Keynote - Polycrisis and Earth Systems Governance - Keynote
Here I discuss my thinking over the past five years in terms of how global governance needs accountability from multilateral development to governing critical minerals and renewable energy. In an age of increasing dissatisfaction with multilateralism, there remain possibilities to broker a better future for all. My keynote starts at the 25 minute mark.
Australia has the chance to leverage its critical mineral deposits for huge economic gain, but will it also benefit environmentally?
By Susan Park and Ainsley Elbra
The impacts of the climate crisis are set to worsen in the years to come, with extreme heat and more severe weather events among the most obvious.
But countries such as Australia are still not doing enough to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, despite having an abundance of critical resources to do so.
Projections suggest that overall Australia will have more hot days, more intense episodes of extreme rainfall, sea levels will rise and our oceans will become more acidic.
Southern Australia will experience longer droughts, southern mainland Australia less rainfall, southern and eastern Australia harsher fire weather and there will be less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones.
Yet despite this outlook, the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions mandated by the 2015 Paris Agreement are insufficient.
The proposed government measures will not keep temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels.
Energy transition away from fossil fuels is at the heart of any genuine climate mitigation measure. One that is working is the shift to renewable sources like solar and wind energy for electricity.
The argument to decarbonise is no longer merely an environmental one, but also economic.
The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report notes there were dramatic cost reductions for solar (85 percent), wind (55 percent) and lithium-ion batteries (85 percent) between 2010 and 2019, as well as a dramatic increase in their deployment — more than ten times for solar and more than 100 times for electric vehicles (EVs) — over the same time period.
In Australia, solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels for electricity generation and storage.
Renewable energy however is much more mineral intensive than energy generated using fossil fuels. The need to decarbonise quickly is driving a global race to secure so-called critical minerals.
Critical minerals refer to metals and minerals that currently have no viable substitutes and have a high supply risk.
For example, neodymium, which is one of 17 rare earth elements, is critical for EVs and is also used in the magnets found in wind turbines.
The supply risk is that critical minerals are more site-specific than fossil fuels — deposits of them that are economically viable to mine are found in a smaller number of countries.
China produces more than 90 percent of rare earth elements and also dominates the processing of copper, lithium, nickel and cobalt, leading to supply-chain vulnerabilities.
Australia is well suited to transition to renewables.
Not only does it have an abundance of sun, wind, land and sea, but it also has a moderate to high potential of deposits of more than 20 critical minerals, and is already the largest producer of lithium in the world, the third largest producer of cobalt, and the fourth largest producer of rare earths.
There is considerable scope to increase production from existing mines, and with 80 percent of the continent underexplored, potentially locate new deposits.
Australia is seeking to capitalise on its natural assets and long history of mining through the federal government’s Future Made in Australia Act, which seeks to invest $AU22.7 billion in a suite of policies for transitioning Australia to a clean energy superpower.
This includes $AU7.1 billion for critical minerals processing and $AU3.2 billion for manufacturing clean energy technologies, both of which have significant political, economic, environmental and social challenges.
Investing in the processing of critical minerals makes political sense.
Global demand for lithium alone is expected to increase 4,000 percent in coming decades, forcing competitors and trade partners to diversify imports and providing opportunities for Australia.
Ongoing tensions between the US and China continue to raise the stakes over accessing critical minerals for the energy transition.
This has led to a turn away from unfettered free markets and a return to industrial policy through the US’s Inflation Reduction Act , the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and the Future Made in Australia Act.
While the Australian act seeks to reduce reliance on China for processing critical minerals and therefore increase national security, the economic and environmental costs remain.
Economically, the issue is how to compete rather than trade with China.
As analysts have pointed out, Australia can move into minerals processing and value-adding activities such as manufacturing, but investment and price are key challenges.
In terms of investment, to access benefits from the US policy, Australian mining companies must not have Chinese investment of over 25 percent.
This rules out the world’s largest lithium mine in Western Australia, which is 26 percent-owned by the Chinese company Tianqi Lithium Energy. Chinese companies continue to seek shares in Australian miners.
As a relative latecomer entering into the processing and manufacturing markets, Australia will also need to compete with Chinese firms which may already have partnerships with Australian mining companies.
Australia’s comparative advantages include the capacity to accelerate critical minerals projects and the ability to attract private capital through the provision of public infrastructure and investment, with flow-on effects for employment and prosperity.
Potential job losses have already been averted after the government added nickel to the critical minerals list, in the wake of BHP’s announcement that it was suspending its Nickel West mining and smelting operation from October.
Nickel’s addition to the list provides BHP and billionaire Andrew Forrest’s Wyloo metals access to the federal government’s critical minerals fund.
While growth in the sector will bring employment, this must be balanced against the potential loss of mining jobs in declining sectors such as coal.
There are also serious questions about whether Australia has a sufficient supply of skilled mining labour.
Questions should also be asked about widening access to government subsidies for companies, like BHP, which have been engaged in long-running disputes with the Australian Tax Office.
Compared with nations suich as China, Australia also has high environmental and social standards, which are important to ensure a sustainable and just transition.
These also present an opportunity to market minerals for export that are certified as sustainable or ethical, a potential selling point for EU and US customers.
