text:
Our talk shows run 24/7: youtube.com/
tosavetheworld
Then you can discuss at: tosavetheworld.ca/
videos/#comments
Jump to site content
Welcome to Project Save the World! Please click on a link from any of the menus below:
Global Town Halls
View Coming Events
War and Weapons
Radioactive Contamination
Enabling Measures
All 25 Planks
From 2 to 4 pm Eastern (Toronto) time on the last Sunday of every month, Project Save the World holds a Global Town Hall meeting by Zoom for activists everywhere in the world. We record these conversations and post excerpts publicly. You are invited to join us at https://zoom.us/j/9108970203
(newsletter)
Get our free e-Newsletter
Category: Enabling Measures
Overview: Enabling Measures
Posted on July 1, 2019 December 30, 2020 by admin
Read Article | Comments
Five Enabling Measures: Outline of Contributions
Enabling Measures (EM) are broad indirect measures that are required to activate the proposed twenty Platform for Survival policies. In this sense they are unlike the twenty planks that are designed to directly address five existential threats. The EM are, therefore, more complex and less precise in their formulation. They may describe clear policy change, but they are also inevitably about large-scale framework adjustments and structural shifts.
For example, whereas plank #9 calls on all states to "adopt norms and procedures for the production, recovery, and recycling of materials", the related enabling measures could include #21, financial institutional support for a recycling transition, #22, civil society involvement in stimulating and monitoring governments, #23, cities and provincial/state level articulation and implementation of policy, and #24, activist shareholders pressing for changes to corporate standards. There are even broader security implications that relate through EM#25, including a durable global survival ethic.
Not every policy proposal among the core twenty (#1-#20) contemplates collective transformation at the "enabling" level (#21-#25), but the latter are integrally linked with each other and all the existential threats. Global change will require both a practical and philosophical shift in governance and public attitudes. Similarly, publics will affect and be impacted by governments.
The five enabling measures cover wide swaths of categories and were developed to collect and integrate dozens of individual proposed "measures" into coherent groups. This effort was not without some controversy, but the logic of the resulting "five" is worth thinking deeply about. They are, paraphrased, covering these constituencies: Sustainable finance; civil society influence; sub-national governance; investment decision-making; and security. All have bottom up and top down relevance and implications, but citizens must encourage (by voting, through activism and advocacy) and governments must act (on their own, by leading, and in cooperation with others at the local, regional and global levels.)
We have solicited a series of essays by experts and activists that are stand alone or collected into longer essays that cover our five enabling categories. They develop arguments that may continue further (which is an intention of the Platform for Survival), and they may open up fresh, future debates. There may or may not be full consensus on specifics of any of the 25 planks that are proposed; the five EM may also be too brief or covering only a representative sample of ideas, and not full comprehensive arguments. These are intentional compromises. However, we believe the options on offer here will be useful. Indeed, if the beginning of a shift in the direction of our enabling measures would be enacted, this would substantially signal changes that will reduce the risks our globe currently faces. Similarly, a refocusing of global priorities towards sustainable common security would also alleviate the danger of nuclear war. A refocusing of global priorities towards sustainable development goals would alleviate global poverty, the spread of pandemic diseases, conflict, and the many threats of climate change.
Here, then, in this umbrella outline, is a brief snapshot and introduction to the several Platform for Survival essays produced to illustrate the EM categories:
21. All states shall support SDGs, and tax wealth and financial transactions, while redistributing funds equitably.
Shane Roberts outlines the UN Sustainable Development Goals and offers examples of how they pertain directly to the Platform for Survival's existential threats, and why they need to be addressed at the global level.
The SDGs are a constellation of entwined objectives for making a better world for all – a multi-pronged approach to interlocking problems confronting societies in greater and lesser degrees around the globe. While achieving any Goal will have monetary costs, they are non-monetary 'instruments' for transferring to have-nots various non-capital equivalents of "wealth" tied to quality of life. At the same time, the aim of many Goals is to empower individuals and communities to be able in the future to earn/acquire wealth (or what it can buy) on their own and maintain an ongoing capability to do so in an eco-sustainable way.
SDG#13, action against climatic change, may be one of the globally most strategic priorities for peace as well as prosperity. And without transferring 'wealth', in the form of techno-scientific expertise, technology for clean energy, and 'defenses' against the impacts of global warming in the interim, the developing world is going to be a 'breeding ground' for risks to us all.
In his essay "The Tobin Tax is One Painless Way to Redistribute Global Wealth", Robin Collins outlines the original proposal to tax global currency transaction, and how it evolved and developed into a wider array of "sin taxes" that might be used to fund globally useful projects. Discussed is the feasibility of enforcing Tobin-like revenue generators given expected resistance from the investment and speculation community. It is pointed out that national variants of the tax have been implemented is several centres, such as Hong Kong, Seoul, Mumbai and Johannesburg. There is also support for plans within the EU, and there has been broad support for the idea within several European countries. The essay concludes, optimistically: "Few objections on moral grounds deserve the undue attention of critics of international taxation schemes if the cause is human survival. Such a tax is cost effective and saves money in a relatively short period of time; it can be virtually imperceptible, and its "burden" is shared by the international community. What's not to like?"
Myron Frankman in his defence of a Universal Basic Income, argues that breakdowns of many sorts will become generalized before long, and a planet-wide basic income, to be topped up locally as appropriate, will become essential. We must recognize that humans are a single species and we can only survive by cooperating as fully as possible. "A planet-wide unconditional citizen's income and open borders are critical conditions for human survival in a world where we are connected electronically but physically separated by border walls and increasingly subjected to unpredictably destructive natural forces which humanity has unleashed.".
A fundamental premise of UBI is that a better way to distribute wealth is needed to ease conflict, save the planet, and deliver income and jobs more fairly to reduce poverty. Basic Income is a "regular income paid in cash to every individual member of a society, irrespective of income from other sources and with no strings attached." Globalization is accentuating the polarization of these processes. There is an earnings divide, producing extreme wealth for a relative few, and huge resentments for those who are impoverished and losing ground on the job front. It is expected that the new wave of automation will worsen disparities within countries and between countries. Five fundamentals of Basic Income are: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals; Cash payment: It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use; Individual: it is paid on an individual adult basis—and not to households; Universal: it is paid to all, without means test; Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work. Key challenges to UBI and responses to them are also very briefly discussed.
22. All multilateral institutions shall heed the demands of international civil society alliances for justice.
Beginning with a description of the breadth of multilateral institutions and the nature of international civil society, the essay How Do International Civil Society Alliances Influence
Multilateral Institutions in the Pursuit of Justice? (with contributions from Robin Collins, Karen Hamilton and Fergus Watt) offers a number of "takeaways" identifying how civil society can usefully contribute to policy adoption by global institutions. (These institutions include those linked through the UN, international financial institutions, legal, climate, disarmament treaty and regional groupings, etc.)
Among the core proposals for enabling civil society to have influence on multilateral institutions are:
Civil Society should concentrate on informing the public, to pressure governments;
Civil society alliances must understand how multilateral institutions make and alter policy;
International civil society, working with small and medium governments, can drive change;
Civil society organization is much more effective when there is broad, prior agreement on objectives.
There is both a tension and collaborative aspect to governments considering and accepting civil society priorities and influence. Sometimes initiative towards change originates in government policy discussions and is then expanded and publicized by civil society. Other times CSOs have the expertise, and propose goals, and then try to bring governments onboard.
The essay explores in some detail the experience of disarmament groups pressing for weapon bans (antipersonnel mines, cluster munitions, nuclear weapons, lethal autonomous weapons). A significant role is said to be played by middle powers (intermediate-sized states in bilateral relationships with larger states), often championing new international norms, particularly since the end of the Cold War, and willing to work alongside NGOs committed to disarmament or climate, development and redistributive goals.
The Paris Agreement is a key example of civil society groups (through the Climate Action Network – International) combining with the expertise of climate scientists (IPCC) to influence governments at the international decision-making table (2016 goal); with actual outcomes likely critical for our globe, but yet to be seen.
An outline of civil society influence on the creation and development of the International Criminal Court follows. The Court is mandated to try individuals, including military and political leaders, for the worst criminal offenses under international law – genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. Important to success was the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), which kept the idea alive and promoted commencement of treaty negotiations, resulting in the successful Rome treaty conference in 1998. With a few minor exceptions, all the main CICC requirements for a good treaty outcome were achieved. After the adoption of the Rome Statute, civil society was again instrumental in the campaign to bring the treaty into force. As noted, the ICC treaty was a remarkable achievement; it also served as an example of successful civil society mobilization.
Ecumenical and Interfaith Coalitions have also influenced global institutions. Some have been in existence for decades, such as the World Council of Churches and the Parliament of the World's Religions. Their messages are distributed through public statements, the mobilizing of their constituent base and direct contact with global organizations including the UN. They focus on a variety of issues, including ecumenical and interfaith dialogue and relationships, and the ameliorating of conflict amongst faith traditions, but they all have a very strong focus on justice. Concrete work is done on the crucial issues of war/nuclear war and climate change. Interfaith summits, paralleling G8 and G20 meeting, have been active on three issues in particular — all relevant to the Platform for Survival's existential threats – the Millennium Development Goals/SDGs, justice and peace with a concrete focus on small arms, and climate change.
23. Sub-national governments and non-state actors shall exercise leadership in solving global problems.
Nation states may have much of the political clout, argues Metta Spencer in her essay on subnational governments and non-state actors, but provincial and state legislatures build express-ways, control electrical grids and enact laws that lower emissions standards for cars. City councils run the bus and subways systems, collect and dispose of trash and enforce building codes that affect the global carbon footprint. Subnational governments, overall, may have as much control over outcomes delimiting global warming than national governments.
Individual states or cities sometimes join forces when pressing for better environmental policy; they share information and resources. They set standards that influence multilateral institutions. For example, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is a network of 94 megacities, and one in twelve citizens is represented by a mayor in that organization. The ICLEI (also known as Local Governments for Sustainability) is a global group of sub-national governments founded in 1990 and working for a sustainable future.
The United Nations Compact comprises cities but also corporations, formed at the initiative of (then) UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1999, to promote corporate social responsibility. The Compact's 13,000 corporate participants and stakeholders in over 170 countries support the Principles for Responsible Investment and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Because it is not legally binding, the Compact is sometimes the recipient of criticism implying that businesses are involved mostly to "greenwash" their practices.
Mayors for Peace originated in 1982 at the UN 2nd Special Session on Disarmament. The mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki invited every mayor to join M4P, which sponsors workshops on peace, disarmament and security issues, but also broader issues such as famine, refugees, human rights and the environment. They also promote the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was adopted in 2017.
Provinces and states often implement change more easily than at the national level. In the United States this is evident where many mitigation innovations towards addressing climate issues are being introduced by states, such as California. At the local city and state level, improving the efficiency of electricity generation, such as a shift to 100% carbon-free power, and through expansion of public transportation, would create millions of jobs.
The Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA), a UN service, has noted that 2,500 cities, 209 regions, 2,100 firms and almost 500 investors have pledged to reduce their carbon footprint. The concern remains that many pledges are not specific or quantifiable, and without measures for progress. Nonetheless, subnational actors such as these may be the main forces that drive national governments to move faster.
24. Investors and regulators shall compel all businesses to comply with the U.N. Global Compact
There are many debates around the kind of economy the globe needs to best service a growing population of seven billion people, in over 190 countries, with a wide range of talents, cultures, laws and levels of democracy. This plank is not intended to solve the problem of economic systems.
Instead, this plank begins with a very brief outline of the UN Global Compact and its ten principles, from human rights to labour to environment. It is noted that none of these deals directly with nuclear weapons non-proliferation and disarmament. But they do focus on taking strategic actions to advance broader societal change, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, with an emphasis on collaboration and innovation. The philosophy of the UNGC is that public-private collaboration will resolve "pressing global problems".
While the International Labour Organization (ILO) develops and promotes international labour standards, and most countries align by membership to the ILO and its principles, implementation of codes and standards are fundamentally dependent on the willingness of nation states to comply. The modern ILO, like all United Nations affiliated organizations, sees its mission interwoven with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). It has projected the future of work to be therefore integrated through this framework, and has established the DW4SD Platform, a guiding context for the provision of "decent work" (DW) standards. The UN Charter has a number of Articles related to human rights and freedoms that broadly speaking reference labour standards, quality and safety of working life, and equal rights at, and to, work. While ILO standards are "adopted" when 2/3 of the ILO constituents agree (2/3 of 187 states) they are also written in such a way to be flexible for differing country cultural, legal, and development contexts. The essay looks at two elements of the ten DW4SD standards in more detail: Ratification and application of international labour standards; and Strong and representative employers' and workers' organizations. Climate change and the future of labour is discussed briefly as well.
Fair Trade is a shift in focus towards justice, changing conventional trade systems by putting people (not profits) first, and is believed to be a significant potential "contribution to the fight against poverty, climate change and economic crisis." Buying fairly traded products is largely a consumer decision and it is mostly based on the optional buying choices and power of countries in the global North buying from countries in the global South. While the World Bank counts 31 countries as being "low income", more than half of them (18) had 135 fair trade certified producers. The Fair-Trade movement is closely linked to the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). About a quarter of Fair-Trade farmers and workers are in low-income countries, whereas 80% are in low or lower-middle income countries. By region, the countries with the bulk of producers are in Latin America and the Caribbean (just over half), while Africa and the Middle East had 29 countries involved, and the Asia and Pacific with 20 countries. The Doha Development Agenda goals (i.e. the WTO negotiations) include "increased duty-free access for developing countries; lower tariffs on agricultural products, textiles and clothing; and the reduction of trade-distorting subsidies from developed countries."
Alyn Ware offers a strong argument for Moving the Money spent on nuclear weapons to sectors that address real global human needs. Ware begins: "Over the next 10 years, governments plan to spend a staggering $1 trillion on nuclear weapons globally. That's $100 billion annually. Meanwhile the core budget of the UN is just $5 billion. Peace, health, education, climate protection and sustainable development are all underfunded while nuclear weapons budgets continue to rise." The Move the Money campaign focuses on:
Promotion of cuts in nuclear weapons budgets
Divestment from nuclear weapons
Reinvestment in socially responsible and ethical investment
An essay by Peter Meincke shows how investors can encourage businesses to comply with the UN Global Compact. Examples of shareholder proposals on climate change, for instance, are given along with the responses of businesses. Suggestions are made about ways to improve and increase the effectiveness of such shareholder activism.
25. Social movements and states shall prioritize Sustainable Common Security to address shared global challenges.
Sustainable Common Security (SCS) is a progressive security synthesis drawn from common security and its focus on preventive measures, interdependence and mutual vulnerability, as well as the deeper-cause sustainable security perspective. It is an organizing principle, an umbrella approach to gathering movements together for common cause. SCS is an all-encompassing wholistic platform plank of key global systems: ecological, war and peace, economic, human rights, and legal. These shared global systems cannot effectively be addressed in isolation or by any one state alone, nor with coercion and traditional military approaches.
SCS is a fresh "security" paradigm because it challenges the war framework (including related industrial conversion and economic transformation) but also because it contemplates a "one-world" cosmopolitan perspective, builds solidarity, and clarifies links between broad global risks, including planet-wide climate crisis, insecurity and inequality. Our survival may depend on acceptance of a deeper cooperation and multilateral commitment to a rules-based global system that embraces the United Nations as central to the peace process, and to shared priorities. A more effective, full-funded UN is critical. Peter Langille's essay "It's Time to Pull Together for Sustainable Common Security" surveys a range of progressive security options and perspectives. The essay outlines the origins and development of the comprehensive SCS model. It is a work in progress, but SCS has received support within civil society networks and organizations in Canada, while elements of it (such as the related UNEPS proposal) have generated debate more broadly.
SCS is intended to build solidarity in a wider movement of movements, (movements such as the Green New Deal, the New Peace Deal, the Progressive Alliance). It foresees a need to seize electoral moments such as are in play in the next few years in many countries, in order to stave off disaster (political, military, ecological, and even existential.) Sectors that must step up include youth and students, unions, nonviolent mass movements, independent research centres and academic programs. Among its many elements, SCS proposes immediate attention be given to key steps, such as these:
Encourage Leaps and related systemic shifts
Ensure human rights are defended, particularly for the most vulnerable
Encourage society-wide empowerment of women and sustainable living wages for all
Revitalize work on military transformation and economic conversion
Promote disarmament and demilitarization
Renew efforts toward a global culture of peace and non-violence
Develop and finance a stronger United Nations
Embrace a One-World perspective
Initiate a global peace system
SCS is, at its foundation, a new, broad-concept security program, and it illustrates many of the necessary transitions required to address global existential threats. Any new world order that displaces the current, flawed, war system will inevitably redirect our global community to a "destination yet unknown." But it will certainly require progressive leadership, committed and sustained political will, and a unifying framework that wins broad public and government support for urgently-needed shifts. Sustainable Common Security may be the critical perspective and central enabling measure we need.
To Post a Comment
Please wait a few seconds for the comments to load at the bottom of this page. Then read the ideas other people have shared and reply or add your own knowledge. The space for comments is in a pale font. It's good to give your comment a title by selecting it and clicking the "B" (for "boldface"). And you can italicize passages with the "I", indent, add hyperlinks (with the chain symbol) or even attach a photo or graphic from your hard drive by clicking the paperclip at the right side of the space. Have fun with it!
Posted on July 1, 2019 January 16, 2021 by admin
Rapporteur: Dr. H. Peter Langille | hpl@globalcommonsecurity.org ©
It's time to pull together for Sustainable Common Security
Sustainable common security is an umbrella concept to help with the deeper understanding and cooperative action now urgently required to address shared global challenges, human and environmental needs. There are wider objectives, including to:
revitalize idealism, a 'one-world' perspective and work for a better world;
clarify the links between insecurity, the climate crisis, capitalism, militarism and inequality;
build solidarity and cooperation toward a movement of movements;
challenge constant preparation for more war as the central approach to national security;
develop viable, sustainable policy options for peace and conflict, human rights and socio-economic justice, disarmament and development, military transformation and economic conversion, with a priority accorded to a global peace system and, arguably most important;
encourage the substantive system shifts and transformations now needed.
