Pub Date : 2025-06-27DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100271
Jochen Prantl, Giridharan Ramasubramanian
{"title":"International cooperation in times of polycrisis: Patchworks as pathways in earth system governance","authors":"Jochen Prantl, Giridharan Ramasubramanian","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100271","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100271","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100271"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144491315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-26DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100272
Thiago Gehre Galvão , Tatiana Dias Silva , Rodrigo Ramiro , Ana Luísa Jorge Martins , Yara Resende M. Martinelli , Richarlls Martins , Juarez Tadeu de Paula Xavier , Rômulo Paes de Sousa
This article focuses on the Brazilian proposal of a new SDG 18 emphasizes fighting ethnic and racial inequalities as a pivotal concern to a truly just, equal and sustainable world. Using Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) we reviewed an extensive literature and make the analysis of official documents regarding the 2030 Agenda. This research builds a theoretical framework on the SDG politics and culture trough an ethnic-racial lens, engaging the ideas and concepts of contemporary black and indigenous thinkers. It critically examines the SDG 18 as an instrument to face Governance through Global Goals limitations. From a set of interviews with key government and non-government stakeholders we address challenges, opportunities and a vision of the future on a post2030 Agenda.
{"title":"Ethnic-racial approach to the SDG: promoting a Global South perspective to the 2030 Agenda and sustainable development","authors":"Thiago Gehre Galvão , Tatiana Dias Silva , Rodrigo Ramiro , Ana Luísa Jorge Martins , Yara Resende M. Martinelli , Richarlls Martins , Juarez Tadeu de Paula Xavier , Rômulo Paes de Sousa","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100272","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100272","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article focuses on the Brazilian proposal of a new SDG 18 emphasizes fighting ethnic and racial inequalities as a pivotal concern to a truly just, equal and sustainable world. Using Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) we reviewed an extensive literature and make the analysis of official documents regarding the 2030 Agenda. This research builds a theoretical framework on the SDG politics and culture trough an ethnic-racial lens, engaging the ideas and concepts of contemporary black and indigenous thinkers. It critically examines the SDG 18 as an instrument to face Governance through Global Goals limitations. From a set of interviews with key government and non-government stakeholders we address challenges, opportunities and a vision of the future on a post2030 Agenda.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100272"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144480271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper challenges the monolithic portrayal of the state as inherently ‘bad’ when it comes to implementation of Indigenous rights. Offering a comparative analysis of case studies from four continents we demonstrate examples of frontline state officials proactively advancing Indigenous rights to land and environment. Combining distinct literatures on institutional theory, we develop an analytical framework that sheds light on bureaucratic agency within state-Indigenous relations. The findings show how government organizations maintain a broadly colonial agenda, but that officials on the inside sometimes manage to advance decolonizing or otherwise supportive actions. We propose the concept of institutional braiding to describe this agency exerted by state officials in collaboration with Indigenous representatives when navigating co-existing normative orders. By examining the fraught institutional constraints faced by frontline actors, we contribute to debates on Indigenous-state relations and the prospects of reaching common ground in the contact zone between divergent ontologies.
{"title":"Finding the cracks: How do frontline officials maneuver state institutions to advance Indigenous rights to land and environment?","authors":"Rasmus Kløcker Larsen , Mikkel Funder , Cortney Golkar-Dakin , Maria-Therese Gustafsson , Carol Hunsberger , Martin Marani , Almut Schilling-Vacaflor","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100270","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100270","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper challenges the monolithic portrayal of the state as inherently ‘bad’ when it comes to implementation of Indigenous rights. Offering a comparative analysis of case studies from four continents we demonstrate examples of frontline state officials proactively advancing Indigenous rights to land and environment. Combining distinct literatures on institutional theory, we develop an analytical framework that sheds light on bureaucratic agency within state-Indigenous relations. The findings show how government organizations maintain a broadly colonial agenda, but that officials on the inside sometimes manage to advance decolonizing or otherwise supportive actions. We propose the concept of <em>institutional braiding</em> to describe this agency exerted by state officials in collaboration with Indigenous representatives when navigating co-existing normative orders. By examining the fraught institutional constraints faced by frontline actors, we contribute to debates on Indigenous-state relations and the prospects of reaching common ground in the contact zone between divergent ontologies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100270"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144313280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-17DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100265
Montserrat Koloffon Rosas
Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) play a key role in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), offering collaborative mechanisms to address interconnected global challenges. Despite the increasing number of MSPs, their transformative potential remains underexplored. Taking a systems thinking approach, the leverage points theoretical framework by Donella Meadows (1999) is operationalized and applied to assess the transformative potential of a sample of 35 MSPs working on prominent SDG nexuses involving SDGs 4, 13, 14, and 15. Findings indicate that while partnerships target multiple intervention points within systems, they often neglect the deepest leverage points that could lead to a more profound transformation. This research contributes by identifying gaps in the engagement with deep system intervention places and offering insights into how partnerships can improve their focus on systems transformations. Enhancing the understanding of intervention points is the first step for MSPs to increase their transformative potential, competence, and impact.