Yet it remains to be seen as to whether customers in these markets will pay higher prices for critical minerals during a climate emergency.
How to drive a race to the top remains a vital issue given there is no multilateral agreement on minimum environmental and social standards.
Even with Australia’s higher environmental and social standards, environmental challenges remain.
Processing critical minerals has barriers to ensuring the ability to manage the use of water, the safe management of toxic waste and pollution, and protecting biodiversity.
Australia also needs to seriously engage with First Nations people, given that more than 50 percent of critical minerals projects are on Indigenous land where traditional owners have a right to negotiate.
Currently there is little benefit flowing to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from mining, while the destruction of the Juukan Gorge heritage site by Rio Tinto in 2020 remains a vivid reminder of the risks.
There are big challenges for critical minerals mining in Australia, but the opportunity to create new industries and transition our world away from fossil fuels is an opportunity that needs to be seized.
Professor Susan Park is Professor of Global Governance in International Relations at the University of Sydney.
Dr Ainsley Elbra is a senior lecturer in international political economy at the University of Sydney.
This research is funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project grant. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
For decades the Multilateral Development Banks have had environmental and social policies to protect communities from direct harm resulting from MDB financed development projects. Over time the MDBs created accountability mechanisms to provide recourse for people adversely affected by loans for developing projects from the World Bank, World Bank Group, African, Asian, Inter-American Development Banks, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This book examines how and why they emerged, how they have changed over time, and whether they change the culture of the Banks. It argues that the US helped people hold the development banks to account through pushing for their creation. Following from a tradition of using accountability mechanisms to control the MDBs, the US used the same processes to demand accountability mechanisms for justice. Over time it would demand the mechanisms be reformulated when they proved not to work. While they have become more transparent and responsive over time, the accountability mechanisms do not challenge the Banks culture of lending.
Get your copy of The Good Hegemon here
My new article published in Global Policy, is available to read and access.
Created to facilitate the transition of economies of Central and Eastern Europe towards democracy and the free market, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is a regional institution in the development finance regime complex. This article examines how the EBRD’s independent accountability mechanism (IAM) emerged and changed to demonstrate how policy norms filter through regime complexes. This is important because new ideas can change behavioural expectations and institutional practices across a complex. Tracing where the idea originated from and how it took hold is therefore central to understanding member state interests, the EBRD’s response considering its organisational preferences, and how the policy norm solidified through inter-institutional learning. This deepens our understanding of the development finance regime complex in two ways: first, it, shows how ideas can filter through to seemingly independent institutions via member states, bureaucrats, and stakeholders. This supports the argument that the development finance regime complex is coherent with increasingly consistent rules and obligations. Second, it reminds us not to reify states; while they demanded institutional change nonstate actors influence what constitutes appropriate behaviour for development financiers.
Click here to read a recent interview I did with Jane Butler at Earth System Governance. We chatted about my new book, what happens across the life-cycle of grievance mechanism claims, and the goals of my work.
Thanks to Jane and Earth System Governance for the discussion! You can learn more about the book here.
My new article published in Energy Research & Social Science, co-authored with Teresa Kramarz and Craig Johnson, is available to read and access free until April 21 2021.
Kramarz, Teresa, Susan Park, and Craig Johnson. “Governing the Dark Side of Renewable Energy: A Typology of Global Displacements.” Energy Research & Social Science 74 (2021): 101902.
Renewable energy (RE) is critical for curbing global greenhouse gas emissions to achieve 2 to 4 degrees of global warming by 2100. While this is an imperative technical response to the climate crisis, the shift to renewables is also driving a surge in demand for metals and minerals used in RE. Calls are being made for “smarter” and more “responsible” forms of mining, but questions remain about the socio-economic and environmental impacts of extraction, processing, application, and disposal at multiple scales. The literature has been limited to the technical and cost-benefit dimensions of managing RE global supply chains. This article seeks to expand this focus by developing a typology of displacement that may be used to understand the socio-economic and environmental effects of onshore wind, solar photovoltaics (PV), and lithium-ion batteries. It encourages a critical analysis of how the global surge in demand for renewable energy is affecting development pathways and displacement patterns.
Renewable energy; Global supply chains; Solar; Wind; Lithium batteries; Displacement; Transition; International political economy; Climate change; Contamination; Dispossession; Dependence
On The Sweaty Penguin, host Ethan Brown tackles environmental issues with a new topic every week. This week’s topic was international accountability.
International environmental treaties are a fantastic start, but they also regularly struggle because even when a country signs a treaty, they still don’t actually have to do anything. There is no global governing body to enforce agreements, meaning countries often fail to uphold their end of agreements, which is concerning since environmental issues are not isolated to any one country—everyone contributes, and everyone is affected. So how do countries then hold each other accountable? Today, we’ll explore some of the strategies currently used, why they often fail, and some options countries could consider from here to promote environmental progress on the global level. With special guest Dr. Susan Park: Professor of Global Governance at the University of Sydney.
On Dec 3, a panel of researchers and activists launched ‘Te Mana o te Moana: the State of the Climate in the Pacific 2020′ – a Greenpeace Australia Pacific report on the impact of climate change on Pacific Island Countries.
