environment and global cooperation assignment

Global cooperation is possible

January 12, 2024 Solving the world’s toughest challenges requires global cooperation. And though it may feel scarce, global cooperation has actually remained resilient for much of the last 10 years. That’s according to the Global Cooperation Barometer , a new tool developed in partnership by McKinsey and the World Economic Forum (WEF). “It’s clear that on some dimensions the world has become increasingly divided, yet the barometer shows that when you look at the full picture, global cooperation has remained surprisingly robust over the last decade,” said Bob Sternfels , McKinsey’s global managing partner. “We’ve seen progress in collaboration across multiple areas, with special cause for optimism on climate and nature, and breakthroughs in frontier technologies that draw on global contributions to innovation.”

Check out the Global Cooperation Barometer’s accompanying report to better understand the contours of cooperation broadly and along five pillars: trade and capital flows, innovation and technology, climate and natural capital, health and wellness, and peace and security. Then dive into more insights from the McKinsey Global Institute on the global flows that connect our world. Bookmark this page for daily Davos updates, and learn more about McKinsey’s ongoing strategic partnership with WEF.

The complication of concentration in global trade

Global Trade Explorer

Global flows: The ties that bind in an interconnected world

On the cusp of a new era?

How to build geopolitical resilience amid a fragmenting global order

Why we need international cooperation now more than ever

'Most of us believe strongly in the power of working together to face the challenges of today and tomorrow.' Image:  REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Elizabeth Cousens

Ilona szabó de carvalho.

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Internet Governance is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, internet governance.

• The COVID-19 pandemic, along with the threat of climate change, have made global cooperation and its actors, like the United Nations, more important than ever.
• A United Nations survey solicited inputs from people across virtually every sector in at least 193 countries.
• The survey asked people from all walks of life about their priorities and possible solutions to the planet's most intractable challenges.

Even before the tumultuous arrival of COVID-19, many parts of the world were suffering from dangerous polarization and division. Bitter disagreements over what is true or not pose a real threat to stability everywhere. And yet surprisingly, around the world, it turns out that most people - regardless of their origin, gender or age - share common hopes and fears about the future. We are all, it seems, more aligned than we are led to believe. And most of us believe strongly in the power of working together to face the challenges of today and tomorrow. That's just one of the takeaways from a striking new initiative led by the United Nations.

Have you read?

This is how who is ensuring equal international access to a covid-19 vaccine, what covid-19 could mean for international cooperation, according to a nobel peace prize laureate , want to help the world meet the un’s sustainable development goals here’s where to start.

Amid all the global tumult and turmoil, the United Nations just hosted a massive conversation about the state of the world, launched as part of the organization's 75th anniversary. Between January and August 2020, the United Nations solicited inputs from people across virtually every sector in at least 193 countries. The survey asked people from all walks of life about their priorities and possible solutions to the planet's most intractable challenges. One of the single biggest concerns was climate change and the importance of mustering global consensus and cooperation to tackle it.

Notwithstanding the recent surge in nationalism and declining support for multilateralism, most people want more global cooperation, not less. Almost 9 in 10 respondents to the United Nations survey believe that international collaboration is vital to tackle contemporary challenges. Roughly three quarters of them also believe that the United Nations should lead the charge. That said, there is hope for a more diverse form of multilateralism - one that accounts for female, youth and indigenous voices, alongside the private sector and city leaders. And youth voices around the world are particularly optimistic about the promise of international cooperation.

While overall public support for the United Nations remains strong - six in 10 people say that the organization has made the world a better place - the organization has work to do to connect its efforts more directly to the individual experience. Over half of all respondents feel that the United Nations is remote from their lives. Many are not entirely sure what the organization does. While the United Nations Charter begins with the words "we the peoples", a considerable part of the public feels alienated from institutions in general, which makes it easier for populists to cynically disregard them. There is, in all of this, a risk that global mistrust jeopardizes our shared future .

Yet there are signs that popular support for global cooperation and the United Nations has increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The viral outbreak has not only exposed the fragilities and failures of the international system - it has also clarified the essential importance of greater cooperation. With political and economic systems facing deep uncertainties and global supply chains increasingly fragmented, there is an opportunity to re-imagine and reset global partnerships. This is all the more important because COVID-19 is just the warmup to the big challenge: climate change.

Virtually all respondents to the UN survey agreed that tackling the vulnerabilities exacerbated by COVID-19 are the most urgent priority. Tackling inequalities will be especially vital, including improving access to basic services, especially water, sanitation, health and education. They also feel that greater solidarity and shared support should be directed toward those places hardest hit by the pandemic. Over 72% of all respondents believe access to healthcare will be the same or better in the next 25 years.

As for the most urgent future challenges, climate change is the overwhelming priority. It is also what most people feel should be the United Nations’ principal concern moving forward. There is widespread anxiety about the impacts of climate change, and deep worries that environmental conditions are set to worsen in the coming years. These findings are echoed in countless scientific studies, as well as the surge of warming temperatures, forest fires, melting glaciers and breathtaking decline in biodiversity.

Another profound area of consensus is that the United Nations must be more inclusive in how it fosters global cooperation. The latest round of consultations are a positive expression of this, consisting of over 1,000 dialogues across 82 countries. Respondents urged member states to proactively engage women, youth and vulnerable groups in decision-making. Suggestions ranged from the reform of the Security Council to the appointment of a high-level civil society focal point at the United Nations. As ever, the problem is not a lack of ideas , but rather the middling levels of political will to make the United Nations more accessible, inclusive, and transparent, something the UN Secretary-General himself has advocated for when calling for a more inclusive multilateralism .