{"title":"Partnerships for sustainable development: measuring transformative potential through leverage points","authors":"Montserrat Koloffon Rosas","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100265","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100265","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) play a key role in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), offering collaborative mechanisms to address interconnected global challenges. Despite the increasing number of MSPs, their transformative potential remains underexplored. Taking a systems thinking approach, the leverage points theoretical framework by Donella Meadows (1999) is operationalized and applied to assess the transformative potential of a sample of 35 MSPs working on prominent SDG nexuses involving SDGs 4, 13, 14, and 15. Findings indicate that while partnerships target multiple intervention points within systems, they often neglect the deepest leverage points that could lead to a more profound transformation. This research contributes by identifying gaps in the engagement with deep system intervention places and offering insights into how partnerships can improve their focus on systems transformations. Enhancing the understanding of intervention points is the first step for MSPs to increase their transformative potential, competence, and impact.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100265"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144298445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-17DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100262
Mark Elder , Susanne Grünewald
This paper re-examines Agenda 21 for lessons to improve SDG implementation and contribute to discussions on the post-2030 sustainable development agenda. The SDGs' roots in Agenda 21 have been almost forgotten, as analyses of the SDGs' creation and structure highlighted “governance through goals” as a core feature and presented SDGs as the MDGs' successor. This paper, however, demonstrates that the SDGs' contents are substantially based on Agenda 21, especially their broad scope and integrated perspective, not just MDGs. While Agenda 21 was considered unsuccessful, no systematic assessment was conducted, so the lessons for improvement were not clear. Now is a good time to reconsider Agenda 21's experience to better understand the SDGs' strengths and weaknesses and consider possible implications for developing the post-2030 sustainable development agenda. Concretely, this paper surveys and synthesizes the similarities and differences between Agenda 21 and SDGs (including Agenda 2030), and existing non-systematic evaluations of Agenda 21. This paper argues that despite Agenda 21's uneven progress, it had more impact than is generally appreciated, so discussions of post-2030 should take its experience into account. Lessons to inform discussions on achieving the SDGs and developing the post-2030 agenda are presented.
{"title":"Insights from Agenda 21 for enhancing the implementation of the SDGs and shaping the Post-2030 sustainable development agenda","authors":"Mark Elder , Susanne Grünewald","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100262","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100262","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper re-examines Agenda 21 for lessons to improve SDG implementation and contribute to discussions on the post-2030 sustainable development agenda. The SDGs' roots in Agenda 21 have been almost forgotten, as analyses of the SDGs' creation and structure highlighted “governance through goals” as a core feature and presented SDGs as the MDGs' successor. This paper, however, demonstrates that the SDGs' contents are substantially based on Agenda 21, especially their broad scope and integrated perspective, not just MDGs. While Agenda 21 was considered unsuccessful, no systematic assessment was conducted, so the lessons for improvement were not clear. Now is a good time to reconsider Agenda 21's experience to better understand the SDGs' strengths and weaknesses and consider possible implications for developing the post-2030 sustainable development agenda. Concretely, this paper surveys and synthesizes the similarities and differences between Agenda 21 and SDGs (including Agenda 2030), and existing non-systematic evaluations of Agenda 21. This paper argues that despite Agenda 21's uneven progress, it had more impact than is generally appreciated, so discussions of post-2030 should take its experience into account. Lessons to inform discussions on achieving the SDGs and developing the post-2030 agenda are presented.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100262"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144307662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-17DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100269
Pierre Mazzega , Rugmini Devi M. , Ana Flávia Barros-Platiau
Although the term “Global South” has been increasingly invoked by heads of State as a call for enhanced multilateralism and institutional reform, its academic conceptualization remains underdeveloped. Therefore, we investigate how and where scientific knowledge about the Global South is produced, using a meta-analysis of around 17,000 articles [1994–2024] indexed in Scopus database. The paper shows that authors and funding are predominantly from Global North institutions, particularly the United States. However, rising powers are increasingly active contributors, notably South Africa, India, China and Brazil. The most frequent research topics include globalization, COVID-19, climate change, gender issues, neoliberalism, decolonization and sustainability. The results also reveal the centrality of Africa in the debate, and the underrepresentation of Global South institutions in leading journals. The conclusion calls for more scientific collaboration to improve visibility of knowledge produced in the Global South institutions and suggests that ESG may be a key player.