‘Te Mana o te Moana: the State of the Climate in the Pacific 2020′ is Greenpeace’s landmark report exploring how climate change has impacted Pacific Island Countries; who is responsible; and what is needed to ensure that the people of the Pacific emerge stronger from the climate crisis.
WHEN: 3 December, 5.30pm-7pm AEST
At this online event, the experts behind the report provided the latest analysis of how the world is progressing on the aims of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and hear the stories of Pacific island people on the front lines of the fight for their communities and the planet. While the top 15 emitters produce over 70% of all global annual emissions, the 14 Pacific Island Countries who have ratified the UNFCCC produce just 0.14%. Despite this, the top 15 emitters’ commitments under the Paris Agreement remain grossly insufficient: the report finds that countries responsible for 65% of all global annual emissions have combined emission reduction targets that would lock in over 2 degrees of heating, while their current policies would lead to a catastrophic 2.1-3.9 degrees of heating.
The islands of the Pacific are some of the most vulnerable areas on earth to the impacts of climate change, and have already suffered serious harm from rising sea levels, intensifying cyclones, and the degradation of the fisheries and fresh water resources they need to live. Despite this, the Pacific story is one of resilience amid crisis. The solutions are being found in both age-old traditions and modern technology, and give cause for hope if we act in time.
Speakers
Auimatagi Joseph Moeono-Kolio is from Falefa and Malie, Samoa and is Greenpeace’s Head of Pacific. He has been a passionate advocate for climate action and a proponent of indigenous knowledge and cultures of the Pacific as conduits for understanding the causes and solutions to the climate crisis. A sought-after speaker, he has worked with Pacific governments since 2018 in global climate negotiations and was appointed by Pope Francis as an auditor (advisor) in 2018. He has since worked with the Vatican to highlight the position of Pacific countries and advocate for more robust commitments to the Paris Agreement. He was also an adviser to the New Zealand Government’s interim climate committee, the precursor to the Climate Commission. Joe is also a member of the Pacific Climate Warriors, having co-founded its Wellington branch in 2018 and has continued to build coalitions between governments and civil society to drive climate campaigns in the Pacific and internationally.
Genevieve Jivais from Suva, Fiji, a youth advocate for stronger action on the climate crisis. She is the coordinator for the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), the Pacific regional node of CAN International. She has graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History and Politics, and has completed a Postgraduate Diploma in Diplomacy and International Affairs from the University of the South Pacific. She is also a member of 350 Fiji and the Pacific Climate Warriors, and has participated in Peace Boat’s Ocean and Climate Youth Ambassador Program.
Dr Nikola Casule is Greenpeace’s Head of Research and Investigations, having joined Greenpeace as a Climate and Energy Campaigner in early 2014. He has been instrumental in successful campaigns on the Renewable Energy Target, protecting the Great Barrier Reef, Adani, stopping drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight, and pushing the Commonwealth Bank to commit to ruling out new lending to coal mines. He previously worked as a university lecturer and researcher in the United Kingdom and Australia and has taught at the University of Oxford, Sydney University and the ANU. He holds a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford and a BA (Honours I) degree from Macquarie University.
David Ritter is the CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Prior to joining Greenpeace, David worked for ten years as a lawyer and academic. His most recent book is The Coal Truth: The Fight to Stop Adani, Defeat the Big Polluters and Reclaim our Democracy. In addition to his work at Greenpeace, David holds honorary appointments at Sydney University and the University of Western Australia. He lives in Sydney with his wife and two daughters.
Susan Park (Chair) is Professor of Global Governance at the University of Sydney. She focuses on how state and non-state actors use formal and informal influence to make the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) greener and more accountable. She is a Senior Research Fellow of the ESG, an affiliated Faculty member of the Munk School’s Environmental Governance Lab at the University of Toronto, an External Associate of the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at Warwick University, and a research affiliate of the Sydney Environment Institute at the University of Sydney. Susan is the Research Lead on The Global Shift to Renewables and Environmental Disasters and Just Governance.
Opinion, originally published on the Sydney Environment Institute blog, 13 November 2020, with Rebecca Lawrence and Gemma Viney:
In 2019, we saw the Rocky Hill Coal Mine dismissed on the grounds that the proposed mine would have significant adverse social impacts for the people of Gloucester. This was a historic decision and demonstrated to local communities around NSW that social impacts matter, and that their concerns deserved to be taken seriously. The social impacts of major developments have recently come again to the fore of Australia’s news cycle with the Narrabri Gas Project being approved by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC)’s in October 2020. Rather than further develop good social impact assessment practice, the process was deeply flawed. The recent Narrabri decision has highlighted the work that still needs to be done to ensure that social impacts are dealt with robustly and independently.
“Already marginalised and disadvantaged groups – such as regional communities and Indigenous peoples – should not bear the burden of negative impacts, while other non-Indigenous peoples elsewhere reap the benefits.”
Social Impact Assessments (SIA) are supposed to tell us what social impacts matter when it comes to proposed developments, how they will be managed, or indeed, if they can be managed at all. At the heart of SIA is the idea that government planning authorities should be making informed decisions about developments, and that the public good should be protected. In particular, already marginalised and disadvantaged groups – such as regional communities and Indigenous peoples – should not bear the burden of negative impacts, while other non-Indigenous peoples elsewhere reap the benefits. Crucially, the precautionary principle should also apply to SIA: assessments must ensure there is reasonable certainty about the expected impact predictions. The Rocky Hill case confirmed this view: in the absence of sufficient information about the impacts on Aboriginal people, the proponent’s SIA was deemed insufficient.