This week, world leaders will come together virtually to commemorate this anniversary and to hopefully forge consensus about the value of working together and the need for more stepped-up international cooperation. This includes in 12 agreed areas that demand an all-hands-on-deck effort, like committing to tackling inequalities, delivering on climate action, and being better prepared to prevent and respond to crises. The ideas generated by the United Nations global listening tour will be an important foundation for building solutions and partners. The UN Secretary-General sees these views from 'we the peoples' as critical to forging a new global deal and social compact that is fairer and more responsive for all.

While the world enters a turbulent and volatile new phase, global public opinion provides some grounds for optimism about the future. Despite the headlines to the contrary, most people are preoccupied by the same concerns and express shared aspirations. There also continues to be a very real and genuine commitment to the values of the United Nations, and its mission to build a more peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world.

Their leaders need to listen.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Health and Healthcare Systems .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Gender and health equity will only come with universal access to eye health – here's why

Dr. Princess Ifeoma Ike

May 24, 2024

Half the world is affected by oral disease – here’s how we can tackle this unmet healthcare need

Charlotte Edmond

May 23, 2024

This is how stress affects every organ in our bodies

Michelle Meineke and Kateryna Gordichuk

May 22, 2024

The care economy is one of humanity's most valuable assets. Here's how we secure its future

May 21, 2024

Antimicrobial resistance is a leading cause of global deaths. Now is the time to act

Dame Sally Davies, Hemant Ahlawat and Shyam Bishen

May 16, 2024

Inequality is driving antimicrobial resistance. Here's how to curb it

Michael Anderson, Gunnar Ljungqvist and Victoria Saint

May 15, 2024

Climate change top challenge over the next decade, UNESCO global survey finds

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Climate change and loss of biodiversity is seen as the most pressing challenge over the decade, according to the World in 2030 Survey repor t published on Wednesday by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO ). 

More than 15,000 people worldwide contributed to the survey, which was held online between May and September 2020, and made available in 25 languages.  

Last year we asked 15,000 people across the globe on what they think are the main global challenges in the World in 2030. We have the full survey results now!Read the survey report here & see what people think of the #WorldIn2030! ➡️ https://t.co/8S6iCRDNRh #Agenda2030 pic.twitter.com/7mEZkFRSzk UNESCO 🏛️ #Education #Sciences #Culture 🇺🇳😷 UNESCO March 30, 2021

Respondents were mainly young people, with 57 per cent under age 35, and 35 per cent under 25. Results also were analyzed along regional, gender, age and other demographic lines. 

 “Greater efforts are needed to address people’s specific concerns, and multilateralism is the way to do this. Restoring confidence in multilateralism requires the implementation of concrete and impactful projects, and this is at the heart of our Organization's role”, said Audrey Azoulay, the UNESCO Director-General. 

The World in 2030 survey invited people from across the globe to share their specific worries about 11 challenges, and solutions for overcoming them.  

Education is the solution 

Most participants, or 67 per cent, selected climate change and loss of biodiversity as their top concern, mainly due to issues such as increasing natural disasters and extreme weather.   

Respondents felt investment in ‘green’ solutions, education on sustainability, promoting international cooperation and building trust in science, were the best ways to address the issue. 

Violence and conflict, discrimination and equality, and lack of food, water and housing were other big challenges, the survey revealed.   

Participants believed that overall, more education was the crucial solution to every single challenge.  They also felt that it was the area that most needed to be re-thought, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the overall relationship between humankind and nature. 

‘Crisis of faith’ 

The survey further showed that while 95 per cent of respondents extoll the importance of global cooperation in overcoming common challenges, only one in four felt confident that the world would be able to address these issues. 

UNESCO said that “taken together, the results suggest not a lack of appreciation of the importance of multilateralism but rather a crisis of faith in its effectiveness.”

• climate change
• biodiversity

Main page content

• Environment
• Cooperation
• Global Issues
• Conflict Mitigation and Peacebuilding

Editor’s pick: 7 case studies on environmental cooperation

We know environmental changes and dwindling resources can lead to conflicts and inflame grievances among societal groups or even states dependant on nature. But how often do we speak about the role of environment as a catalyst for cooperation? In honour of this year’s World Environment Day, we bring to you 7 case studies in which the need to share a common environment and its resources has led adversaries to – despite hostilities and even ongoing conflict, and with the help of several resolution mechanisms – work in cooperation.

Turkey-Armenia: Water Cooperation Despite Tensions

Armenia and Turkey have been sharing the water of the Arpacay River – which forms the border between them – equitably, despite their lack of bilateral diplomatic relations. Before Armenia became independent in 1991, the former USSR had signed a number of treaties with Turkey over the Arpacay (or Akhourian) River. Although relations between Turkey and Armenia have been at an impasse since the 1990s, both countries have continued to implement the old treaties brokered before the collapse of the USSR and share the Arpacay River equitably to this day. 

DISCOVER THE CASE STUDY

Jordan and Israel: Tensions and Water Cooperation in the Middle-East

The rivers of the Jordan system all have a transboundary nature, a configuration which requires cooperation amongst all co-riparians to achieve sustainable water management. Yet the tensions which have prevailed between Israel and its Arab neighbours since 1948 have limited cooperation until today and at times escalated to war. However, one country, Jordan, distanced itself from the other Arab countries in the region and signed a peace agreement with Israel in which cooperation over water played an important role.

