarding both nat-
analysis of the ‘adaptive state’: a state able to adapt
ural and social interdependence—of global environmental
internally and externally to large-scale transformations of
problems has made states directly dependent on the
its natural environment.
activities of other states. The guarantee of security and
the protection of citizens are now possible only in a
4.4. Accountability
governance system that transcends state boundaries. Un-
like economic interdependence that was debated in the
The three research themes of earth system governance
1960sand 1970s(e.g., Keohane andNye, 1977), ecological
thatIhavedescribedcreateproblemsofaccountabilityand
interdependence is inescapable even for the most powerful
legitimacy. Credible, stable and inclusive governance must
nations. Ecological interdependence binds all nations,
be perceived as legitimate by all stakeholders, and its
which creates a new dependence of all nations on the
actions and representatives must be accountable to their
community of all others.
constituencies. In the 20th century, legitimacy and
Second, spatial and temporal interdependence as well as
accountability was a problem of national governments.
analytical and normative uncertainty create new problems
In the 21st century and its new needs of earth system
for the legitimacy of state action. Drastic mitigation
governance, accountability and legitimacy appear in a
programmes today will mainly benefit—through reduced
differentcontext.Eventually,thiscomesdowntothequest
harm—futuregenerations,whichwillsufferlessfromfloods,
for democratic earth system governance.
droughts or breakdowns of ecosystems. In addition, most
There are two broad types of research needs: First, a
beneficiaries will live beyond a state’s borders. Normative
theoretical one. In purely intergovernmental norm-setting
uncertainty inevitably requires current generations to work
processes, legitimacy is conferred indirectly through the
towardsamodelofearthsystemgovernanceand,implicitly,
accountability of governments to their voters. Likewise,
towardsafuturestateoftheearthsystemwhosedesirability
international bureaucracies can derive legitimacy through
forfuturegenerationsremainsunknown.Knownaremerely
their principals, the governments, which are accountable to
the costs for current generations, which need to be
their voters.However, such long linesof accountability have
legitimised if drastic actions are taken. All this places new
been questioned in recent years (e.g., Dingwerth, 2005;
burdens on the legitimacy of state action.
Dryzek, 1999; Held, 1997; Scholte, 2002). Many authors see
Third,adaptationtoearthsystemtransformationsposes
a solution in the participation of private actors in global
additional burdens on state capacities. The more environ-
governance. David Held, for example, recognises ‘‘‘new’’
mental change puts stress on societies—for instance voices of an emergent ‘‘transnational civil society’’ y in the
earlystagesofdevelopmenty[that]pointinthedirectionof
8See here the special issue of Global Environmental Politics, ‘Global
establishing new modes of holding transnational power
Environmental Change and the Nation State’, vol. 4 (1), 2004, and in
systems to account, that is, they help open up the possibility
particular the introduction to the issue by Biermann and Dingwerth
(2004). of a cosmopolitan democracy’ (Held, 1999, p. 108).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
334 F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337
Problematic is, however, the accountability and legiti- isms and criteria will thus become central questions to be
macy of these private actors themselves. In the domestic addressed by social scientists as well as decision-makers.
context, private organisations derive legitimacy through This is particularly pertinent for the relationship between
their members or donors—even though members and NorthandSouth,whichhasdefinedthecentralconflictline
donors often have no formal means to decide the policies in many areas of earth system governance, ranging from
oftheorganisation.Theycanalsogainlegitimacyfromthe global climate (Gupta, 1997; Biermann, 2005) to forest
environmental good that they seek to protect. In the policies (Pattberg, 2006a).
Philippines, for example, non-governmental groups have At stake are not only the costs of mitigation. Given the
successfullyclaimedincourttoderivelegitimacyandlocus potential disastrous consequences of earth system trans-
standibyrepresentingtheinterestsoffuturegenerations.In formations, questions of fairness in adaptation will arise
theinternationalcontext,however,withitshighdisparities (Adger et al., 2006). Compensation and support through
in wealth and power, accountability and legitimacy of the global community of the most affected and most
private actors is more complicated. Most philanthropic vulnerableregions,suchassmallislandstates,willnotonly
organisationsareheadquarteredinindustrialisedcountries, be a moral responsibility. It will also be politically and
and most funds donated to their cause stem from the economically prudent.