Following the recommendation of the IPC, the Commonwealth Government is soon due to make its much-awaited decision on the controversial Narrabri gas project. In the meantime, the NSW Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) has released an updated Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guideline for all state significant projects. While the Narrabri Gas Project was not officially covered by the original 2017 DPIE SIA Guideline, and the Commonwealth won’t be obliged to apply the new 2020 SIA Guideline in its assessment of the project either, the question needs to be asked, what will change for similar projects once the new 2020 SIA Guideline comes into force?
Continuing with the example of the Narrabri Gas Project: at the national level, over 98% of submissions opposed the project and at the local level, 63% of submissions opposed it, yet the IPC approved it regardless. So, what role does public opinion play in decision making in New South Wales? How does the public submission process inform decision making? Or does it confirm criticisms that public submissions processes, like consultation processes more generally, play a performative role: they give the appearance of giving a space to community and public opinion, at the same time giving very little weight to it. Without clarity on this issue, the perceived lack of meaningful engagement risks leaving communities feeling disenfranchised and disregarded by development proponents and planning authorities. Of course, if Social Impact Assessments (SIA) are done poorly, they too risk running into the same problem.
The NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s new SIA Guideline now applies to all State Significant Projects (and not just resource projects). This means that the number of social impact assessments coming across DPIE’s desk are going to increase significantly, and the benchmark for the way these SIAs should be undertaken is now formalised to a higher standard. For example, the proposed 2020 Guideline states that engagement with Aboriginal people “should recognise and respect their rights and be culturally appropriate. In practice, this means: […]ensuring free, prior, and informed consent” Guideline, pg. 31).
This recognition of Indigenous rights is commendable and in line with developments in international law, such as the UN Declaration. It is certainly an admirable policy goal and one we, as an advanced industrialised nation, should be able to achieve. But the reality is that many an SIA has been done to “tick the box”: they, like public submissions processes, become a way of performing “community consultation” but without giving any real attention to the social impacts that actually matter. Again, the Rocky Hill case highlights this problem. In cases where Indigenous communities have opposed projects, consultations are performed, but their opposition is often ultimately ignored. In the case of the Narrabri project, DPIE did not seek, or receive, the consent of the Gomeroi people, who opposed the project. This is despite free, prior and informed consent being a policy of both the proponent, Santos, and DPIEs own 2017 SIA Guideline.
DPIE has released a solid updated 2020 SIA Guideline, but a key challenge we face is how to implement it to ensure that proponents, Government authorities and SIA experts are able to ensure that SIAs are undertaken at the high standard outlined in the Guideline.
To discuss these issues and more SEI hosted a panel on the 19th of November discussing ‘The Future of Social Impact Assessment in NSW’ with leading SIA experts Rebecca Lawrence, Fiona Miller, Richard Parsons and Alison Ziller, chaired by me. During the rich discussion, we examined the implications of DPIE’s SIA Guideline, and some of the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead.
Originally published on The Conversation on November 18, 2020, written with Madeline Taylor:
Last week San Francisco became the latest city to ban natural gas in new buildings. The legislation will see all new construction, other than restaurants, use electric power only from June 2021, to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
San Francisco has now joined other US cities in banning natural gas in new homes. The move is in stark contrast to the direction of energy policy in Australia, where the Morrison government seems stuck in reverse: spruiking a gas-led economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Natural gas provides about 26% of energy consumed in Australia — but it’s clearly on the way out. It’s time for a serious rethink on the way many of us cook and heat our homes.
While San Francisco bans gas, the Morrison government turns to gas to recover the economy from the pandemic. AAP Image/James Ross
San Francisco is rapidly increasing renewable-powered electricity to meet its target of 100% clean energy by 2030. Currently, renewables power 70% of the city’s electricity.
The ban on gas came shortly after San Francisco’s mayor London Breed announced all commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet must run on 100% renewable electricity by 2022.
Buildings are particularly in focus because 44% of San Franciscos’ citywide emissions come from the building sector alone.
Read more: 4 reasons why a gas-led economic recovery is a terrible, naïve idea
Following this, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the ban on gas in buildings. They cited the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, and recognised that natural gas is a major source of indoor air pollution, leading to improved public health outcomes.
From January 1, 2021, no new building permits will be issued unless constructing an “All-Electric Building”. This means installation of natural gas piping systems, fixtures and/or infrastructure will be banned, unless it is a commercial food service establishment.
In the shift to zero-emissions economies, transitioning our power grids to renewable energy has been the subject of much focus. But buildings produce 25% of Australia’s emissions, and the sector must also do some heavy lifting.
A report by the Grattan Institute this week recommended a moratorium on new household gas connections, similar to what’s been imposed in San Francisco.
The report said natural gas will inevitably decline as an energy source for industry and homes in Australia. This is partly due to economics — as most low-cost gas on Australia’s east coast has been burnt.
Read more: A third of our waste comes from buildings. This one's designed for reuse and cuts emissions by 88%
There’s also an environmental imperative, because Australia must slash its fossil fuel emissions to address climate change.