Five global systems are now dysfunctional and failing. People need radical leaps from an unsustainable economic system to a Green New Deal; from a high-risk, high-cost war system to a global peace system; from a competitive, self-help sovereign state system to a caring and cooperative system of local and global governance.
The concept of sustainable common security is a synthesis drawing from both the imminent common security imperative of preventing worse and the sustainable security emphasis on the deeper causes. As an effort to address both immediate security needs while motivating and mobilizing for sustainable solutions, this is a modestly more comprehensive and broader umbrella for wider related effort. It's also one to complement rather than diminish work on either approach. The emphasis is on 'pulling together' for a more just and safer world. In short, sustainable common security is a useful organizing principle for progressive internationalism.
The urgent need
In the words of the Dalai Lama, "your right to life, and the right to life of your children are no longer secure."(1) Recently, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres wrote that, "… we are in a race for our lives, and we are losing."(2)
People and the planet are in jeopardy. Five deeply integrated global systems are failing to deliver security.
The Eco-System
Climate change is accelerating.(3) Recently, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change indicated a slim 12-year period is all that remains before devastating effects become irreversible.(4) Now, the commitments levels supported in the 2015 Paris Agreement(5) are clearly insufficient, but those are still not being met.(6)
Climate change is also described as the ultimate threat multiplier.(7) Already, it adversely effects not only the rising incidence of powerful hurricanes and cyclones, but entire regions and the survival of people. More refugees, fragile states and armed conflicts are early symptoms of worse ahead.(8) The economic system that drove most of the damage may deny responsibility, but that's likely to come at a high cost too.
The results are evident: the extinction of living species(9); increasing temperatures for a decade(10); the increasing extremism of weather; destruction of habitat; a surge of 68.6 million forcibly displaced people world-wide(11); and a three-fold increase in civil wars.(12)
Joseph Stiglitz stresses the urgent need for a bold response writing: "the climate emergency is our third world war. Our lives and civilization as we know it are at stake, just as they were in the second world war."(13)
The War System
Another Cold War and nuclear arms race are underway.(14) Once again, people everywhere are under a balance of terror within a system of mutually assured destruction (MAD). UN officials warn that the chances of nuclear war are higher than they've been in decades.(15) The probabilities increase over time with the development and proliferation of advanced weapons and, fewer restraints in arms control. Any nuclear weapon use risks uncontrollable escalation to full nuclear war, with a nuclear winter risking life on earth.(16)
Wars over the past fifty years have been largely unwinnable, even for the most powerful, despite their massive efforts and expense. Si vis pacem para bellum — 'if you want peace, prepare for war' might have been a compelling dictum for the Roman Empire, but it no longer holds in an era of global interdependence and mutual vulnerability.
Yet preparation for more war remains the primary focus of national security efforts worldwide. Rather than an efficient peace system, a global military-industrial complex expanded to exert unwarranted influence over a war system, generating wider insecurity at higher risks and costs.
The Global Peace Index now report the annual cost of war and violence at a staggering $14.7 trillion (USD) in purchasing power terms – a figure equivalent to 12.4 per cent of the world's economic activity, or $1,988 for every person.(17) Clearly, that's unsustainable, but it's also big business and key to personal profits and the national economies that depend on ever-higher military spending.
The Economic System
Unprecedented wealth has been accumulated over the past thirty years of globalization.
Capitalism drives a global economy. Yet inequality continues to rise.(18) Neo-liberalism deregulated capitalism, making it an increasingly predatory economic system, exploiting people and the planet's resources.(19) With an emphasis on austerity, there has been less funding of social programs and development.(20)
While wealth surges up for a small minority, precarious conditions pour down heavily onto people in more vulnerable conditions, particularly near the equator.(21) With extreme inequality and marginalization, desperation is generating further pressure on people, weak states and the environment.(22) This will prompt more armed conflict. Worse, the beneficiaries of this malaise now shift the blame onto the victims fleeing horrid conditions.(23)
Paul Rogers identifies the core drivers of insecurity as a failing neoliberal economic system, environmental limits, especially climate breakdown and, an entrenched security paradigm. As he writes,
"Neoliberalism puts us in danger by deepening socio-economic divisions, which marginalizes many people and so increases the risk of violent revolts from those margins. Climate change is of course a global danger and will be catastrophic if not prevented. And our military-industrial complex, with the use of force as its excuse for existing, has proved disastrous in the 18-year 'war on terror' and is incapable of responding to a divided and constrained world."(24)
The Human Rights System
Human rights provide a universal foundation for justice and security.(25) Despite substantive progress on human rights over seventy years, this foundation is under siege. In the words of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, "The world is sliding back on human rights and its principles are under attack in all corners of the globe."(26)
An array of impediments defies efforts to improve human rights. For one, they rely on consensus within a universal framework of principles and norms – not binding laws.(27)
Enforcement lingers as a long-standing dilemma. Second, while human rights are widely recognized, there is now less respect for abiding by agreed rules to protect such rights. As with international treaties and conventions, the powerful can simply ignore human rights and the international consequences of violating rights. In turn, with selective adherence and controversy, the challenges to human rights increase.(28)
Equality and democracy – two bedrocks of human rights – are at risk.(29) Political extremes now mobilize around divisions, hate and race to challenge the rights of immigrants and refugees, even socio-economic security for citizens. Lately, the recurring appeal to national sovereignty and national security – with more money for the military and less for people and the planet – has trumped both the universality and, for many, the faith that human rights matter.
National Sovereignty & The Rules-Based System
Since the system of independent sovereign states took root following the Thirty Years' War and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, competition in pursuit of power, wealth and territory has hardly stopped. Cooperation to manage global interdependence is a relatively new priority of sovereign states; one all-too-often addressed by pragmatic, incremental reforms to existing arrangements ('the tippy-toe method') rather than a security and survival imperative that merits serious broader effort.
For over two decades, it's been commonly accepted that global challenges require global cooperation. Multilateral cooperation continues, albeit with far less official enthusiasm for far-3reaching change. Sovereign states are in trouble.(30) Now, the wider interest in a rules-based system is under assault by resurgent nationalism, with a narrow preference for unilateralist self-help and restoring greatness.
Despite an evident need, official interest in global governance waned over the past twenty-five years to become a target of scorn. As President Trump informed the United Nations General Assembly in 2018, "we reject the ideology of globalism and accept the doctrine of patriotism."(31)
A deeper multilateral commitment to a rules-based system might reinvigorate the earlier processes for addressing each of the five problematic systems, although those were awkward, slow processes of developing international consensus. In the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres:
At this time of great anxiety and geopolitical disorder we need multilateralism more than ever…We are transitioning to a new world order, with destination yet unknown. That is why our world seems at present chaotic. But even if we end up with a multipolar world, it is not in itself a guarantee of mutual peace and security.(32)
Global governance may seem elusive, but it also appears to be key to securing 'our global neighborhood'.(33) Democratic world federalism has already provided several key blocks of the foundation required.(34) In short, these five dominant global systems are stressed, dysfunctional and failing.
Similarly, decline is apparent in world order, the neo-liberal order, Pax Americana, and the transatlantic post-war alliances.(35)
Notably, these systems are not direct threats that can be managed with forceful coercion or traditional military approaches. Each is a shared security challenge.
Like it or not, these systems and the people within are now interdependent and interconnected so, 'linked in'. Shared challenges cannot be solved by isolated efforts. Progress in one area may depend on progress in others. Clearly, integrated thinking and approaches are required.
As a transition to a new world order is underway, the near-term future is already characterized by a contest between the twin forces of narrow nationalism driving disintegration and progressive internationalism urging deeper cooperation, help and systemic change. In turn, it's inevitable that traditional interpretations of national security are now challenged by recent attempts to articulate a universal conception, with more sustainable options.
In making the case for sustainable security, Paul Rogers writes:
A hurricane of crises across the world – financial meltdown, economic recession, social inequality, military power, food insecurity, climate change – presents governments, citizens and thinkers with a defining challenge: to rethink what 'security' means in order to steer the world to a sustainable course. The gap between perilous reality and this urgent aspiration remains formidable.(36)
The Oxford Research Group (ORG) warns that, "current approaches to global security are characterized by the 'control paradigm': an approach based on the premise that insecurity can be controlled through military force or containment, thus maintaining the status quo."(37)
For the Oxford Research Group and proponents of sustainable security, the emphasis shifts toward the long-term impact and consequences of our policies, as well as the underlying causes of insecurity, desperation and conflict. The central premise is that the consequences of insecurity are beyond control and fighting the symptoms will not work sufficiently; the focus must shift to resolving the deeper causes.(38)
Common security was a blueprint for survival that helped to stem the last Cold War, stop provocative deployments, calm tensions and cut both conventional and nuclear weapons. It emphasized our interdependence and mutual vulnerability.(39) This insight still applies to Russia and America; India and Pakistan; Iran and Saudi Arabia; even to people everywhere. We may share security, but we can no longer fight to win it. The competitive pursuit of national security at the expense of others now incurs unacceptable costs and existential risks. Understandably, in a period of overlapping crises, people feel deep insecurity.
Increasingly, representatives of diverse sectors see a need for a new approach to security, one that may prompt hope, along with a guide to dealing with their various challenges. Yet previous attempts to redefine security have had limited results. In an earlier attempt to explain this dilemma, Langille wrote:
To date, concepts of cooperative security – whether collective, comprehensive, common or human security – have been helpful but insufficient. The emancipatory potential of each was evident early on, just not agreeable to the most powerful. As a result, our key systems and institutions did not shift as hoped. Within a few years it was back to national security, preparing for war and business as usual. Despite a rapidly globalizing world, transformational change continues to be resisted in all the state-centric institutions. This raises a fundamental question: how do we break from this pattern to do better?"
Security concepts usually have a fifteen- to twenty-year shelf-life. They linger until new challenges arise exposing their limits. In this, they are vaguely similar to paradigm shifts, but often without the wider transformation intended. By definition, paradigm shifts occur when prevailing systems are deemed inadequate or failing and, when another option is widely viewed as better.(40)
What's different in Sustainable Common Security?
This idea is simply more comprehensive, with an approach that combines short-mid and long-term challenges and needs. Arguably, this approach helps to address both imminent crises and the underlying, deeper causes of insecurity.
Sustainable common security is largely synonymous with positive peace. As peace research pioneer, Johan Galtung stipulated, positive peace stems from fostering the attitudes, institutions, and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies.(41) Both sustainable common security and positive peace are more holistic than the narrower notions of national and international security or the conception of negative peace (the absence of direct, overt violence).
Both work across systems, beliefs and borders. Both make the connection between direct violence, structural violence (exploitation and exclusion) and cultural violence, and help in efforts to curtail each.(42)
Cosmopolitan conflict resolution entails a similar approach.(43) A hybrid mix of local, regional and global conflicts have emerged that defy resolution by traditional means. With globalization, our shared obligations expand beyond borders and the Westphalian state system.
In an emerging 'world community', progressive governance is needed to enhance justice and the welfare of all. As Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall write, the term cosmopolitan conflict resolution indicates "…the need for an approach that is not situated within any particular state, society or established site of power, but rather promotes constructive means of handling conflict at local through to global levels in the interest of humanity."(44) As with sustainable common security, three key objectives are in justice, human welfare and emancipation via constructive rather than destructive means.
Upholding and enhancing human rights are another influence and priority. Notably, the understanding of human rights, as well as the body of related international law expanded substantively over the past seven decades.(45) It's no longer just about protecting the rights of individuals who are victims of discrimination and exploitation, although both are of pressing importance to millions of vulnerable people. Already, there is a human right to peace(46) and protection,(47) to freedom from fear and want, to sustainable development(48) and to hope for a better future. Now, social movements and progressive governments must elevate human rights to the front and centre of political and security agendas, both to restore shared rights and, to seek structural and systemic changes that liberate whole societies – of all human civilization – from the threat of nuclear annihilation and climate extinction.
A sustainable common security approach relies on deeper cooperation, empathy, and mutual respect for the golden rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. With the critical issues ahead, cooperation isn't just a nicer approach; human survival may depend upon it.
Sustainable common security is a response to the earlier question, "how do we break from this pattern to do better?" People can make a break by acknowledging that their deeper interdependence stems from shared global challenges, by aiming higher and wider as global citizens and by mobilizing cooperative efforts.
As people inhabit and depend upon complex interdependent systems, integrated (i.e., comprehensive) analysis is essential to understand, improve and transform each. As this is relatively new and global, people are now in the 'same boat'. Rather than pull apart, it's time to pull together.
Aiming higher for a more just and secure world is an eminently reasonable target that's also a widely shared aspiration. Similarly, sustainable common security is what most expect of others, even in a global neighborhood. So, it's time to build a more inclusive global community, with a one-world perspective.(49) In the words of the late Howard Zinn, "we need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."
Here, it's understood that there is a lot to pull with not a lot of time. Yet social movements widen the conception of what is acceptable and apply pressure to prompt required change.(50) Further, social movements have already demonstrated their capacity to motivate, mobilize and fast-track progressive policies. A movement of movements has far more potential to convey influence and power. Sustainable common security is to complement and expand on both "sustainable security" and "common security."
'Sustainable international security' arose from an official Canadian response to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's 1992 'An Agenda for Peace'. As early as 1992, Department of External Affairs documents advised that, "the Security Council should not only be in a position to react to short term crises. It should also aim to look at the long-term evolution of our world and at ways of promoting the conditions for sustainable international security".(51) For three years, officials attempted to promote this approach.(52)
There were already numerous key contributors, including the United Nations and several pivotal international commissions. In 1980, the Brandt report, North-South: A Programme for Survival, Survival, envisaged a new kind of global security.(53) Their case combined social, economic, and political challenges with traditional military threats. They also proposed 'A Society of Nations'. World peace and disarmament, international justice, and addressing the human needs of the more vulnerable were at the forefront of priorities.
By 1982, the Palme report, Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival, emphasized our shared dependence – that security for one nation could only be enhanced by increasing the confidence and security of others.(54) Preventing war and violent conflict had to be common priorities. Survival required a comprehensive conception of security, moving beyond narrow notions of national security to include wider global challenges.
The "common security" approach emphasizes co-operative over competitive security planning; advocates national military restraint; promotes the common good rather than national interests; and co-ordinates multinational security through the United Nations.
For many, this concept continues to provide an enduring vision. It helped end the earlier Cold War in 1988/89, guided the post-Cold War era, and was included in the UN Secretary-General's 1992, An Agenda for Peace. That agenda prompted official interest in sustainable international security until being eclipsed by a new 'human security' concept.
A focus on human security stemmed from the 1994 UNDP's Human Development Report which suggested enhancing global security by ensuring "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear."(55) A human security agenda and network was developed in several states, with Canada and Japan assuming lead roles, albeit with different interpretations and approaches.(56)
Human security expanded the traditional focus on state (national) security to include the security of individuals.(57) It arose largely in response to both globalization and the fragmentation of states that prompted violent, internal conflicts and widespread human suffering. It elevated human rights and development, resource limits, as well as protection from poverty, disease, military and criminal threats. Thus, it was to broaden and update the security focus to complement rather than replace existing approaches. Enthusiasm for this agenda recently faded. It struggled to keep up with an era of overlapping global challenges and was not intended to encourage systemic shifts.
Another pivotal contribution to rethinking global security also arose in 1995: Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance.(58) Although partially eclipsed by the new focus on human security, this high-level report took the further step of stressing that, "global security must be broadened from its traditional focus on the security of states to include the security of people and the planet."(59)
The following 'Principles of Security for a New Era' were proposed:
All people, no less than all states, have a right to a secure existence, and all states have an obligation to protect those rights;
The primary goals of global security policy should be to prevent conflict and war and to maintain the integrity of the planet's life-support systems by eliminating the economic, social, environmental, political, and military conditions that generate threats to the security of people and the planet, and by anticipating and managing crises before they escalate into armed conflicts;
Military force is not a legitimate political instrument, except in self- defence or under UN auspices;
The development of military capabilities beyond that required for national defence and support of UN action is a potential threat to the security of people;
Weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence; and,
The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community.(60)
In hindsight, this was a prescient Commission; one with an early sense of several looming challenges and the shifts required. As their report noted:
Embracing these norms would go a long way towards responding to the most pressing security challenge of the twenty-first century: preserving and extending the progress made in securing states against the threat of war while finding ways to safeguard people against domestic threats of brutalization and gross deprivation and ensuring the integrity and viability of the life- support systems on which all life depends.(61)
The further development of "sustainable security" was primarily by British academics, peacemakers, and NGOs. In 2006, Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers, and John Sloboda wrote "Global Responses to Global Threats" for the Oxford Research Group.(62) They framed the deeper causal factors of global crises not as threats, but as challenges requiring a new framework.(63)
Sustainable security also arose in a series of papers from the Center on American Progress. In 2008, Gayle E. Smith, a former member of the U.S. National Security Council, wrote, "In Search of Sustainable Security: Linking National Security, Human Security and Collective Security to Protect America and Our World". She emphasized further contributions to international development as a means to enhance both global and national security in America, along with a better image abroad. Smith concluded that:
It is time for our next president to remind the rest of the world that we stand for the sustainable security of our shared world. To do otherwise would be to diminish our collective security and abandon our common humanity.(64)
In 2014, the Ammerdown Invitation – a British civil society peace network – encouraged alternatives to national security, prompting a wider focus on sustainable security.(65) A Canadian effort followed.(66) The objective was to merge "common" and "sustainable" security while addressing the core concerns of both. Peter Langille published a sequence of articles advocating sustainable common security as a guide to Canadian foreign and defence policy.(67) Subsequent development of the concept was in Mondial, the publication of the World Federalist Movement – Canada,(68) with modest elaboration of the core principles in the World Federalist Debate.(69)
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has since confirmed support for 'sustainable peace' as the framework to guide peace and security efforts.(70) Although the UN Security Council promptly endorsed this shift little, if anything, seemed ready to change. Each of the great powers has argued that their national security practices and nuclear weapons sustain peace. There was no obligation to change prevailing approaches or systems. Thus, while helpful as a guide to better, more enduring approaches, the emancipatory potential of "sustainable peace" seemed stalled.