North, both public and private. It is likely that this Yet despite this central relevance of allocation, research
influences the agenda of these groups and makes them in this field has been scarce in the past, in particular
more accountable to Northern audiences (Commission on regarding empirical research programmes that could lend
Global Governance, 1995; South Centre, 1996). substance to the more policy-oriented, philosophical
This leads to the second, practical challenge: Because of treatises on equity. Few research efforts have yet been
thesedisparities,researchersneedtodesign,andpractitioners directed at understanding the causal pathways that lead to
to develop, institutions that guarantee participation of civil specific allocation mechanisms, and the consequences of
societyinearthsystemgovernancethroughmechanismsthat different allocation mechanisms in earth system govern-
vouchsafe a balance of opinions and perspectives. For anceareequallyinsufficientlyunderstood.Littlesystematic
example, networks of transnational private actors can seek analysis has been devoted to studying allocation as
to balance views and interests through self-regulation, independent variable and to analysing allocation mechan-
including financial support for representatives from develop- isms in relation to variant effectiveness of the core
ingcountries.ThisisdoneforinstancethroughNorth–South institutions of earth system governance. In short, given
quotasin meetingsand alliances of non-stateactivists within the growing relevance of earth system governance in the
the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Also the 21st century in terms of both mitigation and adaptation
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a form of costs, allocation is certain to become a major concern for
institutionalised participation of non-state actors in earth researchers and practitioners alike.
system governance, could serve as a model for the effective
participation of both developing countries and non-state
actors from the South (Agrawala, 1998a,b; Siebenhu¨ner 5. Earth system governance as research practice
2002, 2003; Biermann, 2002). Another option to increase
legitimacy and accountability of earth system governance by Eventually, earth system governance as a research field
strengthening private participation in a balanced way could in the social sciences necessitates a particular analytical
be a ‘quasi-corporatist’ institutionalisation. The Commission approach and research practice. It requires, to begin with,
onGlobalGovernance(1995,p.258),forexample,proposed its own methodology. Research on earth system govern-
an international Forum of Civil Society within the United ancewillneedtobeaninterdisciplinaryeffortthatlinksall
Nations,whichwouldcompriseof300–600‘organsofglobal relevantsocialsciences,butdrawsonfindingsfromnatural
civil society’ to be self-selected from civil society. science as well. In particular when it comes to adaptation,
earth system governance is called upon to analyse and
design governance systems that respond to emergencies
4.5. Allocation
that are so far only predicted for the future, but are likely
to exceed in scope and quality most of what is known
Finally, earth system governance must be perceived as
today. Adaptive governance systems that take account of
fair and equitable by all stakeholders in order to be
changes in monsoon patterns, large-scale breakdowns of
effective.Politicsisaboutthedistributionofresourcesand
ecosystems or modifications in the thermohaline circula-
values,andearthsystemgovernanceisnodifferent.Modes
tion will need to deal with scales of change that are
ofallocationarekeyfactorsforitsstability,credibilityand
unprecedented. While traditional social science builds on
inclusiveness.9 With the increasing relevance of earth
the development and testing of theories and hypotheses
system governance in the 21st century, allocation mechan-
through historical experience, earth system governance,
which is inherently future-oriented, has to rely on new
9SeesimilarlyAdgeretal.(2005),whowriteintheireditorialtoGlobal
formsofevidenceandnewformsofvalidityandreliability
EnvironmentalChangethata‘moreexplicitconcernwithequityandjustice
willbeimportantinfurtheringthestudyofglobalenvironmentalchange’. of empirical knowledge.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.Biermann/GlobalEnvironmentalChange17(2007)326–337 335
Likewise, research on earth system governance has to Table1
cope with normative uncertainty. We do not know what
Problemstructures Governance Researchchallenges
governance systems and governance outcomes future
principles
generations want. This calls at the very least for
participatory research and assessment methods that (cid:3) Uncertainty (cid:3) Credibility (cid:3) Architecture
integrate lay-experts in academic research programmes (cid:3) Functional (cid:3) Stability (cid:3) Agency
Interdependence (cid:3) Adaptiveness (cid:3) Adaptivestate
(Hisschemo¨ller et al., 2001; van de Kerkhof, 2004).