While acknowledging natural gas is widely used in Australian homes, the report said “this must change in coming years”. It went on:
This will be confronting for many people, because changing the cooktops on which many of us make dinner is more personal than switching from fossil fuel to renewable electricity.
The report said space heating is by far the largest use of gas by Australian households, at about 60%. In the cold climates of Victoria and the ACT, many homes have central gas heaters. Homes in these jurisdictions use much more gas than other states.
By contrast, all-electric homes with efficient appliances produce fewer emissions than homes with gas, the report said.
Natural gas produces methane, a greenhouse gas that’s far more potent than carbon dioxide. Shutterstock
Australia’s states and territories have much work to do if they hope to decarbonise our building sector, including reducing the use of gas in homes.
In 2019, Australia’s federal and state energy ministers committed to a national plan towards zero-carbon buildings for Australia. The measures included “energy smart” buildings with on-site renewable energy generation and storage and, eventually, green hydrogen to replace gas.
The plan also involved better disclosure of a building’s energy performance. To date, Australia’s states and territories have largely focused on voluntary green energy rating tools, such as the National Australian Built Environment Rating System. This measures factors such as energy efficiency, water usage and waste management in existing buildings.
But in 2020, just 2% of buildings in Australia achieved the highest six-star rating. Clearly, the voluntary system has done little to encourage the switch to clean energy.
An estimated 200,000 new houses are built in Australia every year. AAP Image/Dan Himbrechts
The National Construction Code requires mandatory compliance with energy efficiency standards for new buildings. However, the code takes a technology neutral approach and does not require buildings to install zero-carbon energy “in the absence of an explicit energy policy commitment by governments regarding the future use of gas”.
An estimated 200,000 new homes are built in Australia each year. This represents an opportunity for states and territories to create mandatory clean energy requirements while reaching their respective net-zero emissions climate targets.
Under a gas ban, the use of zero-carbon energy sources in buildings would increase, similar to San Francisco. This has been recognised by Environment Victoria, which notes
A simple first step […] to start reducing Victoria’s dependence on gas is banning gas connections for new homes.
Creating incentives for alternatives to gas may be another approach, such as offering rebates for homes that switch to electrical appliances. The ACT is actively encouraging consumers to transition from gas.
Read more: Australia has plenty of gas, but our bills are ridiculous. The market is broken
Banning gas in buildings could be an economically sensible move. As the Grattan Report found, “households that move into a new all-electric house with efficient appliances will save money compared to an equivalent dual-fuel house”.
Meanwhile, ARENA confirmed electricity from solar and wind provide the lowest levelised cost of electricity, due to the increasing cost of east coast gas in Australia.
Future-proofing new buildings will require extensive work, let alone replacing exiting gas inputs and fixtures in existing buildings. Yet efficient electric appliances can save the average NSW homeowner around A$400 a year.
Learning to live sustainability, and becoming resilient in the face of climate change, is well worth the cost and effort.
Recently, a suite of our major gas importers — China, South Korea and Japan — all pledged to reach net-zero emissions by either 2050 or 2060. This will leave our export-focused gas industry possibly turning to the domestic market for new gas hookups.
But continuing Australia’s gas production will increase greenhouse gas emissions, and few Australians support an economic recovery pinned on gas.
The window to address dangerous climate change is fast closing. We must urgently seek alternatives to burning fossil fuels, and there’s no better place to start that change than in our own homes.
Just published! My new book, out now as part of the Cambridge Elements in Earth System Governance series, is free online until the 24th of November. Click on the image to access, or continue reading below for a taster.
Can We Uphold Environmental Rights in International Development?
Sydney Environment Institute Opinion, 20 October, 2020
SEI researcher Professor Susan Park’s new book explores the issues with international development financing and the alternative options that better protect the rights of communities and the environment.
In my latest book Environmental Recourse at the Multilateral Development Banks, I probe the increasing use of what are known as international grievance mechanisms in international development financing. While this may seem niche, it really gets to the heart of how we could resolve or pre-empt environmental conflicts, which are on the rise around the world.
In short, international development financing seeks to provide developing states with funding for projects for things like generating energy, building telecommunications, and infrastructure to address poverty and improve peoples’ lives. Yet development projects may have dramatic and irreversible environmental and social impacts.
So, given large but variable flows of private direct foreign assistance, and ongoing financing through official development assistanceand multilateral financing, what are the available options to communities to protect their environmental rights, and the rights of nature?
Potential Harms from International Development
Since the 1980s, environmental and social standards have emerged and strengthened for private and public development funders. In the 1990s, locally affected communities and concerned environmental NGO’s pushed for recourse mechanisms to mediate the power of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and international organisations (IOs) like the World Bank around environmental and social harm.
Concerns over loss of land, livelihoods, and lives, species extinction, irreparable damage to local ecosystems, and a breakdown in social cohesion are all potential harms from international development projects. Many developing states often favour the right to exploit natural resources and labour over the concerns of local communities, which has led to the creation of international mechanisms to mediate between MNCs, IOs, and locally affected communities.
Do International Grievance Mechanisms Provide Enough Protection?
