What systems of earth system governance are likely to support a co-evolution of nature and human societies that leads towards sustainable development?

Earth system governance can be defined as the interrelated and increasingly integrated system of formal and informal rules, rule-making systems, and actor-networks at all levels of human society (from local to global) that are set up to steer societies towards preventing, mitigating, and adapting to global and local environmental change and, in particular, earth system transformation, within the normative context of sustainable development.

Earth system governance is a major analytical challenge for the social sciences. It involves questions of the emergence, design and effectiveness of governance systems as well as the overall integration of global, regional, national and local governance—that is, the quest for effective architectures. It also requires understanding the actors that drive earth system governance and that need to be involved—that is, the question of agency. Third, earth system governance must respond to the inherent uncertainties in human and natural systems; it must combine stability to ensure long-term governance solutions, with flexibility to react quickly to new findings and developments. In other words, we must understand and further develop the adaptiveness of systems of earth system governance. Fourth, the more regulatory competence and authority is conferred upon institutions and systems of governance the more will we be confronted with the need to understand the democratic quality of earth system governance and with questions of how to ensure the accountability and legitimacy of governance systems. Fifth, earth system governance is, as is any political activity, about the distribution of material and immaterial values. It is, in essence, a conflict about the access to goods and about their allocation—it is about justice, fairness, and equity. The novel character of earth system transformation puts questions of allocation and access in a new light.

(Based on the Science and Implementation Plan of the IHDP Earth System Governance Project)

One huge challenge facing our ability to embark on more socially and ecologically-sustainable pathways is presented by the metrics through which governments measure “progress.” What are alternative ways to measure progress, do we even need to think in terms of “progress,” and what institutional changes are needed to change the ways we measure progress or change?

Measures such as GDP and even HDI have been critiqued in the social sciences for being inadequate in multiple ways. We thus need some better metrics that recognize the deep inter-linkages between social and ecological systems. Importantly, we also need accompanying political changes to change the way the world understands progress. Obstacles include a dazzling array of different measures of “sustainable development,” an equal number of critiques of these measures, and a dearth of research on how exactly we get from point A (our current political systems, focused on GDP, growth, etc) to point B (a new political system that uses better metrics).

How can we ensure that the environment is integrated into all development activities?

With current rates of world poverty, socio-economic development is not only morally justified, it must be tempered by environmental protection and conservation. How to achieve this in the massive scale that is required, and through the different governance structures and motivations across different regions and states will be of major importance in the next decade. This not only relates to matters of the climate, but to all aspects of the earth system.

How soon can each of the country board on a low GHG pathway?

Development today is following the footsteps of the predecessors. Can we define an alternative development pathway in a carbon constrained world? Who would /should lead the way? Developed or developing countries? How can this be consistent with sustenance of human well being? A shelf full of technologies are known that can move the world on low carbon pathway but important question is what institutional structure, local capacity, education, international cooperation mechanism, financial assistance, political will for prioritizing the issues are defining realities with as many varieties as there are countries, states etc. so to be realistic enough about stabilization and peaking major question is can we map each country’s reality and get an envelope to decide on adaptation plan and protocol. This exercise will infact show who can commit how much in terms of global good delivery unilaterally , bilaterally, multtilaterally. Ideally it will be realistic to imagine that no single world order for cooperation will prevail.