Transnational Conflict and Cooperation in the Lake Chad Basin

Since the beginning of the 2000s, growing claims of an urgent need to protect and restore Lake Chad have led the riparian states and the Lake Chad Basin Commission to engage in a number of joint water management initiatives with the support of a number of international organisations. These include a major project to transfer the waters of the Congo Basin (Oubangui) to Lake Chad in order to replenish the lake – the “Transaqua” project and a sustainable development programme for Lake Chad, which was launched in 2009. The Lake Chad Water Charter adopted in 2012 seeks to define water management and wetland management objectives based on shared concerns.

EU Influence on the Euphrates-Tigris Conflict

From the 1960s to the 1990s, tensions among the co-riparian states of the Euphrates-Tigris Basin hampered cooperation over the rivers. Since 1999, when Turkey was granted the status of candidate country for membership to the EU, the country started transposing and implementing the EU body of legislation, including the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The renewed cooperation which was observed among the three co-riparians in the 2000s reflects the influence of the WFD.

Lower Mekong Basin: Challenges and opportunities for early cooperation

To promote peace, regional cooperation, and development in the Lower Mekong Basin, the United Nations (UN) encouraged the creation of an intergovernmental agency for joint water management. In 1957, the Mekong Committee was created. After an initial period of enthusiasm, momentum began to subside during the 1970s. Nevertheless, the Mekong’s early institutional architecture provided a forum for dialogue that was sustained even in times of regional hostilities. It also laid the groundwork for contemporary Mekong governance in times of rapid development.

Transboundary Water Disagreements between South Africa and Namibia

Following the independence of Namibia in 1990, a number of water-related disagreements have emerged between the Orange River riparians South Africa and Namibia. These revolve around the demarcation of a common border, water allocation and water pricing, and the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP). Existing water scarcity in the lower Orange River Basin is likely to be further aggravated by the impacts of climate change. Despite the conflict potential harboured by existing disagreements, the basin’s high level of institutionalised cooperation and the possibilities for intra- and inter-basin water transfers could help alleviate water stress and resolve bilateral disagreement over shared water resources.

Iraq-Iran: from Water Dispute to War

The Shatt al-Arab River forms the boundaries between Iran and Iraq before flowing into the Persian Gulf. Due to its strategic importance for both Iraq and Iran, for centuries both countries have defended their sovereignty rights over the river. The Shatt al-Arab dispute was an important cause which led to the outbreak of the 1980-1988 war between Iraq and Iran. In recent years – and particularly since the beginning of the war in Syria –, relations between Iraq and Iran have majorly improved. This has been reflected on the Shatt-al Arab issue. In 2014, Iraq and Iran’s Prime Minister met to discuss how to delimit the river in a mutually acceptable way and to put an end to the status quo. Water-protection aspects took also a major space in the talks. Today both countries have restored bilateral diplomatic relations and reached agreements on a mutually satisfying delimitation of the river. They are also jointly working towards the protection of the river. 

130+ case studies on environment, conflict and cooperation

The Factbook is a knowledge platform that provides an overview of environmental conflict and cooperation from around the world. It does so by offering a select number of case studies that reflect instances of conflict, resolution and peacebuilding processes that are related to environmental change.

The Factbook seeks to help policy-makers, experts, researchers and any interested members of the public to better understand and compare the drivers behind environmental conflict and cooperation. The ultimate goal of this project is to contribute to the prevention and sustainable transformation of such conflicts using lessons learned from earlier (non-) interventions.

                Discover the ECC Factbook

Related content.

Multilateral Partnerships on Climate, Peace and Security

The Horn of Africa, West Africa and the Sahel, and Central Africa are among those regions of the world most affected by the confluence of climate change and...

Climate for Peace Initiative: A year after its launch, project partners share impact stories

The Climate for Peace is a multilateral initiative which promotes, coordinates and advances concrete projects on the ground to address the gap between strong...

The Weathering Risk Peace Pillar

The Weathering Risk Peace Pillar translates climate-security foresight and analysis into peacebuilding action where it is needed most. Partners work across the...

Rule of Law Solutions at the Nexus of Climate, Conflict and Food Security | BCSC 2023

During this digital event of the Berlin Climate and Security Conference (BCSC2023), the International Development Law Organization hosted a virtual discussion...

Spotlight session: Climate for peace | BCSC 2023

This session was recorded during the 2023 edition of the Berlin Climate and Security Conference (BCSC). During this spotlight session, member countries of the...

The Implications of Climate Change for Mediation and Peace Processes - DPPA Practice Note

Climate change effects are felt in every corner of the world and can affect conflicts in different ways. They can be a source of conflict, a multiplier of...

Climate Change, Peace and Security: Understanding Climate-Related Security Risks Through an Integrated Lens

Join this self-paced online course that unpacks the interlinkages between climate change, peace and security and explores opportunities for promoting inclusive...

Four climate frontiers: How mediators can make peace and help protect the planet

This article by Sebastian Kratzer from HD’s Mediation Support and Policy Unit is based on a panel discussion at the EU’s 2023 Peace Mediation Community of...

A New Agenda for Peace

On 20 July, Secretary-General António Guterres presented to Member States his Policy Brief on A New Agenda for Peace, which outlines his vision for multilateral...

The Environment

This is an excerpt from International Relations –  an E-IR Foundations beginner’s textbook. Download your free copy here .