International grievance mechanisms are processes which seek to provide recourse for locally affected communities. These can be quite disparate processes, from industry associations like the Fair Trade Association, to MNC specific recourse processes as enacted by Adidas, to the Inspection Panel of the World Bank.
In the book, I parse out the underlying normative underpinnings of these international grievance mechanisms, which either hew to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,for the private sector or the environmental and social standards established by the World Bank and used for multilateral and bilateral lending.
While the proliferation of international grievance mechanisms is laudable, they are not legal processes and therefore are not enforceable. They provide recourse but are not held to providing a remedy for the harm.
Independent Accountability Mechanisms and Environmental Recourse
As a result of this lack of transparency, the Multilateral Development Banks established a subset of grievance mechanisms called the ‘independent accountability mechanisms’ (IAMs), which enable us to examine whether or not communities can have recourse to uphold their environmental rights.
In the book, I look at the environmental procedural rights that are increasingly being recognised not only in the UN Guiding Principles and implicitly in the World Bank’s environmental and social standards but in regional UN treaties: the right to access to information, access to participation, and access to justice in environmental matters.
My first aim was to see whether or not communities were actually invoking recourse for these rights, and, given the people centred nature of these mechanisms, whether or not they were also trying to use them to defend nature in and of itself.
So, I analysed394 original claims by locally affected people to see if they were invoking these rights. 49% of claims wanted recourse for a failure to be informed of the developments in their communities, and 54% identified a lack of access to participate in the decision making process that affects them. A further 27% of claims were concerned with the impact of the development on the environment as independent of people’s reliance on it (such as species and habitat loss).
Upholding Access to Justice
Were peoples’ access to justice upheld in the process?I drew on a database I created of all known submissions to the IAMs(1,052 claims from 1994 to mid-2019), to examine what happened when people went through the process of seeking recourse for a failure to uphold these rights.
Here is where it gets interesting. The mechanisms have dual functions, allowing people to meet with the project sponsors and financiers to discuss how to address the harm (called problem solving), or to ask the mechanism to investigate whether it was the Banks omissions or acts that led to environmental and social harm (compliance investigation).
While the book demonstrates how the processes work in a generally just manner, it also shows that the problem-solving function can only work if it is in the interests of claimants, the Bank, the government, and/or the project sponsor (for non-sovereign loans). This leads to a high rate of unsuccessful outcomes from communities attempting to engage directly with the Banks and project sponsors.
In using the compliance investigation function, the mechanisms have found the Banks non-compliant with their environmental and social protection standards, showing a willingness of the IAMs to reveal Bank wrong-doing leading to harm. Moreover, the IAMs have increasingly been given power to monitor the Banks to bring them back into compliance.
Ultimately however, the mechanisms enable people to air their grievances, without necessarily solving their problems. Moreover, we have little indication that the rights of nature can be protected within such processes, which means more work is needed to find methods to protect a threatened planet.
Environmental Recourse at the Multilateral Development Banks is now available from Cambridge University Press, as part of their Elements in Earth System Governance series. To find out more and to download, please visit the Cambridge University Press website.
On the 29th of September I conducted an author webinar on my recent book International Organisations and Global Problems (CUP, 2018). In the webinar, I canvassed the book’s content and discussed how it can be integrated in a variety of courses in international relations, as well as providing insights on how the book can be used and adapted specifically for online teaching.
You can access the video below, with the following time-stamps to jump to particular sections of the talk and answers to specific questions:
06:08-07:15 Q1 What courses is the book suitable for?
07:16-08:41 Are there chapters suitable for advanced courses?
08:41-9:30 Q3 Feedback from International Organisation
09:31-12:35 Key feature: Flexibility
12:36-16:53 Key feature: Questioning the roles of international organisations
18:07-19:08 Book and chapter structure
19:08-21:02 Q4 How does the book support distance teaching?
21:03-23:22 Q5 Do you define the problems on the nexus of sectors of align them with public sector organisations?
26:02-27:48 Q6 How do you perceive international relations?
27:53-30:45 Using music in synchronous online teaching
30:50-36:02 Q7 How to make students feel part of class online?
36:03-38:45 Assessment and Exams
38:46-41:57 Distance teaching – letting students set their own essay questions
41:57-45:00 Q8 International Organisations and the pandemic
45:00-46:37 Q9 Doesn’t the slow response indicate a lack of authentic collaboration...
46:37-48:23 Q10 How NGOs and individuals can get International Organisations to respond to their needs
Interested in International Organisations? Cambridge University Press author Susan Park talked about her book International Organisations and Global Problems...
A look at the trends in governing the response to the global pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic has put governance systems around the world to the greatest test in living memory. The variation in responses and results has opened up the debate as to the ability of different regimes and international institutions to deliver in moments of crisis.
For instance, citizens of democracies have accepted previously unthinkable restrictions on freedoms, federal systems have seen the complex relationship between the federal government and the states increasingly negotiated, and intergovernmental organisations have not been successful at offsetting the unilateral responses such as border closures and beggar-thy-neighbour fights over medical aid.
