Keynote papers

The global governance of climate change, forests, water, and food: normative challenges
J. Gupta Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands; UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft; School of Commerce, Division of Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide; joyeeta.gupta@ivm.vu.nl.

Abstract
Global negotiations in a number of different areas show that power politics often determines negotiation outcomes. This raises a number of ethical challenges. This paper, hence, addresses the question: What are the normative challenges at global level in the context of climate change, water, and forests and what does this imply for food? This question is addressed through short case studies on the climate change negotiations, water negotiations, and forest negotiations which discuss the link of each with food, the key ethical issues involved, the state of current governance, and draws inferences for the food regime. It argues that the existing inequities in the food regime globally and locally will be exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, water and forest governance on agricultural productivity. This may, to some extent, be resolved through advances in technological knowledge; but such advances may not necessarily address the distribution problem which is at the heart of normative challenges. The paper argues that one way to try and solve these distributional problems globally, is to promote the adoption of a global constitution and the rule of law. Keywords: power politics, ethical issues, distributional problems, rule of law

Introduction
The rule of law concept refers to the application of general principles in a predictable manner to all situations it is often contrasted with the rule of a king or a powerful leader. While the rule of law concept is considered as very important at the national level in most developed countries and is promoted actively in the developing world by the developed countries, at global level the rule of law project is very incomplete. Many powerful countries (such as the US) see the international arena as anarchic and do not wish to give up their sovereignty to a global decision-making process. As a result, the global arena is characterised by ad hoc rules that are generally taken to support the interests of hegemonic actors (cf. Simpson, 2000). This is particularly evident in the case of climate change. This implies that countries prefer issue-specific rules rather than ethics based principles at global level. Against this background, this paper addresses the question: What are the normative challenges at global level in the context of climate change, water, and forests and what does this imply for food? This is answered through short case studies which discuss the link of each with food, the key ethical issues involved, the state of current governance, and draws conclusions for the food regime.

Climate Change
Climate change and food

The problem of climate change can affect food availability, access and use patterns. It can affect food availability, since changing local climates (drought, floods, changes in growing season) and salt water intrusion can affect crop survival and productivity. It can affect access by changing the ability of local
T. Potthast and S. Meisch (eds.), Climate change and sustainable development: Ethical perspectives on land use and food production, DOI 10.3920/978-90-8686-753-0_2, Wageningen Academic Publishers 2012

29

Keynote papers

regions to produce for local people, or by changing the price of agricultural commodities thereby pushing it out of the reach of local people. It can affect use patterns by either forcing people to use what is available as against what they want; or climate mitigation and adaptation policy may call for a cropswitch to other crops such as from rice to wheat. Existing food problems in Africa and Asia are likely to be further exacerbated by the effects of climate change.
Climate change ethical challenges

The climate change problem is essentially a North-South issue for four reasons. First, in terms of the past emissions of greenhouse gases, the emission level of the average Northern country was substantially higher than that of the average Southern country. Second, the bulk of the impacts until 2020-2050 are caused by past emissions, the majority of which were emitted by the developed world. Third, according to UNDP (2007), if global greenhouse gas concentrations and emission levels are to be kept within safe levels the world budget for the 21st century would be exhausted by 2032, leaving little room for the developing countries to grow something they have been asking for at the UN General Assembly for a long time and which has been now formalized in the UNGA resolution (1986) on the Right to Develop. Fourth, the impacts of climate change will be more severe in the South both because of the geographical location of the developing countries, and also because their vulnerability is the greatest. The initial social contract between the developed and the developing countries was that (a) the developed countries would reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases; and (b) provide assistance to the developing countries to help them purchase more climate friendly technologies and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. This was encapsulated in the leadership paradigm. However, by the time the Climate Convention (1992) was finally drafted, (a) the target to reduce emissions was worded in very vague language possibly not amounting to a legally binding target; (b) the help to developing countries was not in terms of targets and timetables but in terms of woolly words the only clear paragraph being Art. 4.7 which is cited till today by the developing countries; and (c) the ethical norms encapsulated in the article on Principles included five ideas: The common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capability principle, the right to sustainable development, the protection of vulnerable countries, the precautionary principle and the open international economic system. Yet at least two of these are contradictory (the precautionary principle is made subject to the cost-effectiveness argument; and the open economic system may contradict sustainable development). Furthermore two important ideas are excluded (the polluter pays principle and the no harm principle), and the whole was made legally contentious through a footnote! By the time the Kyoto Protocol (1997) was adopted, (a) new targets were adopted by the developed countries, but together (1) they fell short of what was needed (both in absolute terms and also since the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and Canada has withdrawn in 2011), (2) individually they include targets to increase greenhouse gas emissions, (3) there was an option to offset increases in the developed world through projects in the developing world; (b) the (1) bulk of the technology transfer help to developing countries was linked to emission reduction in the North (e.g. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)) and (2) the Adaptation Fund was created out of a tax on the cooperation between North and South in the CDM; (c) an implicit new norm on grandfathering was introduced through the introduction of the emissions trading concept.
Current state of climate governance