By 2015, the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons adopted sustainable common security.(71) It was also included on the agenda of the Group of 78 and Rideau Institute and within their Shift document, 'Defence and Foreign Policy Priorities' supported by a coalition of civil society organizations.(72) The "Policy Recommendations From: Getting to Nuclear Zero, Building Common Security for a Post-MAD World" encouraged the Federal government to "…adopt the umbrella concept of sustainable common security to bridge disarmament, peace and justice, and global environment campaigns."(73)
In 2016, the British 'Ammerdown Group' evolved into the NGO – academic network, 'Rethinking Security'.(74) A substantive effort is ongoing, including detailed research, educational materials, courses, videos, policy papers and briefings. Considerable elaboration on a new, more inclusive approach was included in their "Discussion Paper". As noted,
People across the world face growing insecurity. Violent conflict is spreading and intensifying, economic inequality is widening, and the natural ecology on which human life depends is in jeopardy. The world's poorest people bear the brunt, while those in rich countries are also increasingly affected.(75)
In summary, they note the problem is a shared one: national security continues to dominate, despite an outmoded, dubious narrative. Aside from overriding common rights and legitimate needs, national security advances national interests, usually defined by political and corporate elites to extend control in the short-term over perceived physical threats with offensive military capacity and alliances. The real long-term drivers of insecurity are overlooked. The reluctance to adapt is explained by the control of a small elite group: the disproportionate influence of business, particularly arms industries; institutional inertia and a political pragmatism dismissive of alternatives.(76)
'Security for the many' requires a collective effort to build the necessary conditions over the long-term with a commitment to the common good. Yet with respect to 'Practicable Alternatives', the list provided by Rethinking Security was short on viable policy options.
An early contributor to the Ammerdown Group, Professor Paul Rogers, frequently writes on sustainable security in his column for Open Democracy and his global security briefing for the Oxford Research Group.(77)
In Canada, the concept of sustainable common security was adopted as one of the 'enabling measures' in the May 2018 consensus platform of the conference, 'How to Save the World in a Hurry'.(78) This coalition-building initiative soon became 'Project Save the World'.(79)
Governments have yet to support or even consider sustainable common security. Unfortunately, the drivers of insecurity are ramping up.
In the cycle of acceptance, many adults are still in denial and angry over the intrusion into their plans. That millions are overwhelmed, depressed and already in precarious struggles to cope is undeniable. A disturbing reality will inevitably lead some to apathy and despair, but it is already motivating and mobilizing others in response. In turn, among the questions already arising are: whose interests are being served; security for whom; and, what options are on offer?
Deep public trust and allegiance has been placed in governments and national security institutions to manage serious challenges. Good governments share valid concerns about the safety and security of their people, their country, even their neighbours nearby and partners worldwide. National security has been an overriding priority of sovereign states for over 370 years. While the early objectives appeared helpful and timely, the intentions and approaches shifted over time. Clearly, neither sovereignty nor national security did little to stop the competition for power whether in Empire, Imperial control, balances of power, civil wars and world wars, or simply as every state's right to retain a monopoly over the use of force in its sovereign territory.
Now, this system and the approaches pursued within national security pose an array of serious impediments. Ten can be identified:
First, national priorities are often distorted by national security. All 193 sovereign states have a legitimate right to national security and the vast majority retain independent armed forces – armies, navies, air forces and intelligence services. These services usually compete to acquire as large a share of the national budget as possible. Many also compete to remain inter-operable with larger allies such that they are 'capable of fighting alongside the best against the rest'. As military budgets increase,(80) often without a direct military threat to justify more, social spending is cut, along with cuts to curtail climate change and to support sustainable development.
Second, with few exceptions, national security trumps human rights and drives militarization at home and abroad. Countries still compete for limited resources and constantly prepare for more war. In many Western states, permanent war is effectively institutionalized with a 'long war policy'. Another inconvenient truth is that national militaries are more frequently used to repress citizens and stifle dissent at home than against aggression from neighbours or abroad.
Third, attention and resources are now diverted to another nuclear and conventional arms race.(81) A balance of terror and a system of mutually-assured destruction (MAD), are rationalized as national security priorities. Combined, they drive another security dilemma, an action-reaction response that increases weapons and stress, thus reducing global security. In short, our prevailing approaches to security now generate vast insecurity.
Fourth, political realism and American security studies dominate Western academe – focusing primarily on pursuit of national interests – with military power and use of force central to advancing national security.(82) In the realist paradigm, cooperation tends to be dismissed at the international level, which is assumed to be a self-help system, characterized by anarchy and competition for power. Aside from encouraging competition and fostering conflict, this paradigm dismisses alternative approaches to security, irrespective of fundamental changes. Ken Booth was correct to write that, "the concept of security in world politics has long been imprisoned by conservative thinking."(83)
Fifth, within national security analysis, there is a recurring tendency to ascribe blame to others, while their nation and its allies' policies and deployments are presumed benign. Threats are externalized and exaggerated to rationalize further militarization and spending. By fostering tension there is little prospect for the deeper cooperation needed to address serious challenges.
Sixth, national security helps to ensure business as usual. Few governments can say "no" to higher military spending in preparation for war or, to arms sales abroad. Most lack the political autonomy to slow or stop either process.(84)
Seventh, the emphasis on national security consolidates the unwarranted influence of a global military-industrial complex. President General Dwight Eisenhower warned of this complex in his 1961 farewell address, cautioning that "the total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government… the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."(85) Governments were advised to guard against such influence, power and control. Instead, many encouraged it.
With globalization and the global war on terror (GWOT), the military-industrial complex expanded worldwide into finance, banking and insurance sectors, big oil and gas, homeland security and intelligence, logistics and telecommunications, media and academe, information and high-tech. The military-industrial complex sets the global agenda by harmonizing interests and ensuring their constituents get a share of the pie. Investing in protracted violent conflict yields high profits and few risks, especially when aligned to overwhelming political, economic and military power.(86)
Eighth, national militaries – a central institution of national security – are among the most conservative and, the most opposed to progressive change. Many within work on public relations and perception management to influence citizens.
On numerous global issues – from disarmament and peace operations to climate change and inequality – there is a strong official preference for pragmatic, incremental reform to existing arrangements. In turn, there is a deep aversion to transformational change in most governments, particularly within national defence establishments. Frequently, their agencies use a network of embedded think tanks, NGOs and academics to define problems, develop agreeable analysis and gatekeep consideration of acceptable options.
Ninth, national security, like neo-liberalism, helps to control a hierarchy of credibility, access and funding. As a result, NGOs and civil society may even opt for cooperative, siloed complacency to acquire funding and access. Or, if active or critical, they may lose funding and be isolated, limiting efforts at networking, bridge-building and educational outreach.
A related impediment arises from the prevailing approach to growing insecurity. As noted, one aspect is aptly described as the 'control paradigm' – utilizing dated, counter-productive methods to secure national interests with force. Paul Rogers labels this 'liddism' – applying old coercive approaches to keep the top on a pressure cooker of overheated issues, by tightening the lid.(87)
Tenth, the national security priorities of the most powerful have inordinate influence over the United Nations Security Council, which since 1945 has retained primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Frequently, the most powerful have conflicting interests.
Further, the UN does not have its own dedicated service to respond to any breach of peace and security, nor sufficient means to prevent armed conflict and protect civilians.(88) As the President of the UN General Assembly lamented in 2016: "it is clear that the UN today remains insufficiently equipped to meet its overriding 1945 objective: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."(89)
A more effective UN is critical. The Organization already leads cooperative multilateral efforts on sustainable development, climate control, disarmament, human rights, equality, peace and security. In the words of Hans-C von Sponeck, Richard Falk and Dennis Halliday:
More than ever before in human history the peoples of the world are being severely challenged by problems of global danger that can only be solved globally. The best hope of humanity to meet these challenges is to abandon unilateralism and isolationism and instead empower the United Nations to become at last an effective mechanism for the protection of "fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.(90)
Overall, the UN now has an annual budget of $5.4 billion, shared proportionally among 193 Member States, with a separate budget for peace operations of $ 6.7 billion – a small fraction of the over $2 trillion devoted to national security spending. Sadly, as climate change and competition for resources have led to more armed conflict, it's also increased the numbers of refugees and the more vulnerable, while the UN is increasingly denied the funding to help.(91)
In short, powerful vested interests dominate most decisions over national and international security, climate change and political economy, social justice and development.
Sustainable common security has only started to attract the interest of NGO networks and a few progressive political parties. This option may appear to be asking a lot from many who are not yet ready or willing. For millions, a bigger bank account is their first security priority and nothing is to intrude on that objective. Thoughtful engagement on global issues also faces an uphill struggle with complacency and just 'living-the-dream'. Like idealism and activism, sustainable common security will initially be associated with naïve, wishful thinking.
Breaking from this pattern may be difficult. But soon, the problems from afar will inevitably arise as shared emergencies, stirring wider concerns. That millions more are already mobilizing in response to environmental crises and the new political extremes indicates a tipping point isn't that far off.(92)
Few, if any, states are ready for the shifts ahead. Combined, the problems may appear overwhelming. Occasionally, the solutions may seem overly complex.
Sustainable common security is not easily formulated as a single resolution or agreeable policy option for current governments.(93) Without progressive leadership, the implications are seen as too far reaching and too radical. Yet over the past two decades, progressive parties have largely avoided discussions of foreign, defence and security policy. As their interest waned along with their expertise during the long, global war on terrorism, so too did their support for viable policy options. Obviously, progressive ideas need both progressive leaders and progressive movements.
Generating public awareness of the wider challenges and alternatives is essential, but also onerous. Corporate media help little, for most journalists must defer to expert opinion that's often embedded, and academic research which has lost its critical edge.
Social movements have yet to unite or align efforts behind an agreed vision and agenda. Intersectoral cooperation is key to a broad-based campaign and unity of effort. Naomi Klein stresses that "no one movement can win on its own," and urges a move beyond silos into cooperative alliances of solidarity.(94) This prospect has attracted enthusiasm yet too few tangible partnerships thus far.
That people need to 'Leap' for new systems, including a Green New Deal – to create jobs and work to save the planet – is evident.(95) However, the intersecting crises of our time include more than climate change, racism and inequality.(96)
In "How to Revive the Peace Movement in the Trump Era", Daniel May calls for merging social justice with anti-war activism.(97) That's an encouraging first step but why stop there? More recently, Medea Benjamin and Alice Slater make a compelling case for Green New
Deal advocates to also address militarism with a New Peace Deal. As they write,
If climate change is not addressed rapidly by a Green New Deal, global militarism will ramp up in response to increases in climate refugees and civil destabilization, which will feed climate change and seal a vicious cycle fed by the twin evils militarism and climate disruption. That's why a New Peace Deal and a Green New Deal should go hand in hand. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources and intellectual capital on weapons and war when climate change is barreling
down on all of humankind. If the nuclear weapons don't destroy us then the pressing urgency of catastrophic climate will.(98)
Similarly, the Progressive Alliance's call for 'a social and ecological transformation'(99) merits wide support, but it's equally important that both be accompanied by an economic and security transformation. Aside from the evident need, a broader agenda is likely to deserve and attract broader support.
Sustainable common security is also intended to build solidarity in a wider movement of movements. Clearly, social movements need partners in broader coalitions representing diverse yet shared global challenges. In an earlier period, coordinating such efforts was deemed akin to 'herding cats' – aside from diverse priorities, few have financial resources, making it very difficult to coordinate and campaign together. But most now communicate and organize online.
So, it's possible to pull together with the combined weight that actually influences. Then, the required resources may follow.
A progressive movement of movements remains vitally important, especially where there are crucial elections approaching, and the prospect of a well-funded, counter-coalition of right-wing nationalists in what's called 'The Movement'.(100)
Sustainable common security is a work in progress. Serious plans are required for a new security agenda. These must include innovative ideas to fast-track efforts on the following:
stimulate renewables, a Green New Deal and related Leaps;
ensure human rights and humanitarian care, particularly for the more vulnerable;
demand equality with empowerment of women society-wide;
mobilize for sustainable development and a living wage;
encourage disarmament and demilitarization;
prompt military transformation and economic conversion;
renew efforts for a global culture of peace and non-violence;
develop a stronger, more effective United Nations;
revitalize multilateral cooperation and global governance;
initiate a global peace system;
inspire confidence, inclusion and hope.
'The defining challenge' as Paul Rogers noted, is to "rethink what security means to steer the world to a sustainable course." This can be encouraged at local and national levels, even within the UN. A global dialogue and discussion of diverse security needs would help, particularly in identifying areas of complementarity and concern.
Civil society organizations in each area above have experience in coordinating global campaigns. For example, NGO networks have mobilized promptly in lead roles on diverse issues such as a global ban on land mines, a climate convention and a UN Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW).
Educational outreach and dedicated research programs will also require independent centres, leadership, and funding. There is a pressing need for new programs in democracy, human rights, social justice, peace and conflict studies, sustainable development and environmental studies. As Nelson Mandela stressed: "education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."
Youth and students have the most potential and the biggest stake in sustainable common security. The Dalai Lama writes that, "…thanks to the rapid development of information technology, this is the first generation of truly global citizens".(101) There are no borders in digital culture and there is a lot of sharing world-wide.
It shouldn't be any surprise that students are demanding bold change, even profound shifts. In the words of 15-year old climate activist, Greta Thunberg:
You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes. Until you start focusing on what needs to be done, rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope. We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis. We need to keep the fossil fuels in the ground, and we need to focus on equity. And if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, then maybe we should change the system itself.(102)
The demand for similar solutions isn't about to fade. As another young British activist, Cameron Joshi, put it, "They fear us because they know if we get our shit together, we can change the world. We're at an absolutely seminal point in history, years of consumerism, capitalism, and environmental murder, and we can change it all if we want it all, and we do."(103) The Leap slogan, 'Change Everything' resonates powerfully. Youth are motivated and now mobilizing in both their own campaigns and in cooperation with progressive social movements.(104)
Unions should also play a prominent, wider role. Most within understand the importance of support, solidarity and struggles to improve socio-economic standards. Their members aren't immune to global challenges. Aside from being key partners in social movements, they formerly contributed both research and educational outreach to help with human rights and justice, peace and security, disarmament and development.
Nonviolent mass movements for change provide inspiring examples and demonstrate what actually works. Recent research suggests that once 3.5% of a population becomes sustainably committed to nonviolent mass movements for political change, they are invariably successful.(105) Others note that tipping points(106) arise and spread fast and widely when 10% of citizens hold firmly to their understanding of an idea.(107)
System shifts are neither unreasonable nor impossible. They are essential to shared security and survival. As Jeremy Lent writes, they may now be underway:
Paradoxically, the very precariousness of our current system, teetering on the extremes of brutal inequality and ecological devastation, increases the potential for deep structural change. Research in complex systems reveals that, when a system is stable and secure, it's very resistant to change. But when the linkages within the system begin to unravel, it's far more likely to undergo the kind of deep restructuring our world requires….The current dire predicament we're in screams something loudly and clearly to anyone who's listening: if we're to retain any semblance of a healthy planet by the latter part of this century, we have to change the foundations of our civilization.(108)
Better ideas that offer hope and inspire widely definitely matter. As Rebecca Solnit writes, "Ideas are contagious, hope is contagious, courage is contagious. When we embody those qualities, we convey them to others."(109)
Of course, the diverse problems of national security and militarization will also continue to call for bold, innovative steps. Albert Einstein astutely wrote that, "past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must." In the words of Pope Francis"…the ultimate and most deeply worthy goal of human beings and of the human community is the abolition of war."(110)
Yet war and preparation for more war may not fade from better arguments and protest alone. Here, there may be other ways too. As Buckminister Fuller noted, "you never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
The proposed United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) – a 'UN 911' first responder for complex emergencies – is a new model to help prevent armed conflict and genocide, to protect civilians at risk, to ensure prompt start-up of demanding peace operations and, to address human needs where others cannot or will not. It should also offer a rapid and reliable, legitimate UN security guarantor, thus facilitating wider disarmament.(111)
A UNEPS is no panacea.(112) It's simply one key step toward a global peace system; one that encourages a wider shift from war-fighting to providing prompt help and useful services.
Renewed efforts on military transformation and economic conversion are also essential in any transition to a peace system. Notably, in 2004, the UN made a bold call for defence transformation, encouraging member states with advanced militaries to transform Cold War capacity for war-fighting towards UN peace operations.(113) Few, if any, responded. Now, the need is more evident yet Governments will still need to be pressured to elevate UN peace operations as a priority.
Further, this transformation to provide prompt help in UN peace operations should be accompanied by a parallel shift to non-offensive and non-provocative defence postures, which diminish the emphasis on war-fighting abroad.(114) Simultaneously, this would reduce the demand for, the expense of, and threats represented by advanced war-fighting systems. Non-offensive defence offers more security and more prospects for global cooperation than the prevailing threat-based system of nuclear and conventional deterrence. If encouraged system-wide, international tension, insecurity and fears would subside.