Timestamps
00:00 Introduction and Acknowledgement of Country – Stewart Jackson
01:36 Citizen responses to the crisis – Sarah Cameron
10:46 The failure of multilateralism during the global pandemic - Susan Park
20:14 Implications of the pandemic response for domestic political institutions - Rodney Smith
30:18 Understanding the pandemic as a border security challenge - Salvatore Babones
38:50 The operation of the Commonwealth/federalism during the pandemic/bushfires/any other crisis - Stewart Jackson
48:35 Audience Q&A and discussion
Speakers
Dr Sarah Cameron, Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney
Professor Susan Park, Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney
Professor Rodney Smith, Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney
Associate Professor Salvatore Babones, Sociology and Social Policy, The University of Sydney
Dr Stewart Jackson (Chair), Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney
Part of the Governing the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic panel for the University of Sydney’s Social Sciences Week (SSW), September 9, 2020.
Listen below!:
A look at the trends in governing the response to the global pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has put governance systems around the world to the greatest test in living memory. The variation in responses and results has opened up the debate as to the ability of different regimes and international institutions to deliver in moments of crisis. For instance, citizens of democracies have accepted previously unthinkable restrictions on freedoms, federal systems have seen the complex relationship between the federal government and the states increasingly negotiated, and intergovernmental organisations have not been successful at offsetting the unilateral responses such as border closures and beggar-thy-neighbour fights over medical aid. This podcast brings together experts in the social and political sciences to discuss and highlight the trends in governing the response to the pandemic thus far. Timestamps 00:00 Introduction and Acknowledgement of Country – Stewart Jackson 01:36 Citizen responses to the crisis – Sarah Cameron 10:46 The failure of multilateralism during the global pandemic - Susan Park 20:14 Implications of the pandemic response for domestic political institutions - Rodney Smith 30:18 Understanding the pandemic as a border security challenge - Salvatore Babones 38:50 The operation of the Commonwealth/federalism during the pandemic/bushfires/any other crisis - Stewart Jackson 48:35 Audience Q&A and discussion Speakers Dr Sarah Cameron, Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney Professor Susan Park, Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney Professor Rodney Smith, Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney Associate Professor Salvatore Babones, Sociology and Social Policy, The University of Sydney Dr Stewart Jackson (Chair), Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney This podcast is part of Social Science Week Australia 2020. Find out more here: bit.ly/3fgfFpw
On June 3, the University of Sydney’s Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) held the Global Forum on the COVID Crisis, asking what next?
You can listen to two of the discussions below:
2020, ‘The COVID Crisis: Lessons Learned, What Next?’, University of Sydney: Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) Global Forum, June 3. Featuring contributions from Susan Park, Justin Hastings, Brendan O’Connor, Aim Sinpeng, and Roy MacLeod.
The Centre for International Security Studies presents the 2020 Global Forum, The COVID Crisis: Lessons Learned, What Next? Through a series of curated webca...
2020, ‘Ecosecurity Threats and Challenges: COVID19 and Beyond,’ organised and moderated by Susan Park for CISS Global Forum. Featuring Simon Dalby (Waterloo), Prof Lorraine Elliott (ANU), A/Prof Matt McDonald (UQ), and Dr Robert Macneil (Sydney University), June 3.
The fourth webinar in the 2020 CISS Global Forum explored the theme of Ecosecurity Threats & Challenges: COVID-19 and Beyond. Our group of experts applied a ...
As instruments of global governance, Multilateral Development Banks were created to lend developing states capital for economic growth and development that they could not access from private capital markets. Despite their positive aims, these international organisations have often come under fire and received harsh criticism for their lending practices on economic, political, environmental, and human rights grounds. In particular, the Banks have been the focus of attention for being unaccountable for their actions.
Professor Susan Park chats with Dr Natali Pearson about global governance and Multilateral Development Banks, with a specific focus on accountability mechanisms in the Asian Development Bank.
SSEAC Stories is a podcast series produced by the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre at the University of Sydney. Experts join us in every episode to explore the latest research and share their insights on a wide range of topics pertaining to Southeast Asia.
Listen below!
As instruments of global governance, Multilateral Development Banks were created to lend developing states capital for economic growth and development that they could not access from private capital markets. Despite their positive aims, these international organisations have often come under fire and received harsh criticism for their lending practices on economic, political, environmental, and human rights grounds. In particular, the Banks have been the focus of attention for being unaccountable for their actions. Professor Susan Park chats with Dr Natali Pearson about global governance and Multilateral Development Banks, with a specific focus on accountability mechanisms in the Asian Development Bank. About Professor Susan Park: Susan Park is Professor of Global Governance at the University of Sydney. She focuses on how state and non-state actors use formal and informal influence to make the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) greener and more accountable. Susan has published in numerous journals, most recently in the Review of International Political Economy. Her forthcoming book is 'Addressing Environmental and Social Harm through the Independent Accountability Mechanisms of the Multilateral Development Banks' (Cambridge University Press, 2020). In 2018, Susan published 'International Organisations and Global Problems: Theories and Explanations (Cambridge University Press, 2018). In 2010, she published 'The World Bank Group and Environmentalists: Changing International Organisation Identities' (Manchester University Press). Susan has co-edited special editions and books including 'Global Environmental Governance and the Accountability Trap' (MIT Press, 2019, with Teresa Kramarz) and 'Owning Development'(Cambridge, 2010, with Antje Vetterlein). Susan is an Associate Editor of the journal Global Environmental Politics and is Co-Convenor with Dr Teresa Kramarz (University of Toronto) of the Earth Systems Governance (ESG) Task Force ‘Accountability in Global Environmental Governance.’ Susan was the Chair of the Environmental Studies Section of the ISA from 2015 to 2017. You can follow Susan on Twitter @spark_syd.