Today, our planet carries over seven billion people. Yet its capacity to provide for each one of these individuals is threatened by population growth, climate change, deforestation, collapse of fisheries, desertification, air pollution and scarcity of fresh water. The full extent of our shared global environmental problems goes far beyond the well-publicised challenge of global climate change (or global warming). In fact, one of the elements often forgotten is the complicated relationship between human beings and their environment. In the early years of the conversation around environmental protection, some argued that the planet’s resources were there for our collective consumption. However, there are limits to growth and this raises a range of important issues for international relations. Our population quadrupled between 1900 and 2000. This growth, coupled with abrupt climate change events and further compounded by rapid industrialisation and fast urban expansion, have combined into a perfect storm of negative environmental processes that put pressure on the capacity of Planet Earth to sustain life. As students of IR, we ought to recognise that the environment is one of the areas where much work remains to be done, particularly because cooperative approaches to environmental protection have had a very mixed record despite the grave implications of failure.

The relationship between international relations and environmental problems

It is often hard to assess whether international cooperation efforts have had any real effect on society’s wellbeing, the quality of our environment, or even the construction of long-term relationships between states. One form of evaluation takes place through the study of environmentally focused ‘megaconferences’. These large-scale events bring together representatives of national governments, intergovernmental secretariats, non-governmental organisations, academics and industry actors to engage in conversations about the state of the environment. They usually focus on a particular issue at hand. What makes these megaconferences interesting is that their goal is to engage in productive collaborative efforts to reach agreement and consensus on specific strategies to protect the environment and solve global challenges.

Historically, the two environmental issues that have gained the most attention have been climate change and biodiversity. Both of these issues came up at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 – formally called the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Nevertheless, most scholars will recall the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment as the first large-scale environmentally focused megaconference. The Stockholm Conference was also the starting point for the first global coordination mechanism for environmental protection, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This conference was also the first one where participants explicitly linked human health with environmental and ecosystem health in their discourses.

The second milestone in global environmental governance is the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987. This report outlined the need for a new model for development that brought into play the notion that we cannot simply use (and misuse) the resources we have at our disposal. The new model, coined sustainable development, became an enduring part of the global conversation about environmental protection. The Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as having three main components: economic, environmental and social – an idea that was then put forward for implementation at the Earth Summit.

The third milestone was the 1992 Earth Summit. A major outcome of this meeting was the recognition of two of the most important environmental issues – the loss of biodiversity and rapid climatic change – and the need for intergovernmental secretariats and agreements to respond to these twin challenges. The bulk of the world’s states, 161, signed a declaration on the need for a model of global development that enabled future generations to live within their means but also facilitated current generations’ livelihoods. The fact that so many states reached an agreement on the concept of sustainable development, and the need to operationalise it, became the key contribution of the Earth Summit. Activist involvement became the norm in international conferences on environmental issues starting with the Rio Summit. Non-governmental organisations were considered part of the negotiations from the very beginning and over 2,000 non-governmental representatives attended.

The fourth milestone was the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. The goal was to establish collaborative intergovernmental, cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral partnerships. In theory, this would strengthen the way in which environmental activists interact and partner with national governments. Different types of partnerships were elucidated and non-state actors were considered from the design stage up to implementation. However, following the summit there was a widespread perception that there had been very little progress on the implementation side, leading to a feeling of megaconference fatigue. To remedy this, the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (also known as Rio+20) created mechanisms for follow-up of commitments to sustainable development. It also highlighted the relevance of specific targets for development and the need for transition towards broader-reaching sustainable development goals. Moreover, the outcome document of this conference defines specific regional initiatives towards the implementation of sustainable development.

The 2015 Paris Agreement represented consensus among a number of countries that something needed to be done to maintain the level of global warming below two degrees centigrade. The fact that an agreement was reached was groundbreaking for the global climate negotiations community. Prior negotiations were marked by disagreements and lack of consensus on a strategy to compel nations to reach internationally agreed targets in their carbon emissions. This is important as carbon dioxide, released primarily by burning fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal for energy, is the main cause of global warming. Nevertheless, Paris showed that many countries were able to agree on specific goals, targets and policies needed to combat rapid and impactful global environmental change. The process it established is yet to be fully realised, but in the years to come the expectation is that states will comply.

Climate change isn’t the only ecological issue facing our planet. But its role in catalysing global action to protect the environment cannot be overstated. One of the most neglected issues is water. While the earth is two-thirds covered by water, the proportion that is fresh (drinkable and useable for agriculture) is sometimes highly contested by neighbouring states and in short supply for growing populations. When added to the effects of climate change, access to water is an issue of real concern. While many other challenges remain in the areas of climate and environment, it is likely that a framework for global water governance will be a major issue on the agenda in the near future.

Common pool resource theory

With a brief history of megaconferences now complete, we can move on to discussing the substance of the debates on climate and the environment. The notion of public goods comes from the original definition of a good that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Think of it as something that anyone can access at any point in time without making it any less available for anyone else to consume. The best example of a public good is knowledge; in this case we can use the example of information that we find on the internet. All knowledge, once freed and put online for public consumption, is non-excludable and non-rivalrous in consumption. You cannot exclude anyone from consuming knowledge and learning, unless they do not have access to the means for knowledge transmission, which may be the case in some countries where specific websites are banned. You also experience non-rivalry in consumption. Air is another example of a public good. Under normal circumstances nobody can stop you from breathing air into your lungs, and the fact that you breathe air does not stop someone else from having the opportunity to enjoy it. This is the definition of a perfect public good: one that is always non-rivalrous in consumption and non-excludable in access.