(cid:3) Spatial (cid:3) Inclusiveness (cid:3) Accountability
Stakeholder dialogues or citizens juries are key elements interdependence (cid:3) Allocation
in the larger effort to understand and strengthen earth (cid:3) Temporal
system governance. Interdependence
Added to this is the general problem that all science is (cid:3) Extremeeffects
context-boundinthepersonofthescientist.Whenitcomes
to earth system governance, this contextual embeddedness
of the researcher relates to both time and (cultural) space. one of the most exciting research fields in the social
Regarding time, we need to develop and ‘test’ today, with sciences. As a political programme, it is no less daunting.
the knowledge of today, governance systems that will help The bolder visions of the earlier philosophers, such as
to achieve a safe human–nature co-evolution over the Seneca’s idea of a res publica whose boundaries would be
course of the century. ‘the sun alone’ (De Otio, y IV, 1) or Kant’s proposal of a
Regarding space, the cultural-normative embeddedness global federation of states for ‘the eternal peace’, seem
ofsocialscientistsrequiresnewformsofdiversity-manage- hardly more realistic today than they were in their days.
ment in global science in the form that is supported today Yet earth system governance is emerging. More than 900
in many global environmental assessment institutions internationalenvironmentalagreementsareinforce.Many
(Jasanoff and Long Martello, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2006). harmful substances, such as the ozone-depleting chloro-
In particular, it requires a global approach to the fluorocarbons,havebeenphasedoutthroughinternational
organisation of research. The study of earth system co-operation. Mitigation and adaptation projects against
governance encompasses all the world’s regions, but must global warming are mushrooming in many places, from
also be internationally organised to make use of local India to the Netherlands, often inspired, guided or co-
knowledge, values and insights. As Kates and colleagues ordinated by global collaborative programmes.
argued in their blueprint of a sustainability science, ‘a Yet how to create a global and effective architecture for
comprehensive approach to [scientific] capacity building earth system governance that is adaptive to changing
will have to nurtureyglobal institutions in tandem with circumstances,participatorythroughinvolvingcivilsociety
locally focused, trusted, and stable institutions that can at all levels, accountable and legitimate as part of new
integrate work situated in particular places and grounded democraticgovernancebeyondthenationstate,andatthe
in particular cultural traditions with the global knowledge same time fair for all participants: this research and
system’ (Kates et al., 2001, p. 642). Such diversity within governance challenge still lies ahead.
theresearchcommunitytogetherwithstrongernetworking
isaprerequisiteforstudyingearthsystemgovernance.The Acknowledgements
globalisation of problems can be countered only by the
globalisation of research. Given the dominance of North- This text is the abbreviated version of the author’s
ern science in global change research programmes, how- inaugural lecture at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
ever, this will eventually call for more than quotas for Many thanks for useful comments on earlier versions of
developing country experts in large-scale scientific projects thistexttoRiesBode,JoopdeBoer,JanBoersema,Klaus
and assessments. It will also require increased efforts in Dingwerth, Klaus Eisenack, Nicolien van der Grijp, Aarti
strengtheningSouthernresearchcapacitiesonearthsystem Gupta, Dave Huitema, Robert Marschinski, Hans
governance (Biermann, 2001, 2002). Opschoor, Philipp Pattberg, Heike Schro¨der, Uta Schuch-
mann, Bernd Siebenhu¨ner, Frans van der Woerd, Oran R.
6. Conclusion Young,aswellastwoanonymousreviewersandtheeditors
of GEC.
This article has sketched the emerging field of earth
system governance as an empirical phenomenon of world References
politics and as a crosscutting programme for the global
change research community. I have laid out the key Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Hulme, M., 2005. Redefining global environ-
problem characteristics and governance principles, as well mentalchange(editorial).GlobalEnvironmentalChange:Humanand
as five major research challenges: architecture, agency, PolicyDimensions15,1–4.
Adger,W.N.,Paavola,J.,Huq,S.,Mace,M.J.(Eds.),2006.Fairnessin
adaptiveness, accountability, and allocation (cf. Table 1).
AdaptationtoClimateChange.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
More than anything else, this makes earth system
Agrawala,S.,1998a.ContextandearlyoriginsoftheIntergovernmental
governance one of the most challenging, but thus also PanelonClimateChange.ClimaticChange39,605–620.