Similarly, this process has to be combined with extensive efforts to convert military industries and defence-dependent communities to more useful and sustainable production.(115)
Green conversion to areas such as renewables, solar and battery-driven light-rail, aircraft and ships may need financial support to start, but each is already in demand. Now, there is a pressing need to accelerate research into local and national conversion options that sustain employment, jobs and communities. Economic conversion diminishes the unwarranted influence of a global military-industrial complex.(116)
Clearly, other steps will be needed, including wider support of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a stronger Arms Trade Treaty, new Departments of Peace and a revitalized push for a global culture of peace. No, work on these and other isolated peace initiatives simply hasn't delivered the required results. Again, it's vital that people cooperate to aim higher.
Increasingly, it's understood that our shared global challenges are not being adequately addressed. And, challenges such as climate change, inequality and sustainable development, cannot be met if two-thirds of 193 sovereign states continue to prepare for more war. Our dilemma is captured in the recent slogan, 'PLANET OR WAR – YOU CHOOSE'.
A global peace system is overdue. It will not be easy to shift from a wildly expensive, high-risk, dysfunctional war system to a legitimate, cost-effective global peace system. But the key steps to start this shift are already available.
To date, there has not been sufficient political will or a widely agreeable option to unify support for such a shift. That many countries world-wide are currently reluctant to help with this or other aspects of sustainable common security is understandable; many feel directly intimidated and fear attracting retaliation from the most powerful bully. Yet this is a temporal condition; one likely to change as the global context shifts.
Pivotal elections are just ahead. For progressive parties, success is likely to be determined by the extent to which they provide a compelling vision, with viable policy options for addressing shared global challenges. It's easy to be cynical in dismissing a bold, new agenda, but there are immediate practical steps to start.(117)
American leaders are already moving related ideas(118) and so too in Britain.(119) Among their priorities are a more just world, a stronger, more effective UN, a global order based on human solidarity and steps toward a global peace system. Here, it may also help to recall that what's radical one year may be conservative and accepted the next.(120)
In summary, sustainable common security is to help civil society, social movements and governments encourage wider understanding of shared global challenges, to build support and solidarity for vital new policies, and to inspire a movement of movements. As an umbrella concept, sustainable common security strives to be comprehensive and inclusive in addressing the increasingly interconnected issues driving insecurity, and the interdependence of people on a shared planet. As an organizing principle for progressive internationalism, it also offers a new vision, with new priorities to support crucial system shifts.
As noted, paradigm shifts occur when prevailing systems are deemed inadequate or failing and, when another option is widely viewed as better. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has already acknowledged that, "we are transitioning to a new world order, with destination yet unknown."
By pulling together, people can still influence 'the destination' and, improve our shared prospects for a better future. To quote Fuller again, "We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims."
Endnotes for this article can be seen at the Footnotes 4 page on this website (link will open in a new page).
Enabling Measures common security, Green New Deal, human security, militarism, peacekeepers
24. Investors and regulators shall compel all businesses to comply with the U.N. Global Compact.
Rapporteur: Robin Collins
I. Corporate Responsibility and the Connection to Existential Threats
There are many debates around the kind of economy the globe needs to best service a growing population of seven billion people in over 190 countries, with a wide range of talents, cultures, laws and levels of democracy. This plank is not intended to solve the problem of economic systems. Rather it collects some of the levers at hand (international and national investors and regulators) and points to some of the institutional and legal mechanisms they can draw upon to compel businesses to meet necessary human rights and climate standards. Many will, as they must, reference international Conventions and the SDG framework, because these are the agreeable tools the international community has agreed to. This short piece is not intended to be a comprehensive outline of measures or mechanisms, but it offers some examples of progress and required attention in the areas of the UN Global Compact, the International Labour Organization, Fair Trade, and Shareholder/Investor Activism and Ethical Investment practices.
The United Nations Global Compact
The UN Global Compact was created in 2006 to "mobilize a global movement of sustainable companies and stakeholders to create the world we want". It is funded by The Foundation for the Global Compact, a U.S.-based non-profit organization, incorporated in New York State, that was established to financially support the GC through fundraising (from the global business community and broader private sector) and promotion of its Ten Principles (see below). The philosophy of the UNGC is that public-private collaboration will resolve "pressing global problems". The achievement of this mission the GC, which is now made up of […], promotes doing business responsibly "by aligning strategies and operations with Ten Principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption; and taking strategic actions to advance broader societal goals, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, with an emphasis on collaboration and innovation.
All ten of the Ten Principles are sourced from existing international agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ILO's labour rights principles, the Rio Declaration and the UN Convention Against Corruption.
1. Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights;
2. Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
3. Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
4. Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
5. Effective abolition of child labour;
6. Elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
7. Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
8. Undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility;
9. Encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.
10. Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.
The ILO was established in 1919 after the First World War to pursue universal lasting peace through social justice. It became a specialized agency of the United Nations in 1946. Its goals are to promote rights at work, decent employment opportunities, and work-related protection. It was established along a tripartite framework (government, employers, workers) and there are 187 member states supporting the organization. Seven states are not members: Andorra, Bhutan, Liechtenstein, Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, and North Korea (DPRK). While the ILO develops and promotes international labour standards, and most countries align by membership to the ILO and its principles, implementation of codes and standards are fundamentally dependent on the willingness of nation states to comply.
The modern ILO, like all United Nations affiliated organizations, sees its mission interwoven with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). It has projected the future of work to be therefore integrated through this framework, and has established the DW4SD Platform, a guiding context for the provision of "decent work" standards. The ten DW policy outcomes related to the SDG are: Better Jobs, International Labour Standards, Social Protection Floors, Sustainable Enterprises, Rural Economy, Informal Economy, Labour Inspection, Unacceptable Forms of Work, Labour Migration, Employer and Worker Organizations. All these planks have broad implications, but for the purposes of this short outline, we will focus on just two of the ten.
#2 Ratification and application of international labour standards
Progress in the area of agreed global labour standards can only occur when there takes place a wider level of their ratification. The UN Charter does include an encouragement to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 76) through the international trusteeship system (Chapter XII) and the Economic and Social Council (Chapter X), International Economic and Social Co-operation (Chapter IX), recommendations of the General Assembly (Article 13), the primary Article 1 (through international cooperation), and within the Charter's preamble "We the peoples of the United Nations Determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…"
The ILO sees action on this front being contingent on:
"Enhanced action by tripartite constituents [government, employer and workers] and other actors at country level for the application of international labour standards, supported through national and multilateral planning frameworks such as DWCPs [Decent Work Country Programs] and United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs) or equivalent planning frameworks"
The standards are well known and cover many subject areas, such as child labour, freedom of association (unionization), gender equality, health and safety, working conditions, etc. Rights at work are articulated through binding Conventions and non-binding recommendation, Codes of Practice and guidelines. Since its formation, the ILO has adopted 189 Conventions, 6 Protocols and 204 Recommendations. The ILO governing body determined that 71 conventions are still valid and should be actively promoted, and others require revision or withdrawal. In 2016, the ILO decided to review 235 international labour standards.
While these standards are "adopted" when 2/3 of the ILO constituents agree (2/3 of 187 states) they are also written in such a way to be flexible for differing country cultural, legal, development contexts. Some standards have flexibility clauses that allow states to "lay down temporary standards that are less stringent than those normally prescribed, to exclude certain categories of workers from the application of the Convention or to apply only certain parts of the instrument."(1)
The standards are used as models for national labour law. As with other treaties and agreements, while some countries do not ratify, they may enact legislation consistent with the principles and expectations. National courts are able to use international standards to determine case law, such as in the area of forced labour or discrimination. They are also seen as "cross-cutting policy drivers" because ILO labour standards relate to issues of gender equality and non-discrimination.
#10 Strong and representative employers' and workers' organizations
Because the ILO is a tripartite-themed organization, governments are expected to implement rules and regulations that apply both to employers and employees. Employers and business membership organizations (BMO) are established to enhance financial sustainability, to improve management in order to be adaptable to changing conditions, to extend evidence-based policy advocacy, and to enhance leadership skills for economic, social and environmental issues.
Workers organizational capacity is strengthened in order to
organize new members and develop well-functioning organizations that respond to needs;
influence policy agendas on workers' rights and working conditions; and
promote and use international labour standards at all levels to uphold workers' rights and promote decent work as a key driver of sustainable development
The ILO relies on two primary Conventions to prohibit force labour and to respond to and eliminate contemporary forms of slavery (Forced Labour Convention, 1930 and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957) as well as the 2014 Protocol to the Forced Labour Convention.
The International Labour Organization sees climate change as both a challenge and an opportunity. Global warming threatens existing jobs and livelihoods (coastlines, damage to farmland, drying up of water sources, flooding, distortions in the market, shifts away from certain types of employment), and as a provider of new jobs in new industries that will appear in response to climate change.
"[Measures] to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions offer opportunities to create new jobs, while securing existing ones. A transition to a low-carbon, greener economy will imply the creation of new jobs in environmentally friendly production processes and outputs, whereas other jobs will be at risk, in particular in those sectors with fewer options for a transition towards a more sustainable ways of production."(2)
Forced large scale and long-term migrations are predicted as a result of job loss and reduction in habitable land. The victims of change will be unevenly distributed. Some areas of the globe are better able to cope (i.e. the global North), whereas the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are believed to have reduced capacity for adaption. Those regions dependent on natural resource extraction industry and food production, or tourism will bear a greater burden.
However, there are significant advantages to transitioning to a new low-carbon economy. Jobs will appear in emerging green sectors (renewable energy generation is already witnessing tremendous and accelerating growth). Other jobs will disappear. Industrial transformation is happening whether or not the political mechanics have been prepared in advance, because "the majority of existing jobs will be transformed and redefined in terms of their profile requirements and working methods".
The "green economy" will inevitably expand employment but the process of transition is contingent on demand and investment, the availability of labour and job training, and the flexibility of trading arrangements.
According to the ILO, early transitional jobs will be generated in areas such as these:
Relocation of exposed settlements and industry
Establishment of coastal defences
Reinforcement of buildings and infrastructure;
Construction of new climate resistant infrastructure
Transfer of new climate friendly technology
The World Fair Trade Organization sees fair trade as a "partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair Trade organisations have a clear commitment to Fair Trade as the principal core of their mission. They, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade."
Fair Trade is a shift in focus towards justice, changing conventional trade systems by putting people (not profits) first, and is believed to be a significant potential "contribution to the fight against poverty, climate change and economic crisis."
Buying fairly traded products is largely a consumer decision and it is mostly based on the optional buying choices and power of countries in the global North buying from countries in the global South. While the World Bank counts 31 countries as being "low income", more than half of them (18) had 135 fair trade certified producers.
In 2015-16, about US$187 Million was paid to producers through fair trade transactions. That compares to a total of US$16 Trillion in total world merchandise exports (a miniscule proportion). The ratio of agricultural products to total exports has also been steadily falling. Not only that, but the least developed countries (LDCs) have become major net importers of agricultural products.
The Fair Trade movement is closely linked to the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), including particularly: Ending poverty (goal 1), Ending hunger and achieving food security, better nutrition and sustainable agriculture (goal 2), Achieving gender equality and empowerment of women and girls (goal 5), Promoting sustainable economic growth and decent employment (goal 8), Ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns (goal 12), Combating climate change (goal 13), Promoting peaceful and inclusive just societies (goal 16), and Strengthening global partnerships (goal 17).
It is estimated that about 1.66 million farmers and workers are involved in fair trade certified producer organizations.
Almost half of fair-trade farmers produce coffee.
There are about 1,400 producer organizations within 73 countries.
About a quarter of fair-trade workers and farmers are women.
The 2016 summary report of Fair Trade International found:
"The number of certified Fairtrade producer organizations in Africa and the Middle East, and in the Asia and Pacific region, grew by 18 percent. In Latin America it grew by just nine percent. However, growth in the number of organizations did not affect the number of farmers and workers in the same way. While overall, the number of farmers increased by one percent, the number of workers in Fairtrade plantations actually fell by five percent. The overall change in the numbers of Fairtrade farmers and workers in all three regions also varied across most major products."
About a quarter of Fair-Trade farmers and workers are in low-income countries, whereas 80% are in low or lower-middle income countries. While almost half of fair-trade farmers produce coffee, 82% of all producers in this project are small farmer organizations. However, as the report also notes: "Not all of the volumes produced by Fairtrade certified organizations are sold on Fairtrade terms."
Fair Trade producer organizations come in two main flavours: Small Producers (farming in particular) and Hired Labour (including, for instance, "artisanal" mines and small-scale mining.) After coffee growing (38%), the largest producer groups were Cocoa (13%), bananas (10%), tea (8%) and sugar (7%).
By region, the countries with the bulk of producers are in Latin America and the Caribbean (just over half), while Africa and the Middle East had 29 countries involved, and the Asia and Pacific with 20 countries.
In 2015, countries within the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreed to end subsidies for farming exports. It is believed that this will help farmers in poor countries in their competition with wealthier countries. At the time, the European Commission declared this should be good for fairer trade. The Doha Development Agenda (i.e. the WTO negotiations) goals include "increased duty-free access for developing countries; lower tariffs on agricultural products, textiles and clothing; and the reduction of trade-distorting subsidies from developed countries."(3)
Rapporteur: Peter Meincke /
II. How Investors can compel Businesses to comply with the U.N. Global Compact
This may seem to be a useless exercise to those who believe Chris Hedges' latest grim assessment that there is no future for our grandchildren "unless we…overthrow corporate power. Otherwise, it's very clear these people will kill us."(4)
Others are trying to use shareholder activism to compel businesses to be environmentally and socially responsible. According to the US SIF Foundation's 2018 Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends, as of year-end 2017, more than one out of every four dollars under professional management in the United States—
$12.0 trillion or more
—was invested complying with environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) criteria to generate long-term competitive financial returns and positive societal impact.(5)
Owning shares in a company gives investors a channel through which to raise environmental, social and corporate governance issues of concern. By filing or co-filing advisory shareholder resolutions at US companies, which may proceed to a vote by all shareholders in the company, active shareholders bring important issues to the attention of company management, often winning media attention and educating the public. Moreover, resolutions need not come to a vote to be effective. The process of filing often prompts productive discussion and agreements between the filers and management that enable the filers to withdraw their resolutions.
From 2016 through the first half of 2018, more than 200 institutional investors and money managers collectively controlling a total of at least $1.76 trillion in assets filed or co-filed shareholder resolutions on ESG issues. Investors filed more than 700 resolutions relating to environmental, social and key governance issues for the 2018 proxy season. The leading issue raised in shareholder proposals, based on the number of proposals filed, from 2016 through 2018, was "proxy access." Investors filed 353 proposals at US companies during this period to facilitate shareholders' ability to nominate directors to corporate boards. Disclosure and management of corporate political spending and lobbying is also a top concern. Recent social and environmental resolutions have addressed climate change, fair labor and pay standards, human rights and sustainability reporting.
In addition to filing or co-filing shareholder resolutions, investors can also actively vote their proxies, engage in dialogue with corporate management or join shareholder coalitions as a means to encourage companies to improve their environmental, social and corporate governance practices. In addition, investors can participate in public policy initiatives, working with government regulatory agencies, and testify and report on ESG investment issues to Congress.
A few of the many examples of how shareholder resolutions make a difference can be found here: https://www.ussif.org/resolutions. To learn more about the impact that sustainable and responsible investors have had on companies, the investment industry and public policy, see The Impact of Sustainable and Responsible Investment.(6)
The number of investors exercising their rights as shareholders to encourage environmentally and socially responsible behaviour by corporations is growing rapidly.
This overview will examine a number of examples of shareholder activism, the responses from the corporations and a number of ways to strengthen the impact.
An article by Trevor Nace in Forbes describes a statement by global group of 415 investors managing $32 trillion in assets urging governments to accelerate their actions to mitigate climate change.(7)
"The 2018 Global Investor Statement to Governments on Climate Change reiterated their support of the ongoing Paris Agreement discussions taking place during COP24 in Katowice, Poland.(8)
The group of global investors manages the funds of millions of beneficiaries around the world and urges governments to support and quickly adopt measures outlined in the Paris Agreement.
The group warns that ignoring action against climate change could cause permanent economic damage up to four times the size of the 2008 financial crisis. To mitigate these economic damages, the group of investors calls on global leaders to commit to three priorities.
Quickly adopt and achieve the measures outlined within the Paris Agreement
Increase the rate of investment in renewable energies and speed up the transition to low-carbon economies. This would include adopting a price for carbon emissions.
Improve financial reporting on the impacts of climate change on businesses.
In order to limit global warming below 2°C compared to preindustrial levels, global economies must significantly and quickly curtail their emissions. Schroders, a member of the global investor's group, warns that a temperature rise of 4°C could cause $23 trillion in global economic losses over the remainder of the century.(9)
The full text of the resolutions and responses of the TD Bank and the Laurentian bank are not included even though much can be learned from the wording especially in comparing the responses of the two banks to the same resolutions from MEDAC.
(See THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK PROXY CIRCULAR)(10)
In response to a proposal by Mr. John Philip Chubb of North Vancouver BC to the Annual Meeting of the Toronto-Dominion Bank held on April 4, 2019 that the TD Bank take greater care in its energy investments, the Bank's key argument in the TD Bank's response was the need to "balance environmental, social and economic considerations, and does not agree that immediately stopping or starting projects in environmentally-sensitive sectors is in the best interests of the bank or the communities in which the bank operates. " and to take" a balanced approach to support the transition to a low-carbon economy" The TD Bank then gives a comprehensive list of the actions they are taking at the recognition it has received for its efforts.
The "balanced approach", common not only in corporations but also governments, is most frustrating to those who want immediate action. Rather than demanding immediate cessation of projects in environmentally sensitive areas, more might be accomplished by asking for a plan for adjusting the balance.