{"title":"Where is the “Global South” located in scientific research?","authors":"Pierre Mazzega , Rugmini Devi M. , Ana Flávia Barros-Platiau","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100269","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100269","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although the term “Global South” has been increasingly invoked by heads of State as a call for enhanced multilateralism and institutional reform, its academic conceptualization remains underdeveloped. Therefore, we investigate how and where scientific knowledge about the Global South is produced, using a meta-analysis of around 17,000 articles [1994–2024] indexed in Scopus database. The paper shows that authors and funding are predominantly from Global North institutions, particularly the United States. However, rising powers are increasingly active contributors, notably South Africa, India, China and Brazil. The most frequent research topics include globalization, COVID-19, climate change, gender issues, neoliberalism, decolonization and sustainability. The results also reveal the centrality of Africa in the debate, and the underrepresentation of Global South institutions in leading journals. The conclusion calls for more scientific collaboration to improve visibility of knowledge produced in the Global South institutions and suggests that ESG may be a key player.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100269"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144298446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-16DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100267
Chris Höhne
Recent scholarship highlights Global South countries not only as norm-takers or localizers but also as norm-makers. Contributing to this shift, I conceptualize why these countries contest and lobby for alternative norm interpretations in international negotiations. Applying this lens to climate politics, I use triangulated data (incl. expert interviews) to identify domestic factors that explain the Indian government's behavior. By exporting domestic norm interpretations that merged with other norm interpretations from Global North and South countries, the Indian delegation successfully reshaped two international climate norms at the 2007 Bali Conference that target developing countries' mitigation efforts and climate action in forests. This increased the resonance of these two norms with the Indian government's domestic norms, political economy beliefs, international funding desire and collective identity needs. This research provides insights into the complex dynamics of international norm negotiations between proposers and counter-proposers in the context of the rise of the Global South.
{"title":"Exporting norm interpretations from the Global South: Explaining India's reasons for contesting and reshaping international climate norms","authors":"Chris Höhne","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100267","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100267","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent scholarship highlights Global South countries not only as norm-takers or localizers but also as norm-makers. Contributing to this shift, I conceptualize why these countries contest and lobby for alternative norm interpretations in international negotiations. Applying this lens to climate politics, I use triangulated data (incl. expert interviews) to identify domestic factors that explain the Indian government's behavior. By exporting domestic norm interpretations that merged with other norm interpretations from Global North and South countries, the Indian delegation successfully reshaped two international climate norms at the 2007 Bali Conference that target developing countries' mitigation efforts and climate action in forests. This increased the resonance of these two norms with the Indian government's domestic norms, political economy beliefs, international funding desire and collective identity needs. This research provides insights into the complex dynamics of international norm negotiations between proposers and counter-proposers in the context of the rise of the Global South.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100267"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144290565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-13DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100266
Jesse M. Keenan , Idowu Ajibade , Bethany C. Tietjen
Climate change has been widely observed to shape various dimensions of human mobility. Policy responses associated with everything from the short-term management of displaced persons to the long-term resettlement of communities are recognized to represent challenges for policymakers and planners in the Global South and North. This article evaluates the extent to which aspects of human mobility have been formally incorporated into the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) of fifty-seven (n = 57) countries. Although human mobility has been increasingly referenced in formal UNFCCC processes and communications, there is a limited understanding of detailed planning, policymaking, and implementation actions. The findings of this article suggest that conflicts centered on (i) institutional resources, (ii) land use planning, and (iii) property rights are inherent and unrecognized in many policy frameworks within existing NAPs. This article concludes with a perspective on the value of addressing these conflicts in order to advance elements of planetary justice.