On the 26th of May 2020, the Ninth International Workshop on Advances in Cleaner Production was held in Melbourne. You can listen to my keynote presentation, ‘Addressing Environmental and Social Harm through the Independent Accountability Mechanisms of the Multilateral Development Banks,’ which is part of my project on the independent accountability mechanisms.
The invited Keynote Speaker Susan Park presents her research, entitled 'Protecting Environmental Rights through International Grievance Mechanisms?', in the ...
You can learn more about this project and its implications for the environment in NSW through these links:
The Conversation, ‘A contentious NSW gas project is weeks away from approval. Here are 3 reasons it should be rejected’, Aug 11 2020, written with Madeline Taylor.
In this piece, we outline three key claims made about the project, which we find have not been adequately substantiated. They are that the project:
will improve gas security for NSW
does not pose a significant risk to important water resources
will not cause significant impacts to people or the environment.
Read more on the Sydney Environment Institute Blog.
Submission to the Independent Planning Commission
In July, a group of leading experts and researchers convened by the Sydney Environment Institute have found serious inadequacies within the NSW Government Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) Assessment Report recommending approval of the proposed Santos Narrabri Gas Project.
The Independent Planning Commission has been asked to make a determination regarding the NGP, with a final hearing commencing this week, to determine whether the NGP is in the public interest.
This submission finds that the DPIE’s recommendation for approving the NGP is based on a systematic failure by the DPIE to provide robust evidence in effectively evaluating Santos’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The DPIE Assessment Report provides flawed evidence that the public will be guaranteed net community benefits, which constitute serious inadequacies in the planning and assessment process.
This project is led by Michelle St Anne, Deputy Director and Operations Manager – Programming, Impact and Engagement at the Sydney Environment Institute.
This report is co-authored by Greg Bourne, Matthew Currell, Tanya Fiedler, Rebecca Lawrence, Susan Park, Nathaniel Pelle, Madeline Taylor, Gemma Viney and Alison Ziller.
On Jul 23, the report was presented to the NSW Independent Planning Commission’s Narrabri Gas Project Hearing.
Read the report here:
Upcoming Author Webinar (29th September)
Join Susan Park on the 29th of September, 11-12 UTC (CET) to talk about her book International Organisations and Global Problems.
Professor Park will answer questions regarding global governance and the role of international organisations in solving contemporary political problems. The event will also give advice to lecturers on how to use Susan’s textbook, particularly whilst distance teaching.
Susan is an Associate Professor in International Relations at the University of Sydney. She has published in journals including International Politics, Global Governance and Global Environmental Politics. She is also the author of World Bank Group Interacts with Environmentalists: Changing International Organisation Identities (2010) and co-editor of Owning Development: Creating Global Policy Norms in the IMF and the World Bank (Cambridge, 2010).
'How do international organizations (IOs) solve problems? In this theoretically driven book, Dr Susan Park examines how IOs tackle the complex global issues of the day. With a keen eye towards the politics that empower and constrain IOs, Park produces a pragmatic approach to understanding the dense ecosystem of IOs, how they should function, and - most importantly - how they actually perform in the real world.' Catherine Weaver, University of Texas, Austin
RSVP and learn more here: https://www.facebook.com/events/328008524944371
Read MoreSome action from the ESG conference in Mexico.
The conference was held from the 6th to the 8th November 2019 in Oaxaca, Mexico. The conference was hosted by the National Autonomous University of Mexico and the Earth System Governance Project.
A panel of excellent presentations chaired by Dahlia Simangan
Do global governance processes create more accountability gaps? @spark_syd opens a series of pitches on recent @ESG_Project publications at #ESG2019 pic.twitter.com/DKRDVC4L8k
— ESG Project (@ESG_Project) November 6, 2019
Innovative session on 'Teaching Earth System Governance: New approaches for learning and action', inspiring ESG teaching in an equally inspiring setting #ESG2019 @ESG_Project pic.twitter.com/aZjn67bUtt
— ESG Project (@ESG_Project) November 6, 2019
As global warming rapidly heats up our planet, the likelihood and frequency of environmental disasters caused by extreme weather events – from bushfires to floods – rises substantially. As part of the Environmental Disasters Symposium, organised by Professor Susan Park, this Sydney Ideas event brings together scholars working on environmental disasters from a range of disciplines, issue areas, and countries to grapple with critical questions. What we need to do to govern such disasters effectively? Who should govern environmental disasters and how?
• Professor Linda Hancock, Deakin University
• Professor Susan Park, University of Sydney
• Postdoctoral Fellow Francisco Molina Camacho, CIGIDEN
• (Chair) Professor Abbas El-Zein, University of Sydney
Thursday 21 November, 6 – 7.30pm
University of Sydney - Social Sciences Building (A02)
This event is part of the Environmental Disasters Symposium (21-22 November), a collaboration between Sydney Social and Humanities Advanced Research Centre, Sydney Environment Institute and the Office of Global Engagement.