MEDAC (Mouvement d'éducation et de défense des actionnaires (MÉDAC) whose offices are located at 82 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 1×3.) submitted two additional proposals that it withdrew after discussions with the TD bank. These proposals were submitted in French and translated into English by the bank. MEDAC requested that the bank include the text of these two proposals and the bank's responses to them in the circular. (See THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK PROXY CIRCULAR at for the complete proposal and response.)(11)
MEDAC submitted the same proposals to the Laurentian Bank. See LAURENTIAN BANK 2019 MANAGEMENT PROXY CIRCULAR (This document can be downloaded from https://www.laurentianbank.ca/en/about_lbc/my_investment/proxy_circulars.html)
The first proposal was:
1. Integration of environmental, social and governance criteria into executive compensation
Be it resolved that the compensation committee report, in the minutes of its annual activities, on the importance it attaches to the integration of environmental, social and governance criteria in assessing the performance of senior executives and setting their incentive compensation.
The TD bank's response included "the objective of the bank's executive compensation program is to reward executives for successfully executing the bank's strategy and delivering long-term value to shareholders, which requires successful execution of contributing sub-strategies dealing with a range of matters, including ESG. An executive's compensation can be impacted where such objectives are not achieved. The bank's ESG scorecard (which is disclosed in the Corporate Responsibility Report) sets out the bank's ESG related objectives and goals across a number of key categories, including Customers, Colleagues, Community, Environment and Governance. Customer Experience is also one of the key metrics used to evaluate business performance under the Executive Compensation Plan."
Laurentian Bank response included "The Bank takes the environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters and related best practices very seriously and the commitment to ESG engagement is shared and advanced at all levels of the Bank's corporate structure. While the Bank is of the view that it is difficult to use the promotion of ESG issues as a quantifiable evaluation criterion in assessing the performance of its executives, ESG factors, through our broader corporate social responsibility efforts, are already indirectly embedded in the executive compensation structure, since these influence our governance and compliance practices and support the Bank's profitability and development. "
It is interesting to compare these responses to the positive actions by Royal Dutch Shell which has announced that ten percent of bonus payments to Shell executives will be linked to greenhouse gas management.(12)
The second MEDAC proposal was:
2. Climate change and measures taken to support the transition to a low-carbon economy
Be it resolved that the Board of Directors disclose the available information required by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) with respect to governance, strategy, risk management and other parameters and objectives in its next annual report.
The TD BANK'S Response to This Proposal:
In June 2017, the Financial Stability Board published the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (''TCFD'') report outlining 11 recommendations for companies to assess and disclose management of climate-related risks and opportunities. Although these recommendations are voluntary, the bank took early action and developed a strategy to demonstrate proactive management of climate-related risks, which resulted in the bank being among the leading financial institutions globally in addressing TCFD recommendations. In addition to voluntarily complying with the recommended disclosure, the bank also decided to participate in three pilot working groups convened by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI). Through its membership in those pilots, the bank is helping to develop harmonized industry-wide approaches for climate-related scenario analysis in bank lending, investments and insurance portfolios. TD is the only bank worldwide that is participating in three TCFD pilot studies, and we are proud to be considered a leader in this area. Since 2017, the bank has reported on climate-related risks in its Corporate Responsibility Report (''CRR''), including its alignment with the recommendations of the TCFD and in December 2018, we issued a standalone report (titled ''Managing Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities — TD's TCFD Report'') summarizing our business and operational climate performance and our efforts toward implementing the TCFD recommendations. In addition to the bank's TCFD disclosure, the CRR provides substantial disclosure on the bank's environmental strategy, including with respect to climate change, the bank's environmental policy and governance structure. To date, the bank's CRR has included disclosure in response to 10 of the 11 recommendations put forth by the TCFD. The one outstanding TCFD recommendation requests disclosure about the resilience of the bank's strategy, taking into consideration different climate-related scenarios, to the extent such information is material. The results of the three TCFD pilot studies will help inform methodologies for assessing the materiality of climate-related risks. Only one of the three pilot studies is complete, and the other two are still underway. The materiality assessment that is required for the bank to accurately respond to the impact of different climate-related scenarios on its strategy is, accordingly, still in development. Once that assessment is complete, the bank will be able to appropriately determine whether climate change risks are material to the bank which would inform appropriate disclosure for its annual report or its CRR. Until that time, the bank considers the CRR to be the appropriate document by which to disclose its alignment with the recommendations of the TCFD. The bank's 2018 CRR is scheduled to be issued in April 2019. In addition, the bank provided a high-level summary of its participation in the TCFD project on page 103 of the bank's 2018 annual report.
LAURENTIAN BANK 2019 MANAGEMENT PROXY CIRCULAR (This document can be downloaded from https://www.laurentianbank.ca/en/about_lbc/my_investment/proxy_circulars.html)
The Laurentian Bank's Response
In accordance with its commitment to take into consideration the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Bank has been following the evolution of the TCFD project over the past few years and will continue to do so in order to potentially become an official supporter of the initiative and to implement the recommended disclosure practices. While the Bank recognizes the quality of the general framework for climate-related financial disclosures put forth by the TCFD project, it has been acknowledged in the TCFD's first status report of September 2018 that climate-related disclosures are still in early stages and further work is needed for disclosures to contain more decision-useful climate-related information.
The Bank is of the view that not only is it useful to see how companies translate the recommendations into practice, but the TCFD may also further refine and provide details on its recommendations in order to provide useful and practical guidance for companies wishing to undertake a comprehensive review of their climate-related analyses in order to align these with the TCFD project.
In the meantime, the Bank continues to focus its efforts on reducing its environmental footprint by pursuing concrete decarbonisation initiatives. Further details on our continuous environment-related efforts can be found in our social responsibility reports published annually and available on our website.
Consequently, the Board of Directors considers that it is neither advisable nor desirable to adopt this proposal, and recommends voting AGAINST the proposal.
It is useful to compare the responses to the MEDAC proposals from the TD Bank and the Laurentian Bank especially the actions taken regarding the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The Laurentian bank is "following the evolution of the TCFD project" and may become a supporter while the TD Bank " took early action and developed a strategy to demonstrate proactive management of climate-related risks, which resulted in the bank being among the leading financial institutions globally in addressing TCFD recommendations." This is an example of how activist shareholders could use positive actions by one corporation to encourage another less proactive corporation.
The Loblaws Corporate Social Responsibility Report states:
(13)"Reducing our carbon footprint We recognize the growing environmental impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and are committed to being part of the solution. We believe carbon reduction goals can be achieved without sacrificing economic growth. In 2016, we committed to reduce our carbon footprint by 20% by 2020 and by 30% by 2030 relative to our 2011 baseline. We are pleased to have achieved our 2020 reduction target in 2017, and are now focused on our 2030 objectives through improved energy management, refrigerant and waste reduction and transportation efficiency.
We achieved a reduction of 26.1% in absolute carbon emissions relative to our 2011 baseline, and are set to deliver reductions in line with Canada's national targets.
We piloted the conversion of refrigeration systems in our stores to lower global warming potential (GWP) hydroflouoroolefin (HFO) blends for refrigeration; these stores were previously using high GWP hydroflurocarbon (HFC) refrigerants.
We maintained our refrigerant leak-checking program across our network.
We converted fluorescent lighting to LED lighting in 166 stores and 473 Shoppers Drug Mart locations.
We added doors to open-air refrigeration units in 30 stores.
We diverted waste by 66.6% from our corporate stores and by 90% from our distribution centres.
Managing climate change-related risk As we continue to make good progress against our carbon reduction goals, we are increasingly being asked by our customers, investors and colleagues about how we are managing the impacts of climate change. To that end, we will undertake a climate risk scenario analysis in 2019. This assessment will help us better understand the expected impacts of climate change, and how these impacts will affect day-to-day operations across our business."
Another positive example which activist shareholders could use to encourage more action by less progressive corporations.
One area which needs much more action is the use of plastic packaging for fruits, vegetables, meats etc.
A CBC report on activist shareholders, including the endowment fund of the Church of England, attempts to set targets for reducing carbon emissions.(14)
"A representative of the Church of England's endowment fund said Wednesday that Exxon has moved more slowly than other major oil companies to disclose information about emissions.
Chairman and CEO Darren Woods defended the company, saying it's doing its part by providing energy that people need while also reducing emissions from its own operations.
Exxon successfully petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission to block a shareholder vote on setting targets for reducing carbon emissions from burning oil and gas.
Exxon, which is based in Irving, Texas, continues to project that demand for oil will grow nearly 1 per cent a year, propelled by its use in transportation and chemicals, and Woods repeated a goal of doubling 2017 earnings by 2025.
Activists, however, find Exxon's forecast of oil demand wildly optimistic in a lower-carbon energy world:
"If we reach a point of secular decline in demand for oil, the competition to meet that dwindling level of demand would become much more intense, with a potential knock-on effect on prices and financial returns from the sale of oil," said Robert Schuwerk, North America director for Carbon Tracker, a U.K.-based group that studies the effects of climate change on financial markets.
Edward Mason, representing the Church of England's fund, told shareholders that Exxon and investors "have been in open conflict about climate strategy and disclosure."
Mason contrasted that with rivals including BP PLC, which last week supported a successful shareholder resolution to increase disclosures about its emissions and how its business strategy fits with the Paris agreement to limit the increase in global temperatures."
For Canadian regulations for shareholders:
(15)"Shareholders in a publicly traded company are entitled to introduce shareholder resolutions, or proposals, to the company management to be voted on in the next annual meeting. These resolutions may pertain to company policies and procedures, corporate governance or issues of social or environmental concern. Shareholder resolutions are a meaningful way for shareholders to encourage corporate responsibility and discourage company practices that are unsustainable or unethical. Often, a shareholder resolution will fail to win a majority of the shares voted, but still succeed in persuading management to adopt some or all of the requested changes because the resolution was favored by a significant number of shareholders.
A surge in shareholder proposals on climate change began in 2014 as investors wrestled with the prospects of "stranded" carbon assets, US and global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and the calls by 350.org and other groups for divestment from fossil fuel companies. That surge has shown no signs of diminishing."
Conclusions and Recommendations
Shareholder activism can encourage corporations to be more environmentally and socially responsible.
Activist shareholders can either submit a resolution as a group or vote for a resolution proposed by one shareholder or organization.
It is essential to increase the number of activist shareholders and coordinate their activism.
It is not necessary for each activist shareholder to own shares in all of the companies or own more than a few shares in a company.
There should be enough shareholders or votes to encourage the corporation to take the issue seriously.
Although it may appear to be contradictory it will be useful to buy shares in fossil fuel corporations to introduce shareholder resolutions at their Annual Meetings.
It is important to be aware of the positive actions corporations are taking and what else needs to be done.
It is recommended that:
NGOs encourage their members to become activist shareholders.
NGOs work together to establish an organization to coordinate the shareholder activism.
Rather than demanding immediate actions such as withdrawing investments in or financing fossil fuels this year, activist shareholders recommend a staged withdrawal or ask for a timetable which allows a transition which balances social, environmental and economic considerations.
Activist shareholders should give positive reinforcement to positive actions by corporations and use good examples from one organization to encourage other organizations to follow its example.
Awards should be given to the corporations in various categories such as banks to recognize special achievements.
Rapporteur: Metta Spencer
Nation states are the political entities that supposedly make the vast majority of decisions about urgent matters of global importance. Nations have armies. Nations make treaties with other nations to regulate travel through their skies. Nations make the rules for trading with each other. Nations police their borders and decide who may cross them. It is nations that have votes in the United Nations and other multilateral global institutions. Indeed, it is easy to assume that only nations can determine how the climate will be managed.
That would be a mistaken idea. Other polities also have influence over the temperature of our planet. States and provinces build expressways, for example, as well as control electric grids; enact laws about the emission standards for cars; and maintain forests and waterways. A complete list of provincial powers would fill pages.
Municipalities also exercise great political control over the practices prevailing locally. For example, it is city councils and their agencies that run cities' buses and subways; choose the type of bulbs to be used in street lights; collect and dispose of trash; enforce building codes; maintain sanitation standards of restaurants; run public schools, libraries and hospitals; purify the tap water; and decide whether or not a proposed casino or race track may be built.
Indeed, subnational governments may have as much control over the factors behind global warming as national governments. Admittedly, it would be foolish to underestimate the importance of nation states in regulating the environment and setting tax rates that incentivize the crucial activities of individuals and businesses. When Donald Trump declared that the United States would quit the Paris Agreement, there were huge consequences. On the other hand, he has not been able to do as much damage to the environment and climate as he intended. Why not? Because, whereas foreign and military policy are decided by the nation's top executives, the environment is greatly influenced by local practices that provinces and municipalities regulate.
This is less so when it comes to the other six global threats. For example, war and weapons are controlled by the nation's government, not by the governments of cities or states. Thus, when California voted to support the U.N.'s 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons(1), the state's decision had no effect on the US government's decision to keep (and even modernize) its nuclear arsenal. On the other hand, the local or regional influence over the environment is greater. When California enacted stricter tailpipe emission standards on all new vehicles than those prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American car manufacturers followed California's rules, not the EPA's. Californians buy so many cars that the industry could not afford to lose their business.(2) Such subnational power is has come to be called "the California effect," and presumably other states can wield it too–at least if they set standards in a collective way.
That is why individual states or cities sometimes join forces when demanding a particular environmental policy. Examples include the C40 cities, the ICLEI, and the Global Compact Cities Programme (organized by the UN but with 127 member cities worldwide). Such associations resemble voluntary "clubs" more than governments, for the organization generally has no real jurisdiction over decision-making. Nevertheless, they can share information and resources, and also set high standards for themselves. These standards help them negotiate with their national governments or such multilateral institutions as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, which do wield real power. And cities are increasingly adopting new and higher standards, as for example in August 2018, when 19 cities, including Paris and Tokyo, pledged to make all of their new buildings carbon neutral by the year 2030, and to impose the same strict standards on the old buildings by retrofitting them by 2050. London's mayor has also promised that his city will emit zero carbon by 2050.(3)
Alliances or coalitions of cities have existed for many centuries, especially in Europe, where municipalities have traditionally enjoyed considerable political autonomy, even when the region was governed by a monarch or feudal lord. For example, during the Middle Ages a number of Germanic cities formed the Hanseatic League, which was quite effective in managing trade relations, though it was not in any sense a state. Today's "movements of cities" are not merchants managing their trade relationships, but rather mayors seeking to manage the environment and especially limit global warming. That should surprise no one. About half of the world's population live in cities— and by 2050 that figure may be 70 percent.(4) Cities must expect increasing disasters, such as floods, especially when the sea level rises.
C 40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is a network of 94 megacities around the world that facilitates dialogue among city officials. Today one in twelve persons on the planet is represented in the organization by a mayor.
The network was formed in 2005 when Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, convened representatives from 18 megacities. The following year, he invited Bill Clinton's organization, the Clinton Climate Initiative, to become a partner. By then, the network had grown to 40 major cities—hence the name C40 was chosen. They established a secretariat in London and formed a steering committee which began holding workshops to exchange best practices.(5)
In 2008 Toronto's mayor, David Miller, took over and in 2009 organized the Copenhagen Climate Summit for Mayors and another summit in Seoul. He was succeeded in 2010 by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, who has continued active engagement in the organization and who provides substantial funds; even in 2019 he is the chairman of the board. He chaired the C40 for three years and organized summits of mayors in São Paulo and Johannesburg, while the membership of the organization grew to 63 cities.
At the São Paulo meeting the C40 announced new partnerships with the World Bank and ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) to accelerate climate action in cities through better greenhouse gas accounting and uniform reporting.(6)
Mayor Bloomberg was succeeded by Mayor Eduardo Paes of Rio de Janeiro, who helped launch the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. Today the organization is chaired by Mayor Anne Hidalgo of Paris. In 2016 the C40's sixth summit was held in Mexico City and attended by 1,400 people
C-40's chair is the elected leader of the organization, which is managed by the C40 Board of Directors. The steering committee consists of various mayors who serve in rotation and provide strategic policies. Each member city acts independently, according to its unique situation, but they band together when their collective power can be used to obtain resources, such as technical and financial support. They maintain that they can take bolder risks and can act at lower costs through working together than would be possible if each city acted alone. Today cities that are not large enough to qualify as "megacities" can be admitted to the organization if they have shown leadership and innovation in environmental and climate change work.
ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY but whose real name is "Local Governments for Sustainability") is another worldwide organization of sub-national governments. It was founded in 1990 as a worldwide network of cities, towns, and regions working toward a sustainable future.(7) By 2019 it consists of more than 1,750 local and regional government in over 124 countries, where it maintains 22 offices. Over 37 percent of the global urban population is represented in the network, as indeed also is more than 20 percent of the whole global population.(8) In 2019 its president is Ashok Sridharan, Mayor of Bonn, Germany.
At its 2018 World Congress in Montréal, ICLEI adopted a plan of action up to 2024.(9) Much of their work is devoted to making cities resilient–prepared for various disasters that must be expected with the advance of climate change. For example, ICLEI held a conference in China that picked 28 cities in that country as pilot cities for planning for climate adaptation.
Occasionally organizations such as ICLEI and C-40 are opposed by right-wing nationalists, who argue that these networks, like all others connected to the United Nations, somehow undermine private property and the sovereignty of the nation states where they are located.(10)
The United Nations Global Compact is a much wider organization than the mayors' organizations mentioned above. Its member organizations are not only cities but also corporations. Indeed, it was originally created by U. N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in 1999 entirely to promote corporate social responsibility among business firms. The General Assembly promptly mandated it as an initiative for furthering responsible business practices and UN values.
However, in 2001, it was decided that cities as well as corporations should be allowed to join the UN Global Compact. As a result, the UN Global Compact – Cities Programme was launched the following year, with its International Secretariat initially located in Melbourne, Australia.
