Discussion Questions on Environmental Governance - Paper Example

Q1: What does the history of environmental governance tell us about the "tragedy of the commons"?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Environmental governance refers to the process that involves the use, management and the protection of the environmental resources and processes. On a wider note, governance involves conflicts, and therefore entail taking sides, in addition to the development of the compromises. The history of environmental governance provides greater insights regarding various aspects of resource utilizations. With particular emphasis, environmental management offers valuable information relating to the tragedy of commons. Ideally, the tragedy of commons is a problem that occurs when individuals exploit a shared environmental resource to the extent that the demands exceed the supply, leading to the unavailability of that resource.

A scrutiny of the environmental governance history shows that the tragedy of commons occurs as a result of inappropriate or ineffective environmental management policies and regulations. Fundamentally, the environmental policies at the local, regional and international level are supposed to provide frameworks through which resources should be utilized. In the same way, they are designed to emphasize a series of aspects regarding the supply systems and the units that may influence the process of governance. Forest as an environmental resource may be subjected to the tragedy of commons even at the presence of policies and regulation laws. Under these circumstances, resource users may opt to utilize it exceedingly, leading to an ultimate depletion. The reasons are here is the fact that users often feel that based on the fact that they are not responsible for its ownership, they can do anything to it so long as their needs at that particular time are fulfilled.

The history of environmental governance provides information regarding the effects of the tragedy of commons. As a problem, the tragedy of commons had tremendous implications for the use of resources and sustainability. The depletion and destruction of the non-renewable resources is an instance of the tragedy of commons in action. In this sense, the non-renewable resources that include forest are usually utilized as if their supply are unlimited. Regarding this, therefore, the dependence on the fossil fuels is both unsustainable and ultimately lead to the destruction of nature. Finally, environmental governance demonstrates that the private property can temporarily avert the tragedy of commons as a shared pool. However, the water, air, and other natural resources cannot be fenced, and therefore, the problem of the tragedy of commons must be barred by various means such as the coercive means such as strict laws and taxations. These actions are likely to make the polluters treat their wastes instead of discharging them untreated.

Section Two

Q.1: Explain the fundamental differences between a mainstream and a critical institutional approach to environmental governance

The concept of environmental management involves various elements of authority required. On a wider note, it consists of both the processes and the structures. The process of management occurs at the national levels, through decision-making at various institutions and structures. The two approaches of institutionalism that includes the critical and mainstream all provide guidelines regarding the environmental management. However, differences exist about these two methods. Firstly, the critical institutional analyses of the natural resource management put more emphasis on the institutions complexities, which are bounded in humans everyday social life, historical formation and the interplay that exists between formal, and informal organization. On the view of the critical institutionalism, the blurring of boundaries and the scales, blending of institutional logic groups. On the other hand, the mainstream institutionalism is on the view that the formal or public institutions are networked with the vertical and horizontal relationships.

Secondly, mainstream institutionalism involves the characterization of the robust systems created through design and crafting. On the other hand, the systems are pieced together by the processes of adaptation, process, and improvisation in the view of critical institutionalism.

Conceivably, the mainstream institutionalism for environmental governance holds that the decision-making and negotiations are primarily conducted in the public fora. Issues such as the protection and management of environmental resources are carried out with the knowledge of the public, who are the primary users of environmental resources. On the perspective of the critical approach, the decision making and negotiations rooted in the humans everyday life, which is shaped by the politics and history.

Mainstream institutionalism holds the belief the behavior is shaped by the incentives, rules, and the sanctions. The environmental governance involves the objective to change the behavior, besides creating awareness among the resource users. In this sense, this approach is of the view that the behavior towards promoting sustainable utilization of resource and management are influenced by the incentives, rules, sanctions and other regulations. While this is the perception of the mainstream, the critical institutionalism posits that the peoples behavior towards environmental governance is influenced by the societal structures, norms, and practices, in addition to individual creativity. Finally, the mainstream approach holds that environmental governance institutions can be subjected to crafting with the aim of generating efficient resource management outcomes. The critical approach affirms that the functions of systems can produce substantial social inclusion and exclusion

Section 3

Q3: What do you see as the main challenges in the formation of international policy for environmental regulation?

International policies for environmental regulations are designed to facilitate the management and protection of environmental resources on the global perspective. These systems stimulate active stewardship of nature through enhancing sustainable utilization of resources and development across the world. However, one of the primary challenges associated with such international policies is the policy fragmentation and conflicts and differences between the nation-based and international based. For example, The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification was designed to protect the environment from destruction and being turned to deserts and instead, promote sustainability. Similarly, the nations that ratified this agreement also have their domestic policies, which are focused towards achieving the same objective. However, due to the current economic status, structures, political structures and incentives, the frameworks aligned with the implementations of such policies may tremendously differ and conflict with those of the international policies. Due to these reasons, nations may develop notions of adhering and implementing their domestic policies at the expense of those of the international environmental regulations treaties.

When the systems are fragmented at the national level, different agencies are targeting the conservation of a particular environmental resource, say water, will tend to implement their policies to achieve such objective. This actions may fail to coincide with the international policies on the environmental management of that particular resource. Consequently, this move prompts nations not to ratify international treaties and policies that govern the utilization of the resources.