{"title":"The state of planning, policy, and justice for human mobility in national adaptation plans","authors":"Jesse M. Keenan , Idowu Ajibade , Bethany C. Tietjen","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100266","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100266","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Climate change has been widely observed to shape various dimensions of human mobility. Policy responses associated with everything from the short-term management of displaced persons to the long-term resettlement of communities are recognized to represent challenges for policymakers and planners in the Global South and North. This article evaluates the extent to which aspects of human mobility have been formally incorporated into the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) of fifty-seven (n = 57) countries. Although human mobility has been increasingly referenced in formal UNFCCC processes and communications, there is a limited understanding of detailed planning, policymaking, and implementation actions. The findings of this article suggest that conflicts centered on (i) institutional resources, (ii) land use planning, and (iii) property rights are inherent and unrecognized in many policy frameworks within existing NAPs. This article concludes with a perspective on the value of addressing these conflicts in order to advance elements of planetary justice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100266"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144272488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-09DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100263
Joyeeta Gupta , Jesse F. Abrams , David Armstrong McKay , Xuemei Bai , Kristi L. Ebi , Paola Fezzigna , Giuliana Gentile , Lauren Gifford , Syezlin Hasan , Lisa Jacobson , Aljoscha Karg , Steven Lade , Tim Lenton , Diana Liverman , Awaz Mohamed , Nebojsa Nakicenovic , David Obura , Johan Rockström , Ben Stewart-Koster , Detlef van Vuuren , Caroline Zimm
The planetary boundary framework proposes ‘safe’ boundaries, but these boundaries are not necessarily ‘just’. Hence, we ask: How has the Earth Commission defined just boundaries building on the concept of minimizing significant harm and how many people are currently exposed to harm above the safe and just threshold? We document the work of the Earth Commission to address these questions using our Earth System Justice framework. We conclude that: (a) from a justice perspective, nine criteria need to be considered when defining just boundaries; (b) the proportions of populations exposed to harm from exceeding safe and just boundaries today range from 11 to 84 % for the five domains studied (climate, biosphere, water, nutrients, aerosols); and (c) argue that the absolute upper limit for significant harm is possibly harm to 1 % of the population, which although not stringent enough to leave no one behind, would require radical transformations, given the populations currently already above the threshold.
{"title":"Thresholds of significant harm at global level: The journey of the Earth Commission","authors":"Joyeeta Gupta , Jesse F. Abrams , David Armstrong McKay , Xuemei Bai , Kristi L. Ebi , Paola Fezzigna , Giuliana Gentile , Lauren Gifford , Syezlin Hasan , Lisa Jacobson , Aljoscha Karg , Steven Lade , Tim Lenton , Diana Liverman , Awaz Mohamed , Nebojsa Nakicenovic , David Obura , Johan Rockström , Ben Stewart-Koster , Detlef van Vuuren , Caroline Zimm","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100263","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100263","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The planetary boundary framework proposes ‘safe’ boundaries, but these boundaries are not necessarily ‘just’. Hence, we ask: How has the Earth Commission defined just boundaries building on the concept of minimizing significant harm and how many people are currently exposed to harm above the safe and just threshold? We document the work of the Earth Commission to address these questions using our Earth System Justice framework. We conclude that: (a) from a justice perspective, nine criteria need to be considered when defining just boundaries; (b) the proportions of populations exposed to harm from exceeding safe and just boundaries today range from 11 to 84 % for the five domains studied (climate, biosphere, water, nutrients, aerosols); and (c) argue that the absolute upper limit for significant harm is possibly harm to 1 % of the population, which although not stringent enough to leave no one behind, would require radical transformations, given the populations currently already above the threshold.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100263"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144241134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号