Common pool resource theory derives from Garrett Hardin (1968), who said that if left to our own devices we would exhaust all the resources available for our consumption. Imagine if you were a shrimp fisher. You need to fish and sell your catch to sustain your family. Let’s say that there are 10,000 shrimp in the small catchment that you fish in. But there are 99 other fishers in the sea at the same time as you. If everyone cooperated and consumed only 1/100 th of the total available shrimp, each would have 100 shrimp to sell. If at any point any fisher catches more than 1/100 th , there will be other fishers negatively affected. Hardin used a similar metaphor to make the point that if resource consumers behave selfishly, they would exhaust the resources they were supposed to preserve. Hardin called this the tragedy of the commons. Closed bodies of water, plots of land and large-scale areas of forests are all common pool resources. They are rivalrous in consumption, but non-excludable.

One can summarise the theory of common pool resources by placing goods in four specific categories: private goods, common goods, club goods and public goods. This categorisation framework has two dimensions. The first dimension is excludability. If you can prevent someone from accessing a good, that good is excludable. The second dimension is rivalry in consumption. Goods that are depleted are rivalrous in consumption. If I consume an apple, you cannot consume that same apple because I have already eaten it. Private goods, such as food, clothing and other material objects, can be purchased and acquired because they are tradable. As a result, these goods are both rivalrous in consumption (if I buy a car, nobody else can buy that exact same car) and excludable (you cannot buy a car unless you have the money to purchase it).

Goods that are non-rivalrous in consumption and non-excludable are called public goods. These are the things that everybody can enjoy. Consuming them does not reduce the possibility of someone else having the same opportunity of consumption. Air is a public good. Everybody can breathe air without worrying that at some point they will not be able to breathe simply because somebody else is also breathing. Finally, common goods, which are also called common pool resources, are those goods that are non-excludable but rivalrous in consumption. Fish in a fishery, trees in a forest, water in an aquifer or a lake. All these natural resources are common goods and, therefore, common pool resources.  What makes common pool resources so interesting is that the theory, developed by Elinor Ostrom (1990), argues that despite the fact that humans are supposed to be selfish, faced with conditions of scarcity we are able to self-organise and govern our common pool resources (our ‘commons’) in a sustainable manner. One of the reasons why Ostrom’s work had such an impact was because her theory of cooperative approaches to resources governance contradicted Hardin’s tragedy of the commons model. Instead of being so selfish that they would want to fish all the shrimp (for example), Ostrom found that fishers would build a shared agreement to reduce their own consumption for the wellbeing of the collective. Obviously, this is an example on a relatively small scale. What remains to be seen is whether we can achieve global cooperation to protect our global commons. One way to think about this is through the lenses of global public goods, as discussed below.

The global environment as a global commons

Perhaps you would agree that a shared environment would be a resource community and individuals would work collaboratively to protect. But there is another view, which is that responsibility for care of the environment rests with governments. One way of thinking about this is to use the concept of the global environment as a global commons. After all, global environmental problems are by their very nature global. However, international cooperation is hard to achieve. As the example of the US shows, there are powerful countries that will avoid cooperation for various reasons. For many years the US refused to sign the international agreement on climate change, the Kyoto Protocol (the forerunner to the 2015 Paris agreement), thus blocking many international efforts to reduce global carbon emissions. There are several other examples that can be cited, but suffice it to say that a powerful country’s refusal to collaborate to solve a global issue is concerning. It is hard to make countries commit to specific conservation goals (in forest policy) or emission-reduction targets (in climate policy) or standards for pollution in rivers (in water policy) because each nation has its own national development objectives that may conflict with other countries’ goals, thus making it hard to find common ground for collaboration.

Given that cross-national collaboration is so difficult, we create international environmental agreements that build a framework to help these countries talk to each other and agree on specific targets for environmental protection. Some of the most popular international environmental agreements are specific to the area of climate change (like the Kyoto Protocol), but other, less well-known examples – such as the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters – are equally relevant. One of the biggest problems for human beings acting at the individual level on environmental issues is the lack of information. Countries that are signatories to the Aarhus Convention make an agreement to share data that will enable citizens of a country to understand the potential risks that they face with regard to chemicals’ processing and emissions. This information also helps environmental activists bring industries to account and ensure that they reduce their polluting emissions.

Global rights and domestic environmental politics and policy

The right to a healthy environment and the global commons are ideas that suggest that it is our shared duty to take care of our collective environment because everyone has a right to enjoy their environment and use some of its resources for their survival. It is possible to link human rights with global environmental regulation through the implementation of the international norm of a right to a healthy environment. This is a new avenue of research for scholars of international relations, and it is founded on the basis of a popular idea, or norm, that every individual on the planet has a right to a healthy environment. Despite states having different abilities and varying degrees of technical expertise to implement the norm, the number of countries with constitutional environmental rights has expanded radically (Gellers 2015). Eighty states now have such legislation in their constitutions, but we are still quite a long way away from having this norm as a fundamental human right.