Melbourne became the first city to engage the Global Compact in June 2001. There are, as of 2016, over 130 member cities in the programme. There are also 85 Local Networks are independent, self-governed groups that help companies and non-profit organizations promote responsible business practices. For example, a Local Network in Bulgaria consists of 20 leading companies and organizations in partnership with the government, local authorities, labour organisations and civil society organizations. (11)
The compact's 13,000 corporate participants and other stakeholders in over 170 countries support such initiatives as "Principles for Responsible Investment" and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). On the other hand, the compact is not a legally binding document, and it has sometimes been criticized for being endorsed by businesses simply for the sake of "greenwashing" themselves; their pledges do not carry over into their real practices. (To "Greenwash" is to pretend to be responsible mainly for the sake of the firm's public reputation.) Where legally binding obligations are absent, greenwashing exists as a potential option.
Mayors for Peace. Although most of the sub-national governments and non-state networks are concerned with environmental and climate issues, a few such organizations focus on other topics, including human rights and military policy. One important organization of that sort, Mayors for Peace, originated in 1982 at the 2nd UN Special Session on Disarmament held at the UN Headquarters in New York. Hiroshima's Mayor Takeshi Araki urged cities to jointly demand the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Accordingly, the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki formed an organization that they named "The World Conference of Mayors for Peace through Inter-city Solidarity" and invited every mayor in the world to join. In 2001, the organization changed its name to "Mayors for Peace." It is based in Hiroshima, whose mayor always serves as its president. As of April 2019, the organization has 7,745 member cities in 163 countries and regions. Cities that endorse its core document, (12) are called "solidarity cities." They sponsor workshops or meetings on peace, disarmament, and security issues. They also address other broader problems, such as famine, refugees, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation. In 2003 they established their "2020 Vision" campaign, the main vehicle for advancing their goal: a nuclear-weapon-free world by the year 2020. Now of course they are promoting the "Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons," which was adopted at the United Nation in 2017 and will come into force after 50 states have ratified it. Mayors for Peace will then be devoted to the next challenge: inducing the nuclear weapons states to comply with the treaty, which unfortunately is not likely to occur by the year 2020.
Provinces and States. Environmental impacts are sometimes determined as much by provincial policies as by national governments, and often change is also easier to implement at those sub-national governments. In the United States, at least, most of the mitigation innovations are being introduced by states–and, as previously noted, especially by California.
In September 2018 that state hosted a three-day summit in San Francisco for representatives of cities and regions everywhere who mean to reduce their carbon emissions. Jerry Brown, then serving his final months as governor of the state, had "non-state actors" everywhere to join this gathering, where the best methods of monitoring progress would be showcased. Research was unveiled there showing that such innovations as improving the efficiency of generating electricity and public transportation could create 14 million new jobs and prevent 1.3 deaths from pollution each year by 2030.(13) Just before hosting the event, Governor Brown signed legislation to shift California to 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045.(14) At that time, almost everything will be powered by electricity instead of fossil fuels.
Such innovations are catching on elsewhere. According to Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA), a record-keeping service maintained by the United Nations, about 2,500 cities, 209 regions, over 2,100 firms, and nearly 500 investors pledged during 2018 to reduce their carbon footprint.(15)
This sounds impressive, but is it enough? Philip Drost, a researcher at the UN Environment Programme, thinks not. The problem is that most pledges are not spelled out as specific, quantifiable goals and there are often no mechanisms defined for measuring progress. Moreover, those goals that are made specific often are targets that would have been reached anyway. The real achievements fall short of what is going to be required.
Nevertheless, subnational actors may eventually be the main forces that press national governments–and even other localities–to move faster. One new organization was founded at Jerry Brown's conference: the Under2 Coalition, which expects to recruit 250 subnational governments, which collectively can cut between 15 and 21 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2030.(16)
The real question is whether local action can adequately make up for inaction on a national or international scale. The answer is not clear yet. Let's hope that we never have to find out.
Rapporteurs: Robin Collins, Karen Hamilton and Fergus Watt
Some Takeaways:
Civil Society should concentrate on informing the public, to pressure governments
International Campaigns are influential when they are credible, expert and sophisticated
There is a place for both CSO activism, and CSO collaboration with governments
Civil society alliances must understand how multilateral institutions make and alter policy
Observe: Interconnectedness of issues.
Democracies have obligations to listen to civil society. What about autocracies and undemocratic governments?
International civil society, working with small and medium governments through the UN General Assembly, has the ability to drive change, even without big powers.
The international system is still based on sovereign governments as the primary actors. A good idea without a critical mass of governments in support won't get very far.
Civil society can mobilize public and political support across boundaries and with various stakeholder constituencies in ways that governments can't.
Civil society organization is much more effective when there is a high degree of prior agreement among constituent CSOs on the outcome(s) being pursued. The more focused the campaign, the more effective the outcomes.
This overview focuses on multilateral institutions that relate to existential threats such as war/nuclear war (peace and disarmament) and climate change.
Multilateral institutions are a wide variety of multiple country formations that occupy many significant global sectors. The key player is the United Nations, because it is universal and is comprised of all 195 states. Linked to the UN, either directly or indirectly are trade and finance based groupings, such as the World Trade Organization, The International Monetary Fund, the GATT and the World Bank (the so-called IFIs); the International Labour Organization, environment and health based organizations, such as the IPCC (climate change) and the World Health Organization; human rights, legal (such as the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the system of human rights and humanitarian treaties); disarmament and security or military groupings (such as the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NATO); and regional groups (such as the Organization of American States, the G7, the African Union, ASEAN, etc.)
Civil society organizations (CSO) — also known as Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO) — are "private, not-for-profit organizations that aim to serve societal interests by focusing on social, political, and economic goals, including, inter alia, equity, education, health, environmental protection, and human rights", to which we could add peace, disarmament and global governance.(1)
Global Policy Dialogue
Organized civil society at least in democratic countries has been developing increased access to and influence upon governments. This is not entirely a modern phenomenon, but it has grown since the end of the Cold War, when the competition between two key global powers and their allies subsided and allowed for broader and more open exchanges.
Tony Hill wrote, "What is striking about [the Cold War] period is how little actual engagement there was of INGOs in the work of the UN. NGO forums may have been organized around UN Conferences, but they remained more or less autonomous, commenting on UN deliberations at arm's length. There were some exceptions to this, in particular the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, and the work of International Coalition for Development Action (ICDA) and others that engaged in the North-South Dialogue for a [New International Economic Order] (under UNCTAD auspices) through the 1970s and early 1980s."(2)
Earlier legacy organizations included anti-slavery groups, the Internal Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent after the 1850s, and Save the Children, Oxfam, and Care after WWII.
What Hill described as a second generation CSO upsurge arrived post-Cold War after the appearance of major World Conferences and Summits through the 1990s: "Large numbers of non-governmental actors, in particular, national NGOs from developing countries, from the Western hemisphere and, albeit to a lesser extent, from East-Central European post-communist societies, appeared around the major UN Conferences on Environment and Development, Population and Development, Human Rights, Women's Rights, Social Development, Human Settlements and Food Security, and their preparatory and follow-up processes."
Even in some undemocratic states, or in democratic states with less transparency in governance, there was evidence of a norm-setting effect driven by civil society — if not domestically, at last through external influence. That is apparent, for instance, in cases where civil society groups have been able to articulate widely-held concerns about global risks and existential threats — particularly in the areas of war, nuclear war, climate change and environmental degradation.
There is strength in numbers, and individual groups that are members of international alliances, are often even more effective because they benefit from the influence and breadth of broad multinational CSO campaigns.
Hill continues: "Today, an unprecedented number and variety of civil society and business-related organizations participate in the work of the UN system. At the political level, the UN has shifted from an organization in which only governments spoke to only governments, to one that now brings together the political power of governments, the economic power of the corporate sector, and the 'public opinion' power of civil society (and the global communication and information media) as participants in the global policy dialogue…"
Different civil society alliances have different characteristics. Some are protest groups, typically antagonistic to governments and some of these see themselves as vulnerable to cooption if seen to be too close to governments, either politically or through financing. Other groups believe in partnerships with governments and were established to use their expertise (that elected officials must learn) and longevity (they are usually not subject to election cycles), to both educate the public and influence government policy. The accusation of cooption has been leveled at CSOs but also governments seen to be too close to "special interest groups". As Max Cameron suggests in an essay(3) on the land mine ban campaign, if there were evidence of government being held hostage by CSOs, then "one would have to argue that the government was somehow constrained by the NGO community… There is little evidence that [Canadian foreign minister] Axworthy's initiative [for a land mine treaty in a year's time] was due to pressure from NGOs — most of whom were as stunned by the announcement as were government officials. In fact, this was one of the few moments during the movement to ban landmines when a government official was out in front of the NGOs".
Our expectation is that the more radical the CSO position, the less likely is the effectiveness of its advocacy and later implementation directly into government policy. However, what appears to be "radical" in one age, can become commonplace in another. Sometimes radical shifts are required, particularly to stave off imminent humanitarian or existential threats, such as the risk of nuclear war or the wide range of impacts from climate change on populations, migration, agriculture, weather, coastlines and the environment. Activist pressure may be mandatory where governments seem uninterested in, or incapable of, making progress on their own initiative without clear, wide public support.
Opportunities to Influence
Civil Society alliances are increasingly visible because of their size, their growing sophistication, and their access to both governments and citizens. They have multiplied in number and outreach, not only because of improved governance and funding channels since the end of the Cold War, but also because of the internet and social media technology. Networks usually agree to a limited number of shared basic assumptions and principles in order to attract a maximum number of endorsing organizations. Broad network positions on issues, by seeking majority or consensus views among member groups, will blunt outlier positions held by more marginal or radical members, and thereby solidify campaigning priorities. These positions become clearer and more credible, even if no more palatable to government policymakers, or to a wider range of states. Improved coherence and better articulation also increase the clout of civil society influence, particularly when the statements can be said to be the views of hundreds, if not thousands of individual civil society organizations spread globally.
Some civil society organizations also have significant penetration into developing countries, and much more so than in the past. However, part of the rise of CSO has been due to a positive relationship that has been built between civil society and governments. CSO often act as the conduit through which government largesse is funneled to their publics. For example, it is estimated that by 2003, the US distributed only 15% of its resource flows through direct government assistance, with 85% coming through CSO. One study suggests that the global non-profit sector "could rank as the world's eighth largest economy."(4)
CSO can be tied (beholden) to governments by way of funding arrangements and contracts for service. "In 2001 CARE International received almost 70% of its $US420 million budget from government contributions. A 1998 survey showed that a quarter of Oxfam's income came from the British government and the EU. World Vision in the United States collected US$55 million worth of goods from the US government. In the same year Médecins Sans Frontières got 46% of its income from government sources."(5)
Undemocratic governments (or reluctant democratic governments) will be leaned upon by international civil society groups, in order to effect change, or at least to influence their choices. There are many examples of norm-setting standards being adopted by a wide range of states holding different relationships with civil society. "Amnesty International's campaign to develop an international norm against torture, for instance, was facilitated by Sweden's actions in drafting and submitting UN resolutions".(6)
Sometimes the initiative towards change originates in government policy discussions and is then expanded and publicized by civil society. For example, in 1993, it was France that convened discussions about compliance with provisions of the CCW (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) related to antipersonnel mines. It was within the CCW that land mines were restricted, but where limits on use were seen to be mostly voluntary, and unenforceable. As the Arms Control Association describes it: "The [CCW] convention aims to protect military troops from inhumane injuries and prevent noncombatants from accidentally being wounded or killed by certain types of arms… [However, the] convention lacks verification and enforcement mechanisms and spells out no formal process for resolving compliance concerns."(7)
Limitations such as these within existing multilateral fora were emphasized by disarmament and humanitarian campaigners, but (in one significant example) while listening to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) goal of an elimination treaty effort by 2000, it was then the Canadian government that called for an antipersonnel mine ban treaty in 1996, to be signed one year later. The complementary goals of civil society and activist foreign ministers meant that progress was possible more quickly than without that collaboration. As Pallas and Uhlin underline, "states are still the primary members of the vast majority of global governance arrangements and [therefore] CSO participation and influence often rely on state sufferance and support."(8)
In his essay, "Democratization of Foreign Policy: The Ottawa Process as a Model", Max Cameron suggested that the Ottawa Process (the collaboration between experts, civil society and like-minded forward-looking governments) opened up foreign policymaking to a broader section of society. The antipersonnel mine issue attained public status, not principally through the leadership of governments in the early stages (although there were active governments), but from the persistence of non-governmental organizations and their in-your-face diplomacy, and in particular for their regular attention to public sympathy for victims. Cameron writes: "Advocates of democratization should rest their defense of civil society-government partnership on publicity, not on participation". CSOs shouldn't presume a seat at the multilateral table will always be available. International civil society organizations should focus on making existential global threats better known to publics, and make them a political liability, so that governments will act, where and when they can be swayed to do so.
There remains a debate between those who believe that CSO operate independently from states and even compete with them for control over norms and ideas. This aligns with the perception that global governance democratization is expanding because of the rise in profile of civil society. But others argue for the "persistent power of the state." Pallas and Uhlin found that CSO influence on international organizations is enhanced by the use of a "state channel", but there is a risk that because CSOs from powerful states have more influence within IOs, there can be a democratic deficit in the representation of smaller and "global south" states, and distortions in the process. Therefore, the more porous, democratic and inclusive is the international civil society alliance, the more improved the outcomes.
Peace and Disarmament Coalitions
"Humanitarian impact" campaigns were organized against weapon systems (through disarmament CSO) such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), and a variety of nuclear weapon abolition advocates within large international coalitions (including Abolition 2000, the Nobel Prize winning International Campaign to Abolition Nuclear Weapons [ICAN], and activist legal, science-based and medical groups, such as the International Pugwash movement which has existed since 1957, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, founded in 1980, and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, 1988). All three of these ban campaigns arose recently (since 1992 for ICBL when it began as a group of six organizations; it since has become a several-thousand group network and has amalgamated with the CMC).
The campaign influence on governments varies. Where a weapon system may have been seen as expendable or not core to security and defence doctrines (such as land mines and cluster munitions), it has been easier to develop consensus and momentum to dispose of them, and particularly after the impact on innocent civilian victims (killed or injured) was publicized. Once a significant number of like-minded states were onboard, there followed a growth of the weapon prohibition movement far beyond the original activism. This has been seen not only as an influence of civil society upon government choice, but also the expansion of norms against certain kinds of weapons globally. There would not likely have been a campaign or treaty to eliminate cluster munitions without a ban on landmines preceding it. That is not only because of the similarity in their weapon impact and detonation profile (antipersonnel mines when they function correctly, and cluster submunitions when they fail), but also because of the overlap in campaigners, campaigns, governments involved, and the snowballing of "humanitarian" disarmament legitimacy more generally. In particular, the world began to see civil society representatives sitting in on disarmament talks and in United Nations debates as standard practice. The expectation for transparency and CSO participation was reaching a fever pitch. While that vision has had setbacks and disappointments, it seems likely that credible civil society involvement in international policy discussion at a high level will continue to grow. There are the beginnings of a campaign against "killer robots" (lethal autonomous weapons). The recent expansion in campaigning against nuclear weapons (driven by ICAN, a General Assembly resolution, and 122 allied governments), is up against remaining resistance to giving up nuclear stockpiles (or even discarding at-ready, high alert, launch under attack, status) by both nuclear weapons states and nuclear-umbrella states, such as "non-nuclear" NATO members which continue to defend NATO's strategic concept and nuclear deterrence framework.(9)
Middle Powers
A lot has been written about the improved relationship between civil society campaigning groups and states. That relationship for the Ottawa Treaty (Antipersonnel landmine ban) and the CCM (Convention on Cluster Munitions), formulated as the Ottawa and Oslo Processes, has been lauded for the role of "like-minded" states, and "middle powers" working to find shared outcomes with INGOs (international non-governmental organizations).
Bolton and Nash11 have outlined an important role for middle powers in forging relationships and policy in the space made available for civil society groups by states. Middle powers, they argue, "often play the role of innovating norms, providing third party mediation, advocating multilateralism and championing generous foreign aid appropriations". (To this can be added the scale factor that enables intermediate sized states to exploit their bilateral connections with larger states, but also their greater credibility with small states, and often also financial resources supplied to CSO.) The agenda-setting role, however, retains a deference to what big power ministries of foreign affairs and governments are willing to put up with, for they are, after all, still "the signatories of international law, they have armed forces, they have the power and resources to enforce and fund implementation." And for one disarmament campaign, (what should be self-evident), "without the endorsement of Norway, Ireland and other states, the Convention on Cluster Munitions would never have come to fruition."
A key strategy has been to emphasize the precautionary principle (in effect a use of medical terminology) and to "reframe" the debate, rather than try to "win arguments whose structure put the humanitarian case at a disadvantage".(10) For that reason, CMC needed to find governments friendly to their prevention and elimination approach, and that were willing to work around some of the traditional national security and military discourse.
The relationship between dominant states, middle powers and civil society is still being worked out, and while the powerful still run the show, middle powers "have demonstrated, through joining forces with NGOs, they have actually succeeded in augmenting their power to project their interests into the international arena. This obviously sometimes comes at a price, with NGOs demanding policy changes, donor funding and diplomatic support in return. However, many middle powers consider their expanded global profile and power worth the cost."
Civil society influence only goes so far. As John Barrie described in his history(11) of the cluster bomb campaign, in the early development of the Cluster Munition Coalition, the founding meeting by a subset of organizing groups was launched in November 2003 by the Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, even though Dutch enthusiasm for a ban was not high at the time, as they made very clear to the forming coalition. Scheffer in 2004 later took on a five-year stint as NATO's Secretary General.
A few critics of the Ottawa Process in To Walk Without Fear, noting its reformist and collaborative character, imply that naive NGO ban advocates did not realize who they were dealing with. NGO-government collaboration, wrote Miguel de Larrinaga and Turrene Sjolander, "can only reinforce existing practices". In other words, this was a zero-sum game. By dancing with the devil they argued NGOs ultimately lost credibility while treaty-friendly, middle-power governments gained humanitarian currency.