We have reached 2012 and there are (1) no new legally binding targets; only some highly conditional pledge and review type targets; (2) if there are no new targets, the impetus to invest in the offset
30 Climate change and sustainable development

Keynote papers

mechanisms of the CDM and Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is reduced, and thereby there will be fewer resources flowing into the Adaptation Fund, and although there are new funds promised it is unclear which country and which actor will contribute and by how much; and (3) consensus references to normative values are disappearing from the agenda (Gupta, 2010). The bottom-line is that the climate change problem has not been adequately addressed and the potential impacts from past emissions are being felt in different parts of the world, but these are, of course, subject to the attribution challenge: can these impacts be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions of the developed world?
Inferences

This implies that the impact of climate change on food availability and access is becoming further exacerbated; and as there are limited resources available for climate change adaptation, there is also limited assistance to those impacted in the 150 non-developed countries.

Water
Water and food

Fresh water is a key resource for food production. Between 70 and 80% of water use is for agricultural production. In fact this ratio has scarcely changed since the time of the Mesopotamian Civilization. The water system is changing partly because of the impacts of climate change (e.g. changing precipitation and evaporation patterns, rising sea levels and melting glaciers) but also because of other human activities such as dams which influence sedimentation patterns and soil fertility, and changing land use patterns. Since the world population is expected to increase by about 40% in 2050, there will be an increase in the demand for food and feed.
Water ethical challenges

Water is governed from local through to global levels. I will only discuss the issues that arise from transboundary to global water use and only in relation to the non-navigational uses. In relation to the transboundary use of water, the key issues are regarding who has the ownership and/or user rights over the water, how can water be shared between countries, and how can responsibilities regarding the management of ecosystem services be allocated between countries. At regional level, two case studies may illustrate some of the normative challenges. The Nile passes through 11 countries and flows via Sudan into Egypt before emptying into the Mediterranean Sea. Colonial and post colonial agreements between Sudan and Egypt provide the bulk of the waters of the Nile to these two countries, a division that is highly contested by the upstream countries. In order to question this division and to address the problem of equitable sharing of the Nile waters, the Nile Basin Initiative and the Cooperative Framework Agreement have been launched; and the current political changes in Egypt, the split up of Sudan and South Sudan, and the building of the Grand Millennium Dam may provide a political window of opportunity to renegotiate the sharing of the Nile. Another case study is that of the Mekong which flows through China via Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. The equitable sharing and management of the Mekong River is currently being governed by the Mekong River Commission, but China and Myanmar are not members. As an upstream country with considerable political and economic power, China has the ability to increase its water access and pollution without taking into consideration downstream needs. The challenge is to find ways to include the upstream countries into the joint management of the river.
Climate change and sustainable development 31

Keynote papers

At global level, the 1997 Watercourses Convention aimed to codify rules regarding the sharing of watercourses and has six criteria for water sharing between countries, only one of which refers to past use. It also has criteria for not causing harm to other countries. However, this Convention has yet to enter into force, and climate change has not yet been mainstreamed into this or other transboundary water agreements.
Current state of water governance

The current state of water governance is that we have a global treaty that is not in force, we have a number of water related initiatives (e.g. promoting integrated water resource management) taken by a vast number of UN and non-UN agencies that have some influence and we have the 2010 UN General Assembly Resolution on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation. At regional level we have hundreds of treaties and although in the UN Economic Commission for Europe region, the treaties are developing a normative framework for dealing with water, in other regions of the world, most treaties are highly contested in terms of equitable utilization, flood water management and pollution control and have not yet taken climate change into account.
Inferences

The key norms for water governance in relation to access (the human right to water and sanitation), equitable utilization (the sharing of water resources among riparian users), and the no-harm principle (the use of water such that harm to states is minimized) have been articulated and codified, but are yet to be effectively implemented because of regional politics. The management of risks (flood risks, and the risks of climate change impacts) have yet to be taken into account.

Forests
Forests and food

Deforestation and forest degradation are very much in the news today. A key driving factor behind deforestation is the need to expand agricultural land. At the same time, the relationship is not one-way. Forests provide bushmeat, fruits, nuts and honey for rural communities; they provide ecosystem services which regulate hydrological services for irrigation use, absorb greenhouse gases, minimize the impacts of extreme weather events on the landscape, may enhance pollination in nearby fields and some forests (mangroves) reduce the potential for salt water intrusion; and income to local communities so that they can buy food. At the same time, forests are also impacted by changing climates.
Forest ethical challenges

