Aim
Many countries have signed on to many different international environmental governance instruments, which include (for example) the Biodiversity Convention and the Nagoya Protocol, as well as a variety of human (and particularly Indigenous) peoples’ rights. Traditionally the metagovernance accountability for these instruments has been very weak, but in more recent times specific metrics have been adopted to evaluation the effectiveness of implementation of international commitments. Examples include the Aichi Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals, and (for those countries that are signatories) the Arhuus convention standards.
Though objective evaluation of implementation remains under-developed, there are ample indications of a very large implementation gap between international commitments, local implementation action, and tangible improvements relative to the underlying goals. Implementation of international biodiversity protection and social justice instruments depends to a very large degree on what happens in landscapes where agriculture is present, and often where it is the dominating landuse. This is amply illustrated by consideration of the 17 SDGs. The challenges of agri-environmental governance are very different to the ones that are observed from an urban-centric perspective, and the solutions that are needed to these challenges need to be tailored to contexts that are ill-understood.
The goal of this research is to explore some of these differences, some of the core challenges of agricultural environmental and social governance, and some areas of governance innovation that are required to narrow the implementation gap.
Method
The paper is based on a series of collaborative in-depth investigations undertaken by environmental lawyers in a number of countries over the last few years. These countries include Australia, Brazil, China and South Africa. The first round of studies verified a method of evaluation and some preliminary hypotheses. The second round involved a detailed ‘case study’ comparision between Australia and Brazil, which is being incrementally expanded to some other jurisdictions. The third, which is still in progress, is a deeper dive into performance and causes in a number of countries.
Findings
Though originally based on examination of the Australian agricultural context, the paper takes a multi-country perspective on the frontline implementation challenges of agri-environmental governance. The paper considers three levels of analysis
1. the existing and emerging agricultural sustainability challenges, identified by multi-country comparison
2. the significantly changing contexts, identified by examination of existing trends and identifiable contingencies ; and
3. the diverse opportunities for more effective, efficient and fair governance, identified by examination of scholarly works and practical experiment.
Conclusions
The paper concludes with specific recommendations for closing the ‘green governance’ gap. In particular, it considers opportunities for
- Governance technology innovations
- Governance hybrids and
- Meta-governance reforms.
Key words: agricultural governance, biodiversity, justice, reforms
9d. Law and sustainability