There are also, of course, many other concerns that divert government focus from environmental issues. Increasing regulation on certain heavy-polluting industries, such as steel and coal, can have a negative effect on jobs. Setting ‘green’ taxes, either directly or through such things as energy tariffs, can also cause a burden on taxpayers and businesses. Thus, there has sometimes been a tendency to see environmental legislation as damaging to economic growth and prosperity. By extension it can also be unpopular in domestic settings, making legislation difficult to pass – or even propose in some cases. It is consequently encouraging to see so much domestic legislation gaining traction. The number of countries where the human right to a healthy environment is enacted constitutionally may help build collaborative transnational networks to protect the global commons. The starting point would be a shared understanding of the need to reduce human impact on national and global ecosystems. Sharing a paradigm that pushes the human right to a healthy environment may also induce national governments to actively seek participation in international environmental agreements. Nevertheless, it is important to find a way to coordinate these agreements, and this challenge raises the question of whether we need a global environmental organisation to make sure states comply.

The best situation for Planet Earth’s citizens are solutions that are made not just in each state, but internationally. And, most importantly, complied with. IR is often concerned with the phenomenon of states cheating on, or withdrawing from, agreements. Perhaps nowhere is compliance more important for our long-term prosperity and security than in the areas of climate and environment.

Do we need a global environmental organisation?

Who is in charge of protecting our global environment? To answer this question, you may recall from previous sections that there is now a consensus regarding one specific tool that may help achieve the lofty goal of providing global public goods: international environmental agreements. These agreements, often produced at megaconferences, help protect our global commons by requiring nations to acknowledge and respect the human right to a healthy environment. However, the next big question is an equally important one – who is in charge of implementing these international environmental accords? Some have argued that in order to force countries to cooperate in the protection of our shared environment, we need a global intergovernmental secretariat. This would take the form of a far-reaching international institution whose sole purpose would be coordinating efforts to improve environmental quality.

For many years there was a collective belief that the United Nations Environment Programme had been tasked with the challenge of protecting our global network of ecosystems and shared resources. This may have been true in the early stages of its creation following the 1972 Stockholm Conference, but protecting our global environment has proved to be an impossible task for a small agency with a limited budget and no power to compel states to act in a particular way. The reality is that even though there is increasing interest in strengthening international cooperation across countries to protect the global environment, it is the number of institutions, agencies and programmes dealing with environmental issues at other levels that grows in size and complexity. Regrettably, the frequent mention of abrupt climate change events, increasing deforestation and growing levels of pollution in oceans, rivers and lakes makes it clear that we have yet to solve these complex global environmental problems. And while there is still no agreement as to whether the United Nations Environment Programme is the agency that should be tasked with protecting the global environment or whether we should create a new global environmental organisation (see Biermann 2000), we must ensure that we focus on collective solutions at the international level rather than state, regional or local level – we all share the earth.

To strike an optimistic note, we can find at least one instance of global environmental cooperation, the Paris Agreement of 2015. This was led by the chair of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, Christiana Figueres, and is an example of what can be achieved in global cooperation for environmental protection by just one intergovernmental secretariat. The fact that the majority of the world’s states were able to reach agreement on the specific tactics and strategies that every state needs to undertake in order to reach the stated goal of holding increases in the earth’s temperature below two degrees centigrade is to be lauded. Even more important is that the agreement has secured the support of the world’s two biggest state polluters, the US and China. The Secretariat is probably not the global environmental organisation we need right now, but it played a pivotal role at a crucial time.

The debate around whether or not we should have a global environmental organisation may never be settled. However, if we were to establish such a thing it would need full and complete cooperation from all states to stand any chance of success. The example of Paris, which built on the example of earlier megaconferences and movements, suggests that international collaboration to protect our environment is on the rise. This offers hope for the future despite rising tensions in some nations over the nature of climate agreements.

It is clear that we still have a lot of work to do with regard to our shared understanding of what constitutes strong, robust, effective and efficient global environmental governance. We need to better integrate regional and transnational initiatives with domestic policy strategies to tackle environmental problems. This means creating the conditions for a model of governing the environment that is flexible and cuts across different levels, from the local to the global. It is also clear that frameworks based on ideas of global public goods and global commons are very useful. However, at the same time they are daunting, since collective action on any scale is clearly an enormous challenge. Trying to find mechanisms, models and strategies to ensure cooperation across different levels of government, across a broad variety of issue areas and across a range of political and policy actors is a problematic and difficult process, as experience has shown. Today, the world’s states have been able to find common ground in relation to certain goals for environmental protection, including the flagpole issues of global warming and climate change. The hope is that this trend continues so we can continue to live healthily and happily on Planet Earth.

*Please consult the PDF linked above for any citation or reference details.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• The Barents Sea: Environment Cooperation in the Anthropocene Era
• Opinion – Why COVID-19 Will Not Be ‘Good’ for the Environment
• Opinion – What the US Exit from the Paris Accords Means for Women
• The Drivers of Hydrogen’s Waves of Hype: Between Security and the Environment
• Reimagining Environment in International Relations
• Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament

Raul Pacheco-Vega is an Associate Professor at the Methods Lab of the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) Sede Mexico.

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

• How We're Funded
• Staff Directory
• Board of Directors

Global Cooperation for Development: Current Failures and the Case for Collaboration

Recommended.

POLICY PAPERS

The increasingly global nature of development challenges—including climate change, security, and pandemic response—is laying bare the reality that global solutions are needed, and that the traditional model of development as resources flowing from “North” to “South” is not only insufficient for meeting the challenges ahead, but also fails to reflect the reality of the changing development landscape. Instead, there is a need for a new model of cooperation, where all countries act as partners in achieving global outcomes.

