Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies

A long tradition in economics explores the association between the quality of formal institutions and economic performance. The literature on the relationship between such institutions and happiness is, however, rather limited. In this paper, we revisit the findings from recent cross-country studies on the institutions-happiness association. Our findings suggest that the conclusions reached by previous studies are fairly sensitive to the specific measure of ‘happiness’ used. In addition, the results indicate that the welfare effects of policies may differ across phases of a country’s economic development. This bears important policy implications which we discuss in the concluding section of the paper.

Formal Institutions and Subjective Well-Being: Revisiting the Cross-Country Evidence

Despite widespread policy support for education for sustainable development in higher education, and a strong academic literature arguing for a radical rethink of curriculum, pedagogy and institutional culture, progress towards the educational reforms advocated remains limited. Based on in‐depth interviews with lecturers at a case‐study university, this article explores reasons for the slow pace of change, in particular how constraining variables (such as class size, patchy managerial support, perceived irrelevance to some disciplines, and conflict with prevalent higher education pedagogies) inhibit the widespread use of the holistic, interdisciplinary, transformative learning approaches advocated by theorists. Coping strategies employed by lecturers to bring education for sustainable development into their teaching practices are investigated and reviewed in the context of the ‘theory of the second best’. We conclude with a plea for greater recognition in the literature of the merits of such ‘second‐best’...

/pdf/revolutions-and-second-best-solutions-education-for-4yr22sto1m.pdf

Revolutions and second‐best solutions: education for sustainable development in higher education

Biodiversity is integral to almost all ecosystem processes, with some species playing key functional roles that are essential for maintaining the value of ecosystems to humans. However, many ecosystem services remain nonvalued, and decisionmakers rarely consider biodiversity in policy development, in part because the relationships between biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services are not generally appreciated. To date, the majority of work in which the functional importance of biodiversity has been examined has been conducted in relatively species-poor systems. Focusing on forest and agroforest systems, we synthesize recent research on the role of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services and provide examples of biodiversity science that informs ecosystem management and policy. Finally, we highlight barriers to the transfer of knowledge from scientists to decisionmakers and suggest that scientists can be much more effective at informing policy and improving resource management by asking policy-relevant questions and providing timely and consistent information to decisionmakers and the public on the linkages among biodiversity, ecosystem services, and their value to people.

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/63079_2011_BioScience%20Thompson%20et%20al.pdf

Forest Biodiversity and the Delivery of Ecosystem Goods and Services: Translating Science into Policy

Our point of analytical departure is that the state of the global environment is deteriorating despite the accumulating body of international environmental law. By drawing on the recent Earth system science concept of interlinked planetary boundaries, this article makes a case for a goal-oriented, purposive system of multilateral environmental agreements. The notion of ‘goal’ is used here to mean a single, legally binding, superior norm – a grundnorm – that gives all international regimes and organizations a shared purpose to which their specific objectives must contribute. A bird’s eye view of the international environmental law system reveals how the absence of a unifying goal has created a condition that is conducive to environmental problem shifting rather than problem solving. We argue that a clearly agreed goal would provide the legal system with a point of reference for legal reasoning and interpretation, thereby enhancing institutional coherence across Earth’s subsystems. To this end, this article concludes by observing that the protection of the integrity of Earth’s life-support system has emerged as a common denominator among international environmental law instruments. Accordingly, we suggest that this notion is a strong candidate for the overarching goal of international environmental law.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S2047102513000149

International Environmental Law in the Anthropocene: Towards a Purposive System of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

https://degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Kosoy_2012_Pillars-for-a-flourishing-Earth.pdf

Pillars for a flourishing Earth: planetary boundaries, economic growth delusion and green economy

The term ‘sustainability’ is a popular, yet highly ambiguous term for something very simple. Sustainability demands the continuity of life and life-supporting ecosystems, in other words a widening of our time perceptions. In abstract, no one would disagree with this. However the consensus disappears, once sustainability is related to existing social, economic or cultural developments. At the level of ‘sustainable development’ the paradigm clash between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism shines through. The ecocentric approach marks the point at which economists leave the sustainability debate (Dobson, 1996, p. 416). Hence the wide-spread interest in keeping ‘sustainability’ abstract and ambiguous. Environmental educators should not be surprised by ambiguities surrounding the term ‘sustainability’. They are used to them. Even the term ‘environmental education’ is ambiguous as it hides its real subject. Its subject is not educating about the natural environment, but educating about the relationship between humans and the environment. The very nature of this relationship defies the traditional separation between facts (science) and values (artshumanities). The term ‘sustainability’ with its spatial and temporal context reflects this relationship better than the term ‘environment’ reflecting dualism and anthropocentrism. In addition, ‘sustainability’ has an ethical connotation. The recent terminological shift from ‘environmental education’ to ‘education for sustainability’ or ‘education for a sustainable future’ makes a lot of sense. International educational documents such as Agenda 2 1 , recent reports by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the European Union (EU) Amsterdam Treaty have adopted this new terminology. Does the new terminology indicate a new paradigm? It should be clear that any success of education for sustainability depends on its ability to reflect and transcend the anthropocentric tradition of the modernisthumanist curriculum (Stables & Scott, 1999). If education for sustainability promotes some undefined, general idea of environmental literacy, the prevailing paradigm will spell it as (anthropocentric) environmental protection and the bastions of unsustainable development will not be shattered. On the other hand, old paradigms are not replaced by simply advocating new ones. A new environmental paradigm needs to be persuasive at the most fundamental level, i.e. appealing to our senses and feelings as well as to the rational mind.

University and Sustainability: compatible agendas?

The current process of designing a set of post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offers an opportunity to clarify the underlying idea of sustainable development. At its core is ecological sustainability, defined as the integrity of Earth's life-support systems, or ecological integrity in short. This definition is reflective of the science and ethics of planetary boundaries that are referred to in international environmental agreements, and can be formulated as a priority goal in the context of the SDGs. The article argues for developing ecological integrity as a fundamental principle or grundnorm of international law, which is similar to the grundnorm character that human rights or the rule of law have in domestic and international law.

/pdf/operationalizing-sustainable-development-ecological-1yifa9cso9.pdf

Operationalizing Sustainable Development: Ecological Integrity as a Grundnorm of International Law

Environmental laws and policies have saved some “trees”, but the “forest” is being lost as critical global issues including climate change, biodiversity loss, and our ecological footprint continue to worsen. Existing laws and policies mitigate the ecological damage inflicted by industrial economies and western lifestyles. The article essentially makes the case for a sustainability approach to law that aims for transformation rather than environmental mitigation. Relevant trends in international law and domestic law reflective of a sustainability approach are discussed, and the article describes some contours of “law for sustainability” or “sustainability law”.

/pdf/losing-the-forest-for-the-trees-environmental-reductionism-39osf36516.pdf

Klaus Bosselmann

Papers

International Environmental Law in the Anthropocene: Towards a Purposive System of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Pillars for a flourishing Earth: planetary boundaries, economic growth delusion and green economy

University and Sustainability: compatible agendas?

Operationalizing Sustainable Development: Ecological Integrity as a Grundnorm of International Law

Losing the Forest for the Trees: Environmental Reductionism in the Law