Casey Stevens

The transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

How can global governance shape a transformation toward sustainability? How can a transformation toward sustainability shape new forms and strategies on global governance? These questions grow increasingly important as the human impact on the environment increasingly exceeds the planetary boundaries (Rockstrom et al. 2009; Steffen and Smith 2013; Steffen et al. 2015). In addition, the prevailing approach to sustainability will only achieve sustainable futures for some, which would not be sustainable at all. In the post1992 era, roadblock after roadblock for global governance on sustainability was confronted and increased skepticism became warranted. In this context, the Rio?20 Conference in 2012 was seen as a conference with little substantive purpose (Andresen and Underdal 2012) and interest grew in efforts that ‘‘tipped toward’’ sustainability (Westley et al. 2011) rather than hard law-induced transformations. Global governance was seen to have the wrong processes and wrong ideas, animated by zero-sum interstate negotiations and a prioritization of the liberal international economic order over any alternatives. If we approached the question from a traditional effectiveness or influence perspective (Bernstein and Cashore 2012), such skepticism is understandable. Formal rules of the environment gave way to less legalistic approaches to sustainability in a muddled institutional context. Specifically, the Rio?20 process produced nothing in the realm of hard law, and the small-scale efforts appear scattered haphazardly without a core to organize global action. An alternative approach though would highlight that such outcomes have potential impacts primarily in changing global governance practices, defined as the techniques actors use to make sense of the world (Best 2014). Such an approach would be critical of the

Scales of integration for sustainable development governance

ABSTRACT Efforts at integration are central in the Sustainable Development Goals and the wider Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. While integration forms a major focus of this agenda, there are fundamental limitations on pursuing this focus. The global governance discussions on integration lack a clear conceptualization of what it is, do not have any tools for measurement or assessment, and are narrowly focused around policy integration between global institutions. This article develops a framework for conceptualizing cross-level and cross-scale integration which addresses these problems and introduces the opportunities and challenges of pursuing different types of integration in global governance. Cross-level integration involves governance efforts which seek to bridge similar institutions with one another (for example, bringing together efforts by environmental ministries and development ministries). Cross-scale integration, in contrast, deals with governance efforts that bring together institutions which have distinct scopes, jurisdictions, and epistemologies. With this important distinction, the article explores the opportunities for cross-scale integration as part of the global sustainable development efforts and particularly expanding the policy integration focus with spatial and temporal integration as well. The conclusion uses the Earth System Governance perspective to focus on the trade-offs that are likely as wider forms of institutional integration are pursued beyond environmental mainstreaming and policy integration.

Remnants of Hierarchy: The Limits on New Modes of Biodiversity Governance in the Dominican Republic

How does former state involvement impact the adoption of new modes of governance in contexts of limited statehood? New modes of governance (market-based, participatory, or multilevel) are not created on institutional blank slates but occur in contexts where the legacies of institutional contestation matters. These contexts help to understand the adoption and impact of new modes of governance. This chapter explores this in a case study of the adoption of new modes of biodiversity governance in the Dominican Republic. Strong hierarchical control by the state had created a significant protected area system but by the 2000s this control had weakened significantly. The resulting new modes of governance were limited largely by networks fostered under the system of hierarchical control.