On the other hand, critics such as David Lenarcic, expressed concern that NGOs had been given undue influence over government policy throughout the Ottawa Process: "Canadians might want to ask themselves if this `new, private order' makes for a government that is more attuned to their national concerns or one that has become beholden to unaccountable special interest groups".(12)
On the nuclear weapons ban front, collaboration between certain states and civil society has continued, resulting in recent years in the formation of the TPNW (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons). It is almost certain that governments would not have taken on this project, absent the ICAN alliance and its prodding. It is important to remember that governments leading the state side of this effort were not identical to those involved in the previous anti-personnel mines and cluster bomb efforts. Notably absent were NATO countries, including Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Denmark, not to mention nuclear weapon-possessing Britain, and France.(13) NATO has stated that the TPNW is "at odds with the existing non-proliferation and disarmament architecture, risks undermining the NPT, and is inconsistent with the Alliance's nuclear deterrence policy."
In the late 1990s, a standing committee report (stimulated by the peace organization, Project Ploughshares) called on the Government of Canada to "argue forcefully within NATO that the present re-examination and update as necessary of the Alliance Strategic Concept should include its nuclear component". The government response to the report's recommendations was positive. Nuclear weapon abolitionists then pressed the Canadian government to advance the disarmament agenda both inside NATO (by pressing for a review of its Strategic Concept) and inside the United Nations (by supporting a leading group of pro-abolition states known as the New Agenda Coalition). While government ministers, Cabinet and members of Parliament were divided on their level of commitment to abolition, activist Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy spoke out often within Cabinet. Douglas Roche established and chaired an organization, the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI), which acted as a communications bridge between the New Agenda (non-NATO) states and non-nuclear members of NATO. In 1998, a significant breakthrough occurred when all but one (Turkey) of the non-nuclear weapon NATO states abstained on, rather than voted against, a forward-looking UN resolution proposed by the New Agenda. In 2002 and again in 2003, Canada voted in favour of the New Agenda Coalition resolution. By several measures, Canada has in the past shown a willingness to take the "abolition" lead within NATO, although that leadership was seen to wane, particularly during the Harper government years, and since then.
Climate/Environment Coalitions
The Climate Action Network International has over 1100 member groups in 120 countries. While devoted to combating harmful climate change, the network sees its mission as supporting and empowering "civil society organizations to influence the design and development of an effective global strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure its implementation at international, national and local levels in the promotion of equity and sustainable development."
CAN-I's Charter makes clear that members are autonomous and independent and "have their own forms of organization and their own national or regional rules." High level CAN-I decisions are made at General Assemblies convened at least every two years.
The Paris Agreement came into force in 2016 with a goal to keep the average global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The UN body known as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988. It comprises 195 states and is the primary international focus for climate change advocacy. The core objective of the IPCC is to "provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies."
Civil society networks involved in this area cover a wide range of subject categories, including development, environment, faith and energy, and some also advocate for "the Rio+20 process and the Millennium Development Goals. A human rights based approach to international climate change negotiations is also being pursued outside the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992] process by some networks."(14) Many groups are advocates for vulnerable populations in the "global south", where climate change has had (or will have) a particularly dramatic and early impact on community and individual well-being, due to environmental damage, crop risk, coastline destruction, loss of access to water, erratic weather, and in some cases resulting conflict escalation.
Civil society groups have been successful in criticizing governments where they have failed to implement necessary policy changes, but they should also commend governments when they follow through with their commitments. While international civil society networks see their strategic role as spurring governments to action, the IPCC is the technical focal point through which thousands of climate scientists annually summarize new scientific papers to provide what is known about "the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks."
Civil society alliances have not only been significant in driving governments towards the Paris Agreement, but they are key for the implementation of what is to come in the climate change Action Agenda. As "climate champions" Laurence Tubiana, French Ambassador on climate change, and Hakima El Haité, Moroccan Minister in charge of Environment emphasize, 80% of the implementation of climate action decisions rely on non-State actors. "I think it is very important for all of us to recognize that the non-State actors are already moving and there are many [actions], initiatives and coalitions and they are very active [in.] This is the first time we are building a real partnership between the non-State actors and the [state] actors. We think it is very important to have these partnerships." For many years walls have been built "between the negotiators and the parties and the real world and the non-State actors. Today we need to build bridges between them." Tubiana saw climate as a part of the development agenda: "There is one agenda that governments must implement, and this new development model should really be supported by the citizens, the businesses, the financial sector in each country, and internationally."(15)
Civil society and the development of the International Criminal Court
The role played by civil society in the development of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and later, contributing to the entry into force of the treaty and also to the functioning of the Court, is often cited as an important example of the positive influence of civil society organizations can have in the development of the rule of law and international justice.
The International Criminal Court was established by treaty on July 17, 1998, following a five-week negotiating conference in Rome. There are now 122 states that are party to the treaty, although some of the world's largest powers (e.g. China, India, Russia, United States) are not parties. The Court is mandated to try individuals, including military and political leaders, for the worst criminal offenses under international law – genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
An ICC was intended to be created after World War II, as a successor to the Nuremberg trials and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals. However Cold War international tensions prevented negotiations for such a permanent court from getting started. At the end of the Cold War, Trinidad and Tobago proposed a Criminal Court that would work to combat international drug trafficking. However, when the proposal was submitted to the UN's International Law Commission, the ILC recommended a court with jurisdiction over the more universal atrocity crimes that are of greatest concern to the international community.
Civil society organizations have long understood the nexus between peace and justice. The organization of citizen groups interested in forming a permanent international criminal tribunal was carried out primarily through the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC). Beginning in 1994, when the ILC report was debated in the General Assembly, CSOs organized to keep the proposal alive and then for the commencement of treaty negotiations. The UN hosted treaty negotiations from late 1995 through until the successful Rome treaty conference in 1998.
Small and medium-sized governments
Prior to Rome, civil society worked closely with a group of "like-minded" states. It was this group of small and medium-sized governments that helped implement some of the most important treaty provisions and that grew to form an overwhelming majority in Rome at the negotiations and eventual vote to establish the treaty.
In the course of the negotiations, CSOs lobbied for and brought about many innovations in international humanitarian law. Not least was the inclusion of a series of "gender crimes" including criminalizing rape as a war crime.
Civil Society was united in support of what was referred to as an "independent and effective" court, meaning that it would be independent of the control of the UN Security Council, and that the ICC Prosecutor would have proprio motu authority to initiate cases on his/her own initiative.
Civil society roles
During the Rome treaty conference civil society played a significant role. Over 400 individuals attended the five weeks of negotiations. Coalition members were organized in teams, corresponding to chapters of the draft statute under negotiation. These teams monitored negotiations in their topic area, wrote reports that were shared on a real time (next day) basis, and discussed strategy. The coalition was often called the "best informed delegation" in Rome. And as government delegates were required to maintain confidentiality of their negotiations, the Coalition press briefings and communiqués were the primary influence on what the outside world heard and thought about the negotiations. The CICC shaped public and political expectations. The information developed by the CICC was also shared strategically with foreign ministries, parliamentarians and other opinion leaders in national capitals.
With a few minor exceptions, all the main CICC requirements for a good treaty outcome were achieved. After the adoption of the Rome Statute, civil society was again instrumental in the campaign to bring the treaty into force. The Rome Statute requires that state parties also harmonize their domestic legislation with treaty provisions. Yet the required 60 state ratifications were achieved in less than four years – a remarkably quick time. Civil society organized seminars and regional meetings for foreign and justice ministry officials from states with an interest in ratifying the treaty. Often this campaigning involved CSOs and media in target countries.
Today, the ICC is still a new institution. Its recent activities have not been without controversy. Critics have pointed to the selection of initial cases that have come before the Court, some questionable jurisprudence, failure by some governments to follow through with domestic prosecutions, and lack of cooperation from the UN Security Council. Civil society has once again responded, leading calls for an independent review of the Court's functioning, a development that is expected to get underway at the 2019 Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute.
The potential of the court is only beginning to be understood and utilized. The development of the Rome Statute system represents the increasing centrality of the individual in international law. Growing and nurturing mechanisms of individual accountability for international crimes are seen as essential aspects of the "human security" system that can eventually evolve to displace an international order based on the primacy of war and weapons of mass destruction.
The ICC treaty is a remarkable achievement in its own right. But it also serves as an example of successful civil society mobilization.
Ecumenical/Interfaith Coalitions
There are many ecumenical and interfaith coalitions globally, representative of civil society perspectives, raising justice issues in ways that impact their particular constituencies but are also very much addressed to and with the purpose of influencing global institutions.
Some of these coalitions, including The World Council of Churches and The Parliament of the World's Religions, have been in existence for decades, and in the case of the latter, over a century. Many coalitions are more recent–there has been a plethora of very credible interfaith coalitions created in recent years.
Their messages are distributed through public statements, the mobilizing of their constituent base and direct contact with global organizations such as the UN.
They focus on a variety of issues, including ecumenical and interfaith dialogue and relationships and the ameliorating of conflict amongst faith traditions, but they all have a very strong focus on justice and concrete work is done on the crucial issues of war/nuclear war and climate change.
Detailed below are four representative organizations/coalitions/bodies that are either of long-standing reality, have extensive global reach, have particular relationships with the UN or governments and/or are vibrantly active at this time.
1. The World Council of Churches: In existence since 1948, based in Geneva, and created very much out of the context of the existential threat of WWII, the WCC currently has 350 member churches, representing much of the global Christian reality. The Catholic Church is not an actual member but is very involved and is a major funder so a looser definition of membership that includes the Catholic Church, means that most of the world's Christians are represented by the WCC. The WCC also has close relationships with bodies that are not members, such as the World Evangelical Alliance.
The work of the WCC is very focussed on Peace and Justice, with specific statements and concrete actions on such issues as nuclear war, small arms, disarmament etc. It is very in tune with, and advocates globally around, disarmament treaties. WCC is also very involved in climate issues. It is of substantive note that the 'first among equals' of the Orthodox Tradition, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, (the Greek Orthodox tradition being a very active part of the WCC), is called 'The Green Patriarch' for his strong, influential and Church-wide emphasis on climate issues.
2. Religions For Peace: Religions for Peace are an Interfaith body based in New York but with global reach and also in dialogue and relationship with the UN. It is not nearly as large as the WCC but has good, senior interfaith representation and is active globally in many contexts.
3. The Parliament of the World's Religions: This is the longest standing of the bodies to be in existence–over 100 years–but had a long period of dormancy between its inauguration in 1893 and more recent decades. It recently met (November 2018) for the first time in Canada, in Toronto, with 8500 people in attendance, and participation from over 100 faith traditions and approximately 80 countries. That Parliament gathering resulted in statements, key note speakers such as John Ralston Saul and Margaret Atwood (who focussed specifically on the effects of climate change on women) and workshops. Project Ploughshares was a workshop presenter.
4. The 2010 Interfaith Leaders Summit: The Leaders summit is representative of an initiative begun in 2005 and currently still very active. There are many statements available from this interfaith engagement with the G8/G20. An example is the 2010 Interfaith Leaders Statement to the G8/G20 formulated and delivered to the G8/G20 when they met in Canada in 2010.(16)
In the beginning, this interfaith initiative directly paralleled the G8 meetings, and met just before the political G8 meetings. They presented the G8 with a consensus letter signed by the global representatives of the major faith traditions involved. There were also such initiatives as a major letter in the Financial Times signed by the global faith leaders. As the issues addressed moved to become topics of the G20, the global interfaith leaders met in the country hosting the G20, just prior to those political meetings. For much of the history of these related events, there has been an intentional focus on three issues that have carried through all the statements demonstrating consistency and persistency on the part of the faith communities–the MDGs/SDGs, justice and peace with a concrete focus on small arms, and climate change.
21. All states shall support SDGs, tax wealth and financial transactions, and redistribute funds equitably.
Rapporteur: Shane Roberts
1. SDGs and the Redistribution of Wealth for "Saving the World in a Hurry"
The six threats of the Project to "save the world" are described as "causally inter-dependent" and requiring "systemic change". This points to a complex world, where any problem, cause, effect or solution related to each threat may be given a simple label that masks an underlying complexity, e.g. in a mesh of chicken-and-egg dilemmas about where to start: everywhere at once?
So it is with the Project's roster of solutions, wherein plank #21 in part states that "All states shall support SDGs" and in so many words arguably calls for a redistribution of global wealth. Between the SDGs and the notion of redistributing wealth, we have landed in a sea of complexity – theoretical and practical. To start with, what are the SDGs, and what might one mean by "wealth" and mechanisms for its redistribution?
In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved a historically ambitious 35-page plan entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It comprises 17 "Sustainable Development Goals" or "SDGs" (listed below) along with 169 associated targets that are sweeping in scope and call for actions to raise the quality of life for people in both developing and developed countries, and to secure a decent future for all of us.
The SDGs are a constellation of entwined objectives for making a better world for all – a multi-pronged approach to interlocking problems confronting societies in greater and lesser degrees around the globe. While achieving any Goal will have monetary costs, the Goals in the first instance, i.e. as stated, are effectively non-monetary 'instruments' (means and measures) for transferring to have-nots various non-capital equivalents of "wealth" tied to quality of life. At the same time, the aim of many Goals is to empower individuals and communities to be able in the future to earn/acquire wealth (or what it can buy) on their own and maintain an ongoing capability to do so (e.g. see how instrumentally #4 is tied to #s 2, 3, 5 and 8) all the while in an eco-sustainable way.
So how could the SDGs stave off any of our six existential threats?
First let's consider that any threat is just one factor in a risk equation. Another key factor is what targets (e.g. assets and activities) they pose a risk to, and the attributes of those targets (especially their 'vulnerability to' or 'resilience against' the threats) be the targets, for example, humans, crops, communities, infrastructure et cetera that might be threatened, and whose loss could set back progress to a better quality of life. And let's consider, too, why we should be concerned, even if we and ours are not immediately direct targets.
A short answer to the latter question is that deprivation and suffering anywhere can breed risk – sometimes minor and historically sometimes catastrophic. So, even if we are not concerned in the first instance about universal justice or humanitarianism, one might support transfer of wealth, in one form or another, to advance the SDGs, as they can indirectly (in the dynamics of a complex system), if not directly, reduce risks by reducing the threat or by 'hardening' the target against the threat.
Let's consider the risk of a pandemic. While even the healthy and wealthy can catch infectious diseases, the risk of a pandemic is higher where disease can first freely incubate, mutate and spread among the poor and the ignorant (not necessarily the same, as is shown by anti-vaxers), before it explodes onto the global stage. So a nutritious diet (SDG#2), education (#4) and decent jobs (#8) are interacting builders of resilience in the original population and consequently elements of defense for the global community.
The most dangerous risk could turn out to be global warming because of its high likelihood of reaching dangerous levels and its insidious nature as a pervasive destabilizer that threatens to facilitate three of the Project's threats. First, global warming is fueling the spread of nasty diseases previously confined to near-equatorial regions. Second, global warming is threatening food security through three processes: spreading crop and livestock diseases; engendering extreme weather that trashes crops; and 'cooking' staple crops (including rice) that have a curvilinear response to temperature, i.e. a goldilocks dependency, neither too hot nor too cold. Three, food insecurity (i.e. not even famine but the fear of it) brought on by episodes in destructive weather have already been tagged as drivers to a wave of violence in 2008 among the poor in 30 countries, the trigger to the Arab Spring in Tunisia, and the first domino in a cascade that led to Syria's civil war.
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(Approved by the UN's General Assembly, September 2015)
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
2. Universal Basic Income
Why UBI?
For the purposes of this short introduction, we see UBI as one of several mechanisms that can be used to fundamentally stabilize living conditions, and thus alleviate factors that contribute to several existential threats in the Platform for Survival, including climate change and conflict that can lead to war/nuclear war. As economist Myron Frankman points out,
"'Everyone' seems to be talking about basic income, but generally at the level of sub-national units and with at best a very hesitant pilot project with conditionalities and exceptions. These rarely lead to the establishment of a full-blown commitment. There is no conviction that this should be a right of residents or citizens of a well-defined political unit, whether local, sub-national or national. Meanwhile many types of employment are disappearing. Environmental displacements of human populations are becoming more frequent with diminishing opportunities for resettlement. The Mediterranean Sea has become a veritable graveyard. We barely trouble to do more than shake our heads when we read of the latest genocide, such as that of the Rohingya.
"A planet-wide unconditional citizen's income and open borders should be seen as critical conditions for human survival in a world where we are connected electronically but physically separated by border walls and increasingly subjected to unpredictably destructive natural forces which humanity has unleashed. 'When the dust finally settles, we may realize that the attainment of substantive global democracy, peace, and justice was the cultural impact of the electronic process.' Basic income and open borders facilitated by the 'electronic process' may well be the only option to humanity to weather the unpredictable disruptions that lie ahead."(1)
A fundamental premise of UBI is that a better way to distribute wealth is needed to ease conflict, save the planet, and deliver income and jobs more fairly to reduce poverty. Basic Income is a "regular income paid in cash to every individual member of a society, irrespective of income from other sources and with no strings attached."(2) There are several reasons why a Basic Income is of broad interest in recent times. One is a new generation of automation that has begun to radically change how jobs and incomes are distributed (from self-driving cars and delivery, robotics, banking and finance, travel industry to artificial intelligence.)(3) Automation leading to joblessness has been argued before, but the trends towards precariousness seem to be of greater concern than ever.
Globalization is accentuating the polarization of these processes. There is an earnings divide, producing extreme wealth for a relative few, and huge resentments for those who are impoverished and losing ground on the job front. It is expected that the new wave of automation will worsen disparities within countries and between countries. The World Economic Forum suggests: "It is clear from our data that while forecasts vary by industry and region, momentous change is underway and that, ultimately, it is our actions today that will determine whether that change mainly results in massive displacement of workers or the emergence of new opportunities. Without urgent and targeted action today to manage the near-term transition and build a workforce with futureproof skills, governments will have to cope with ever-growing unemployment and inequality, and businesses with a shrinking consumer base."(4)
Ecological limits to growth have been expounded for several decades but the consensus now in 2019 is that climate change is noticeably being driven by industrial production, population growth, energy use, and these produce carbon-based gases. Much of the world is facing a climate crisis that is expected to worsen.