The ethical challenges at global level with respect to forests concern firstly whose forests are being governed? Forests typically fall under national boundaries and the question is can foreigners dictate how a country manages its land use? This is especially important in relation to the fact that those who have already deforested tend to turn a finger towards those who are currently deforesting to ask them to stop doing so. This is one of the critical reasons why there is no real effective global forest governance regime today. The fact that deforestation may contribute about 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions has brought attention back to the deforestation issue; this time the idea is that emission reductions in the forest arena can be used to offset emissions in the developed world. Afforestation and reforestation projects qualify as CDM projects, while reducing deforestation qualify as REDD projects. Apart from the dubious
32 Climate change and sustainable development

Keynote papers

ethics of offset policies, there is another issue here. How will developing country governments actually implement the forestry policies? Will this lead to labelling some land as forests and thus impacting on the right to sell of local landowners? Will this lead to a negation of community rights to use and manage forests? Or will this lead to a true compensation of forest ecosystem services for local people via the payment for ecosystem services (PES) concept. What effect will this have on the local availability of land for agricultural purposes or on the local access to food sources within forests? Experiences from the past (e.g. Debt for nature swaps) suggest that there is many a slip between the theoretical idea and the practical implementation. While in theory many of the ethical aspects can be resolved, in practice those who are expected to pay may not wish to pay, a PES scheme is considerably more expensive than a Protected Area scheme, ownership rights to forests are highly disputed and the local community is often difficult to identify, find and compensate.
Inferences

The key norms for emerging forest governance are sustainable forest management, forest ownership rights and payment for ecosystem services. But all of these are highly contested in the practical world of forest implementation. The key question is whether forest lands can be managed such that the perceived trade-offs between forests and food can be dealt with and the communities living in and around forests are not worse off.

Implications for food

Implications of the above for food

Changing climates, hydrological regimes and forest regimes may have a serious impact on global food security. Although there are attempts to address these problems using a normative framework, these norms are yet to be implemented. Although there are attempts to design solutions for these problems, the climate change regime is far from being addressed, many parts of the world are very water stressed, and deforestation and land degradation continues.
Food ethical challenges

The global governance of food itself is not without its ethical challenges. Global food governance is dispersed among many different UN agencies and agreements and World Food Summits receive relatively little global high-level attention. There is no real determination of common values and ethics with respect to food. Instead food security is negatively influenced by the implementation of food aid politics, over-production in the West and rising prices in the South, debt and past structural adjustment programmes in the South, subsidies for European agriculture and fisheries, the intellectual property rights regime, the impact of gene technology on food biodiversity, by hierarchical vertically integrated markets (e.g. on bananas) on small farmers and by the new demands for biofuel and the global recession. Add to these existing ethical challenges, the new ethical issues raised by climate change (as to who is responsible for reducing emissions and compensating others and thereby setting a good example to emerging economies), by water (as to how transboundary water should be shared and managed in terms of its complete ecosystem services), and by forests (as to how to create an ethical and legitimate multilevel governance system to address the forestry issue) and the issue becomes much more complicated.

Climate change and sustainable development

33

Keynote papers

Inferences

While technologies may be able to ensure enough food production for all, the key problem will be whether the existing wastage of food in consumer societies can be reduced, and whether the distribution of food can be enhanced and local access and affordability of food guaranteed.

Conclusions
As the global economy increases three-fold by 2050 with accompanying demands for fancy food, as the global population increases by 40%, and as technologies make more consumptive behaviour possible (e.g. travel to space, individual gadgets), global greenhouse gases may continue to rise in a business as usual scenario, average temperatures may increase by1.5-2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, water withdrawals may increase by 20-85%, 10-20% of land may be converted for agricultural use, nutrient loads may increase by 2/3rds, edible fish populations may reduce by 90% in comparison to pre-industrial levels, and plant species may decrease by 10-15% (MA, 2005). This is likely to enhance stress between and within countries. This may lead to two choices the first is that food, water and energy become global security issues and bring the world community together in a joint effort to address problems; or it may lead to an intensification of competition between countries. In both cases, the only way forward is to create a rule of law system and a global constitution within which countries operate: in the first situation such a rule of law system will be symbiotic with the global efforts, in the second situation, such a system will help pre-empt the breach of global responsibilities and the rise of resource conflicts and wars. Such a global constitution could draw inspiration from the 1945 UN Charter and its emphasis on peace and security, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the human rights agreements and the Millennium Development Goals and their emphasis on guaranteeing access to basic resources, and the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention and its emphasis on sharing transboundary resources equitably.

Acknowledgements
The author has partly worked on this project as part of the EU FP7 Project on REDD Alert (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation through Alternative Landuses in Rainforests of the Tropics (contract number 226310).

References
Gupta, J. (2010). A history of international climate change policy, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews 1(5): 636-653. MA (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington. Simpson, G. (2000), The Situation on the International Legal Theory Front: The Power of Rules and the Rule of Power. European Journal of International Law 11: 439. UNDP (2007). Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. UNDP Human Development Report 2007-2008. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

34

Climate change and sustainable development