In September, the Korean International Cooperation Agency and Ministry of Foreign Affairs convened the 15 th Seoul ODA International Conference , which brought together academics, policymakers, and civil society organisations to discuss ways to “Expand Horizons for Global Development Partnership”—this year’s conference theme. The conversation reflected on the need for greater collaboration for development—particularly with “dual” cooperation actors that both receive and provide development cooperation—to address global challenges and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. In this blog, we summarize key themes and takeaways from this year’s conference, particularly on questions around the challenges and opportunities for deepening cooperation for development. These themes are also explored in a new CGD paper on the need for a global development paradigm.

Why do we need partnerships for development?

This year’s conference occurred against a backdrop of a “ perfect long storm ” of intersecting crises that have put the achievement of the SDGs at risk . The dual health and economic impact of COVID-19 has not only led to an increase in extreme poverty and widening inequality , but also caused severe disruptions to global health and education. Ongoing pressures from the existential climate crisis is increasing the frequency and severity of climate-related events, which will have a disproportionate impact on poor and vulnerable communities . The 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia has created a refugee crisis and is contributing to global food and energy insecurity, accelerating humanitarian needs .

In response to this confluence of global development challenges, which greatly exceed the capacities or resources of any country working alone, global cooperation for development—if not more ambitious collaboration —is urgently needed to meet growing needs and get the SDGs back on track. Notably, the imperative for global cooperation for development is itself formalized as part of the SDG agenda, with SDG 17 highlighting the importance of cooperation and partnership to making progress towards our shared development vision. Partnership has also emerged as an important theme for development agencies, with a recent survey of development leaders showing that being equipped to actively engage in partnerships for development was a key priority for leaders seeking to ensure that their agencies remained fit for purpose in the years ahead. Yet despite the urgency and acknowledgement of the need for cooperation, there are some doubts about whether, and to what degree, such cooperation is materializing.

The cooperation “paradox”: Mixed global responses to COVID-19

Questions about the realities of cooperation were addressed by some speakers, who noted that the growing need for cooperation had been met with a paradoxical weakening of the willingness of countries to act collectively as a result of tense geopolitical contexts and concern over the functioning and “thinning” of multilateralism. These findings are echoed in a new paper , which analyzes the scope of global cooperation that materialized in response to COVID-19 and finds that even during the acute and shared experience of the COVID pandemic, evidence of global cooperation was mixed at best. On one hand, the analysis showed that international responses to COVID-19 were global in nature, with a range of countries from across income levels contributing financial and knowledge-based resources to development response to the pandemic. On the other hand, collaboration between different types of actors, namely members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and Southern development cooperation providers has been thin, especially beyond examples of “South” to “North” cooperation that occurred during the early pandemic phases. Taken together, the discrepancy between the need for cooperation and the relatively siloed (and often bilateral) actions that were taken raises important questions about the challenges facing deeper cooperation for development, and how these challenges can be overcome.  

What are the barriers to deeper collaboration for development and how can they be overcome?

Questions concerning the barriers to deeper cooperation between DAC and Southern development cooperation providers were explored in depth during this year’s Seoul ODA Conference, with representatives from Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and Turkey providing useful insight from their experience working with other partners. In particular, speakers pointed to a range of barriers to cooperation including the potential incongruence between national interests and those of partnership; challenges related to trust and reliability of partners, differences in the legal and regulatory frameworks of partners; and crucially, limited resources or capacity to invest in building partnerships. Early findings from forthcoming research suggest that similar barriers to cooperation were identified by leaders from DAC development agencies.

The practical and political challenges to deeper cooperation noted by speakers raised questions about the changes needed to overcome barriers and create more opportunities for meaningful partnership. The discussion revealed some potential solutions—including reframing development narratives to focus on shared challenges (i.e., highlighting the links between global and national interests); working to identify deeper synergies between the projects and interests of DAC and Southern development cooperation providers; and critically, creating more spaces for meaningful dialogue on issues of shared interest. While there is little clarity on what such spaces should look like—they could take the form of more inclusive multilateral dialogues, regional or subregional forums, or smaller “mini-lateral” networks or groups of like-minded partners—there was general agreement that creating opportunities for dialogue on global development cooperation that includes a wide array of partners was a first and necessary step towards deeper collaboration.

A more collaborative future?

The good news is that conversations during the Seoul ODA Conference highlighted that there was an appetite for deeper cooperation for global development amongst those in the room. The question, however, is how to make it happen in practice. Conversations like those held during the conference, which bring together DAC and Southern development cooperation providers, are undoubtedly an important step to facilitating the types of conversations that need to happen to identify potential synergies and opportunities for collaboration. But meaningful collaboration for development is also about what happens when those conversations end, and how the networks and partnerships developed are translated into cooperative action.

In the months ahead, CGD and KOICA will continue to explore and research the challenges and opportunities for deepening partnership and collaboration for global development. While there remains significant work to be done to understand the array of challenges impeding cooperation and to think through actionable strategies for fostering collaboration, there is a need to dig deeper into these issues to ensure that the path to 2030 is built together.

CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.

View the discussion thread.

More Reading

WORKING PAPERS

Ideas to action: independent research for global prosperity

© 2024 Center for Global Development | Privacy Notice and Cookie Policy

EU continues its engagement in global water cooperation at the 10th World Water Forum

From 18-25 May, EU representatives will be attending the 10th edition of the World Water Forum in Bali, Indonesia which has the theme “Water for Shared Prosperity”.

