Climate change and biodiversity collapse have severe consequences for the future of international relations and diplomacy. As there is a need to build a transformational governance to cope with their impact, multilateralism must be reinforced as well as the science-policy interfaces (SPI). Some stick to the status quo, for economic lucrativeness, as bilateralism could lead to protectionist and nationalist positions. After describing the role of the COPs, the author presents some practices of bilateral cooperation on climate change and biodiversity protection. He shows the importance of establishing indicators based on ISO standards. He describes scenarios that could emerge for the future. Only a scenario based on convivence (i.e., “the art of living together in mutual respect for otherness”) by environmental multilateral and bilateral projects could conduct to reinforce mitigation and adaptation to climate change and reduce biodiversity loss.
TopIntroduction
Climate change and biodiversity collapse, closely linked, are leading to new international relations strategies for national diplomacies and intergovernmental organizations. Where is the world going in the chiaroscuro of the climate crisis, after decades of denials and renunciations on climate change and biodiversity collapse? In particular, how can science-policy interfaces (SPI) be optimized and what type of governance would make the role of diplomacy and international organizations in contending climate change and safeguarding more effectively biodiversity?
The energy transition has been a victim of inconsistency between objectives and means. Can the idea of Convivence create solidarity between developed and developing countries, the North and the South? Will this solidarity be based on multilateralism more than on bilateralism? What are the most effective attitudes and decisions to ensure this transition without creating social chaos that could lead to tragic international conflicts and tens of millions of climate refugees, or even more?
The word governance dates back to the Middle-Age. It first defined the office of the governess as today in the hotel industry, as well as that of the governors of the provinces during the Spanish Reconquista. It quickly felt into disuse in France, but passed in the 14th century in the English language and reappeared, around 1970, in the expression “corporate governance”, to designate the private governance of companies and organizations based on a synthesis between the power of shareholders and that of management.
The governance of companies and organizations in response to climate and biodiversity challenges generally concerns traditional decision-making bodies and decision-making procedures. “Good” governance for climate and biodiversity does not violate the seven main principles set out in the standard ISO 26000:2010 (Accountability, Transparency, Ethical Behavior, Recognition of stakeholder interests, Adherence to the rule of law, Acquiring international standards of Behavior and Respect for human rights)1. This standard does not lend itself to certification and represents an international consensus. It helps companies and organizations to translate these principles into action, and promotes best practices in social responsibility around the world, regardless of their activity, size, or location.
In 1975, The Crisis of Democracy, Report on the Governability of democracies to the Trilateral Commission2 incorporated the word governance, which gradually replaced governability. This text written by Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki for the Trilateral Commission, was published three years after the Meadows Report, The Limits of Growth3.
Year 2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Meadows Report. There is no doubt, according to the Club of Rome, that humanity exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet while the fruits of economic activity are not distributed in a fair and equitable way: “it is clear that the governance of the commons – our common planet – is the key to a sustainable future. Moving from Limits to Growth to Global Equity for a Healthy Planet: How to Ensure Transformational Governance?4”