A Basic Income for all is not a new idea, and variations of it were advocated by John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Paine, the "utopian socialist" Fourier, social-credit founder "Major" Douglas; and in modern days: Milton Friedman at one end of the economist spectrum, and John Kenneth Galbraith, and James Tobin (Tobin Tax) at the other. There have been left of centre and right of centre advocates; different levels of political party commitment over the years have come from socialists, greens, liberals and conservatives.
"The idea of an unconditional basic income has three historical roots. The idea of a minimum income first appeared at the beginning of the 16th century. The idea of an unconditional one-off grant first appeared at the end of the 18th century. And the two were combined for the first time to form the idea of an unconditional basic income near the middle of the 19th century."(5)
Variations of the basic income proposal have been experimented with in several parts of the world. In the 1970s it was discussed widely in Denmark. In the Netherlands, in 1976, J.P. Kuiper "recommended uncoupling employment and income as a way of countering the de-humanizing nature of paid employment: only a decent 'guaranteed income', as he called it, would enable people to develop independently and autonomously".(6) Britain, Germany and France showed interest in UBI through the 1980s.
In Alaska a basic income plan was implemented beginning in 1982, initially to be based on years of residency. Since then 650,000 people have received a modest supplement to their incomes, $300 per person/year initially, $2000 in 2000, and by 2008, payments were $2069 per person.
From 1974 to 1979, a basic income (guaranteed annual income) experiment was tried in Dauphin, Manitoba, known as Mincome, and was funded by the provincial social-democratic government with support from the federal Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau. One study of results showed that hospital visits dropped by 8.5% due to improved health outcomes. However the program duration was too brief to draw detailed conclusions. A three-year program was begun in 2017 under the Liberal government of Ontario, but was stopped when the Ford Progressive Conservative government came to power in 2018.
Some Fundamentals
There are many versions of the Basic Income idea. One way of looking at the proposal is as having five fundamental elements:(7)
Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals.
Cash payment: It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
Individual: it is paid on an individual adult basis—and not to households.
Universal: it is paid to all, without means test.
Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.
The cash value of UBI needs to be low enough to be affordable, but high enough to make a difference. Ballpark income estimates developed by Parijs and Vanderborght are as follows (2015): $1163/month (USA), $1670 (Switzerland), $910 (UK), $33 (India), $9.50 (Democratic Republic of the Congo). [All in $US.] "A worldwide basic income funded with a quarter of world GDP would come to about $210 per month" per person, although the authors admit that the ¼ GDP proportion is somewhat arbitrary, and not written in stone.
They believe, however, that what makes Basic Income different from other poverty alleviation schemes is that BI is individual, universal and obligation-free. By individual is meant the resource is given to each adult citizen, not to the "head of the family", thus distributing the power throughout families. (If given to minors, it would be distributed through an adult parent.) By universal is meant that there is no means test, no distinction between wealthy and poor. Those with higher income will effectively fund their own payment through taxation, and in that sense there is a progressive redistribution of UBI. Studies have found universality works better than simply subsidizing the poor, for reasons of simplicity, elimination of means test, uncertainty in job status and the shaming factor. In addition, earnings over and above the UBI would be real gains for lower income citizens, and would therefore encourage the search for productive work, rather than be a disincentive, as in the case of a claw-back. By being obligation-free, "homemakers, students and tramps are entitled to it no less than waged-workers and the self-employed".(8)
Key Critiques and Responses
Some argue that without improved high quality, universal public service, "UBI doesn't stack up."(9) Because the global cost of UBI is "high", as estimated by the International Labour Organization to be about 1/3 of GDP (and with a similar amount going to current public service spending), dramatic increases in public revenue will be needed. Otherwise UBI will displace public services. Free health and education are strong measures to alleviate poverty, and shouldn't be jeopardized, they insist. Andre Picard argues the opposite, which is that "the way to keep people healthier longer is to ensure that they have a decent income, a roof over their heads, healthy food, a good education, a sound physical environment and sense of belonging. These building blocks are what academics call the socio-economic determinants of health"(10)
The freedom and opportunity provided by UBI avoids the "employment trap', which is opportunistic exploitation by employers, and work-conditional benefits. UBI increases flexibility in both choosing jobs and leaving unattractive jobs. This should encourage employers to adjust compensation levels closer to the true value of work done.
One estimate is that UBI would cost $4 trillion per year at the rate of $1000 per month in the United States alone, which is on the scale of the entire US 2018 budget. (This critic argues instead for a guaranteed basic income, which transfers money only to those whose income is below $1000/mth. It would, however, therefore not be universal, and require a means test.) So, if fewer people are working to produce value and goods, how will a universal system be financed?
In developed countries, the simplest way to finance UBI is through the rejigging of the progressive personal income taxation system. A second way is to "tax capital directly through a steeply progressive personal-wealth tax". A third way is through additional corporate taxes. Fourth is through inheritance taxes, taxes on bequests and gifts.
Public ownership of natural resources is seen as a key source of income generation, through land rental (Thomas Paine's proposal), through sales of non-renewable natural resources, sale of non-renewables to create a sovereign fund (as in Alaska), sin taxes, and Tobin taxes on investment transactions and speculation (see further discussion within this Platform plank.) What is common within the many proposed sources of revenue for UBI is higher taxation of wealth, and fairer distribution of these outputs throughout society.
Aside from cost, another key criticism of UBI is that it will disincentive the desire to work by giving away minimum income needed to live on: The world will be filled with lazy people living off the work (what there remains of it) of others. Four American studies of the Manitoba experiment argued that the work disincentive was estimated to be 5-10%.(11) A primary objection to UBI, therefore, is that "work is part of the good life and hence that an income granted without some work requirement amounts to rewarding vice: idleness…" In Jon Elster's formulation, this "goes against a widely accepted notion of justice: it is unfair for able-bodied people to live off the labor of others."(12)
There are several responses to this concern. One is that an unconditional BI would encourage the "ethos of contribution", not discourage it. As well, if denying income to the non-working poor is justified, the same should be the case for the non-working wealthy.
When we argue for the reduction in the length of the work week (adding weekends, reducing to four-day weeks) which becomes possible and sensible with technical progress, we do it to more fairly "share a privilege" and to improve quality of life, not to encourage sloth. It is also expected that only a tiny percentage of people will free-ride the UBI system and do nothing. This, write Parijs et al. is because "the universal nature of a basic income, which makes it combinable with recipients' other income, gets rid of the inactivity trap created by means-tested schemes. Moreover, experiments […] suggest that even when freedom from obligation causes a falI in the labor supply, this does not translate into an expansion of leisure as idleness, but rather into an upsurge of productive activities in a broader sense such as education, childcare, and engagement in the community." There is also expected to be a significant concomitant improvement, therefore, to the current dilemma of unpaid domestic work. "Homemaking", home care of children, the elderly, the disabled, and parental tasks outside the traditional paid workforce would become, in effect, UBI-paid tasks. This could also contribute to a fairer distribution of what are now mostly gendered tasks or burdens.
Nation State and Beyond
The Universal Basic Income is seen to be organized through governments within nation states, either federally, provincially/state level, or even locally. However, it "can also conceivably be paid by a supra-national political unit. Several proposals have been made at the level of the European Union (see Genet and Van Parijs 1992) and some also, more speculatively, at the level of the United Nations (see e.g. Kooistra 1994, Frankman 1998, Barrez 1999)."(13)
Rapporteur: Robin Collins(14)
2. The Tobin Tax is One Painless Way to Redistribute Global Wealth
Tobin's Tax in brief
Much human interaction has been increasingly globalized. That includes participation in financial investment, communications and trade, some of which involves negative planet-wide environmental, military and development impacts. Yet taxation has overall remained in the domain of national jurisdictions – primarily because national governments have been reluctant to give up their sovereign control over tax revenues. There are political implications to international taxation being levied by international institutions, although no more so than the international spheres already commanding virtually every other human activity. As was pointed out in one 1996 study on the potential for generating international taxation revenue, "economic liberalization and the internationalization of markets, especially that of financial markets, have affected the taxation capacity of nation-states. Global taxes, such as the Tobin tax, applied across all countries, could help restore some of the taxation power governments have lost in these globalization processes."(15)
James Tobin, in 1972 at Princeton University, proposed a levy on international currency transactions as a way to "preserve some possibilities of autonomy in national or continental monetary policies" that were wracked by the anarchy of money markets. He initially proposed that a 1%, and later a 0.5% tax on currency conversions should be considered a means to deter rampant quick-turnaround currency speculation, and as a bonus, also a way to generate significant revenue through a relatively small penalty.
The problem of currency speculation worsened dramatically since the days when Nobel laureate Tobin's idea was given an admittedly poor reception. In the early 1970s the global daily turnaround in foreign exchange markets added up to US$18 Billion. Twenty years later, the average daily movement of currency exchanges was $1.3 Trillion. In 2016, it was US$5.4 Trillion. To highlight the speculative aspect and scale of this movement, one can compare the annual global trade in goods and services – in other words, real products – which in 2017 was US$23 Trillion.
Tobin's tax returned to the discussion table for this reason, but also because interest in the idea "is shared by those concerned with public financing of development – the fiscal crisis of the state as well as the growing need for international cooperation on problems such as the environment, poverty, peace and security…"(16)
The feasibility of enforcing a Tobin-like tax as it would apply to international financial trading is the subject of much debate. While the jury is clearly still out, although less so than some think, the then-25-year-old idea was tackled once again in 1996 at the annual meetings of the American Economic Association. Stanley Fischer, chief economist at the IMF was also favorable to a Tobin tax as a useful measure if enforcement problems could be solved. While opposition has been strong from central bankers, it was of interest to France's François Mitterand at the World Social Summit in Copenhagen (1994) and it was "on the fringes" of discussion at the 1995 Halifax G-7 meeting. It had reappeared during the October 1987 stock market crash, again in 1992 with the crisis of the European exchange rate and in 1994 with the collapse of the Mexican peso.
When a financial crisis arose at the United Nations, it led to the proposal that UN programs be funded from global, rather than national sources. "Such a shift," wrote Stephany Griffith-Jones, "would allow the UN to more effectively promote "international public goods" and fight "international public bads" – activities that are increasingly important in a world that is becoming more and more interdependent. The Tobin tax seems to be a prime candidate…" The 1994 Human Development Report supported such a tax arrangement and the UNDP looked at the feasibility of the Tobin project. In 2011, the UNDP revisited the idea and published The Currency Transactions Tax: Feasibility, Revenue Estimates and Potential Use of Revenues.
Eventually a national variant of the tax was implemented in several fast-growing centers, including Hong Kong, Seoul, Mumbai and Johannesburg, where it is said to accumulate over US$15 Billion, combined, a year.
A European Union Financial Transaction Tax (EU FTT) plan was proposed to begin in 2014, then was postponed. In the EU, eight or more governments can cooperate on legislation if a majority of members don't oppose it. A group of eleven has expressed interest. While not all European states are happy about an FTT/Tobin-type tax, a poll in 2011 showed that there was strong popular support, in the order of 61% in favour. Another poll found that 80% of the population in UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy supported such a tax if it was used to address problems such as the economic crisis. And in Britain, the support was apparent within all three of the major political parties. A study by the Economic Policy Institute in 2016 determined that a well-designed financial transaction tax placed on the sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives and other investments would be "an efficient and progressive way to generate tax revenues", creating revenues between US$110 and $403 Billion. It would, as the report put it, "help Wall Street work for Main Street". Support for an FTT was evident in legislative bills put forward to the US Congress by Democrats Keith Ellison and Chris Van Hollen, as well as in support from Independent Senator Bernie Sanders.
Revenue Generation originally not the main motivation of Tobin tax
Tobin believed in 1978 that a universal transaction tax would raise huge revenues and that those funds should be devoted to "international purposes", although the raising of funds was not his main motivation for the tax. The prime purpose of the tax was to deter speculation and the devastation that money movements cause to national economies. Later, Tobin believed the tax should be as low as .1% of transactions, in order not to "swamp the normal commission charged." Others argue for either lower or higher tax rates. But Tobin also suggested that some of the political problems of imposing an international tax over sovereign nations might be alleviated by "sweetening the pill" and allowing countries to keep at least half of the revenues or "to choose – among internationally agreed alternatives – where the tax revenues would go." That strategy for buy-in might be crucial.
Sin Taxes
A currency transactions tax is only one on the list of sources of revenue from sins that might be converted to international uses. A carbon (environmental) tax, an international air flight tax, and telecommunications taxes are other sources of global commons-like tax funds. International taxes on the arms trade (in the absence of a ban!), and on tobacco and alcohol, would undoubtedly be simple to sell. As unpopular as taxes are, those that are virtually imperceptible and applied to unpleasant human activities that have global reach or environmental implications, may be viable if the revenues generated serve popular purposes, and the taxation mechanisms are easy to apply and seen to be applied fairly.
It is popular to draw attention to the breakdown in international cooperation. Yet governments do resort to cooperative engagement, from the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs, to the World Trade Organization, and the Paris Accords. Raising revenue through tax may be less a concern given the rise in perception that we all face existential global threats.
Is a global consensus on new taxation possible?
The applicability of an international tax on anything, and the subsequent good faith use of the revenue generated by that tax presumes in part that a global consensus can be manufactured in the first place. A tax that is not supported, obviously will not be systematically applied, and (particularly in the absence of simple enforcement agencies) will be avoided. If some avoid, others will follow and the process may cease to function entirely. Peter Garber(17) describes the effect of a single dissenting financial centre: "As market participants try to avoid the tax, its implementation will immediately push foreign exchange transactions out of the taxed centres [and into the tax-free area]." On the other hand, if all major financial centres participated in the implementation of the tax, "cooperation would make the tax more difficult to circumvent; thus, it would generate more revenue."
Opposition to Tobin's tax, as applied to financial exchanges, is strongest from the speculating community who see it as interference in their speculation on mobile financial capital through different currencies. Writes Jeffrey Frankel, "for the policy to achieve any of its goals, it would have to be the outcome of an international agreement that was virtually universal […]. Enforcement could even be a problem if all countries were to sign an agreement…[but] if the problem of international agreement could be solved, there is no reason to think that enforcement would be more difficult for financial transaction taxes, as compared to, say, income taxes."
The likelihood of evasion by states would be inversely proportional to the advantage gained by supporting the tax. States with severe economic hardships should be most supportive of a tax that generates revenue earmarked to alleviate their own concerns. Many would also not be among the list of likely safe bases for speculators seeking to avoid the tax. Other potential havens might be deterred by penalties imposed by the larger financial markets (which would have to be supportive if the tax was to work in the first place.) And if the tax were small enough, would an attempt to circumvent it be worth the effort? A key premise of the Tobin tax concept is that small taxes applied to massive numbers of transactions will generate a goodly amount of virtually pain-free revenues. There is a balance to achieve between the tax as deterrent – its primary goal – and the tax as inspirer of evasion – causing it to be ineffective.
An international agreement to impose a tax regime could be generated by a ratifiable convention that is renewed regularly. The international agreement could be coordinated and supervised by the International Monetary Fund, (or Bank for International Settlements, or the World Bank). That or another (or new) international organization could be authorized to draft a tax code, to amend and interpret the code and to collect the taxes for stipulated international programs.
How much tax?
As would be expected, estimates vary as to the level of revenue generated from currency exchange transactions (alone), even taking into consideration the revenues effectively deterred by the application of the tax. Using a .1% Tobin tax on exchange rate transactions, Jeffrey Frankel estimated that $176 billion in tax revenue could have been raised in 1995. British journalist Martin Walker once proposed that a .003% tax would fund UN peacekeeping. Today, UNPK costs US$6.9 Billion annually, a small fraction of even the low end revenue predicted by Birens and Blair (2016).
While the tax level could be determined at an international level, it was suggested by Inge Kaul and John Langmore(18) that it be collected by national governments who would control the proceeds. This could encourage national buy-in. To avoid distresses from global reach into sovereign jurisdictions, states could contribute a proportion of the proceeds as they currently do to distribute ODA, indicating their preferences from among the agreed global needs. Alternatively, there could be established a new international Treasury-like cooperation fund (possibly modeled on lessons drawn from the experience of the European Union.) In any case a cooperative spirit would be necessary, and in the absence of that spirit, success would be limited. Yet, national governments should be keen on replenishing departmental coffers with their allotted national share of the transactions tax revenue pot.
Among the potential international uses for the funds generated by a Tobin tax/FTT might be expenditures in the areas of controlling air pollution, climate change initiatives, refugee settlement, a UN Emergency Peace Service, maintaining peace and security, and preventing the spread of infectious diseases.
Few objections on moral grounds deserve the undue attention of critics of international taxation schemes if the cause is human survival. Such a tax is cost effective and saves money in a relatively short period of time; it can be virtually imperceptible, and its "burden" is shared by the international community. What's not to like?
Dissent will be from those who are concerned that the imposition of a new international tax may establish feared irreversible interference in national finances. However, the system could be instituted so that it is annually renewable, and so that budgets are tightly coordinated with the actual costs of projects the funds are collected for. Enthusiasm for the project may tightly track the proportion of the tax revenue that participating countries themselves accrue.
However, in the context of global existential threats, let's be frank: The core argument should be about how much is needed to avert crises, not how much interference is too much.
Key references:
The Tobin Tax, Coping with Financial Volatility, edited by Mahbub ul Haq, Inge Kaul, and Isabelle Grunberg. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996
A Financial Transaction Tax Would Help Ensure Wall Street Works for Main Street, by Josh Bivens and Hunter Blair, Economic Policy Institute, Washington 2016
Policies and terms of service