It is a priority for the EU to accelerate global action to address the water crisis, driven by overdemand, mismanagement and the impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Water resilience is also key to prevent and address the current and future health, food and energy crises. At EU Green Week , the European Commission will launch an awareness-raising campaign on the need to transform the way water is managed, used and valued. This #WaterWiseEU campaign will encourage people to “See Water Differently” and explore solutions to the various water challenges we are facing today. 

At the World Water Forum, the EU will announce joining the Freshwater Challenge , launched at last year’s UN Water Conference. It aims to accelerate the restoration of 300,000 km of degraded rivers and 350 million hectares of degraded wetlands by 2030. By joining this challenge, the EU is showing its commitment to nature-based solutions for ensuring a sustainable water supply. 

The EU will also support water cooperation at global level, by launching a new initiative with the International Network of Basin Organisations supporting peer-learning between Lake and River Basin Organisations. Based on EU experience, this action will strengthen institutional frameworks, human capacities, means for planning and implementation among basin organisations all over the globe. 

EU research and innovation will also be showcased at the Forum, through the co-funded EU partnership Water4All in a dedicated pavilion , and through the Horizon Europe Restore our Ocean & Waters Mission . The EU pavilion will host a one-day event to present EU Research and Innovation on water, the partnerships, the Mission and promoting their various actions. Different international actions with external partners like UNESCO, the International Network of Basin Organisations (INBO) or UNEP will also be presented.  

The EU's participation in the Forum emphasizes its commitment to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, notably SDG 6 - ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030. The EU aims to keep water high on the global political agenda and to maintain the momentum from the UN 2023 Water Conference, where world leaders committed to accelerate actions for clean water and sanitation for all by 2030. The EU will join high-level discussions on the Water Action Agenda (WAA), Hydro-diplomacy and Peace, Water Governance, One Health approach and Water Information Systems. It will advocate for full implementation of the commitments made to the WAA and for enhancing water cooperation as a tool for security, stability, prosperity and peace. The EU will also showcase its support for the development of water information systems as fundamental tools for providing more comprehensive and valuable information for water resource management and decision-making.  

EU Ambassador to Indonesia Denis Chaibi said: 

The EU commends Indonesia for hosting the 10 th World Water Forum, an important international event to discuss global water issues. The EU sees water cooperation as a vector for peace, security and regional stability. Integrated Water Resources Management enables us to strengthen cross-sectoral cooperation with our partners. The EU has a wealth of experience and tools at its disposal, which it wishes to put to good use with the International Network of Basin Organizations, to a network of technical and institutional exchanges between basin organizations. This initiative is part of a broader approach to implementing the Global Gateway. 

On the Forum   

The World Water Forum is held every three years, and brings the international water sector together, including Heads of State, multilateral institutions, academia, civil society and the private sector. At the Forum, as part of the thematic process, the European Commission will coordinate the topic “Sound water supply and demand” under the sub-theme “Water Security and Prosperity”. A Ministerial Declaration will be adopted on 20 May. 

On the global water crisis  

It is estimated that almost half of the world’s population will suffer acute water stress by 2030. Worldwide, 2.2 billion people still lack access to safe drinking water and more than half of the global population does not have access to safe sanitation. This threatens the health of millions of individuals, especially the most vulnerable groups. Increasing water stress impacts food and energy security and ecosystem health and hampers socio-economic and human development. Increased competition for dwindling freshwater resources threatens stability among and within nations through conflicts, displacement or migration. 

On EU-funded Research and Innovation on water   

Water4All is a joint initiative from the European Commission, the EU Member States and non-EU partnering countries which aims to bring partners together to work towards the sustainable use of water resources in Europe and beyond.Water4All is a co-funded partnership under Cluster 6 of Horizon Europe, the EU research and innovation programme. The partnership’s overall budget is estimated to €400-450 million including an estimated European Union contribution of €126 million over the 10 years duration. It addresses the wider global water emergency crisis, related to water scarcity, water pollution, especially emerging contaminants, like micro-pollutants and micro-plastics, extreme hydro-meteorological events, ecosystems and biodiversity decline. Its vision is to boost the systemic transformation and changes across the entire research – water innovation pipeline, fostering the matchmaking between problem owners and solution providers to ensure water security for all in the long term. 

Five EU Missions have been launched under Horizon Europe programme. They aim to deliver concrete solutions to big societal challenges by putting research and innovation into a new role, combined with new forms of governance and collaboration, as well as by engaging citizens.  

The Horizon Europe Mission “Restore our Ocean and Waters“ is restoring the health of one of our most precious shared resources: our ocean and waters. This means protecting and restoring marine and freshwater biodiversity and ecosystems, eliminating pollution, and making the blue economy carbon-neutral and circular. The Mission will look at the whole water system from rivers to the seas and ocean. To support the Mission objectives and its related lighthouses, two cross-cutting enablers will be enhanced: the digital ocean and water knowledge system and broad public mobilisation and engagement. 

For More Information  

Register for EU Green Week 2024 on water resilience   

European Commission’s #WaterWiseEU campaign  

Joint Statement by High Representative Borrell and Commissioner Sinkevičius on World Water Day  

EU efforts on the global water agenda  

EU Environment newsletter

EU Environment newsletters deliver the latest updates about the European Commission’s environmental priorities straight to your inbox.

Share this page

Competition and Cooperation: Global Task Assignment in Spatial Crowdsourcing

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.