Ethics of Global Public Goods in Food and Agriculture

FAO

DRAFT, PLEASE DON’T QUOTE!

Michiel Korthals

December 2004

Prof. Dr. M. Korthals, Professor Applied Philosophy, Social Sciences, Wageningen University,Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, NetherlandsMichiel.Korthals@wur.nlTel: +31317484178Fax: +31317485453Private: Bernhardlaan 14 1405 CN BussumNetherlandsTel: 035 6930100

1

Contents

1. Introduction and background 1Commons in danger: history and future Dilemmas Aim and dimensions of this studyDefinition: What are global public goods?Differentiation between global commons, public goods and

private goodsProtecting the commons: a three phased process: defining,

managing and evaluating GPGs

2. Ethical perspectives on GPGs13Types of justice; justice within and between generations

14Nature and animal ethics3.3 International ethics 15Conclusion: consensus on substantive ethical guidelines

17

3. First Phase: Definition and quality of a GPG, ethical issuesSocio-political and cultural dimensions of global agricultural

goods 7Identification of common goods 9How to define global public goods 5

4. Second Phase: Management of a GPG: Private, public and mixed forms of regulation Markets and privatization: full ownershipto individuals or groups Governmental management (global, international, and national) On trustees, loan, renting and, other conditions 22

Cooperation or co-management (and other types of stakeholder management) When to apply what regime? Advantages anddisadvantages 23

5. Third Phase: Accountability of management organisation of a GPG

6. Discussion of management regimes of natural resources of commonconcern: boundary and transboundary work18

2

6.1 Derawan Island Chain (Indonesia) 186.2 Peace parks 186.3 Discussion of several reports186.4 Evaluation 19

7. Evaluation and ethical recommendations for GPG 24

Literature 29

3

1. Introduction and background

Scope and aim of the reportIn this report we will concentrate on global commons and globalpublic goods: natural goods (physical resources), which arereducible, but not always excludible (communities can restrainaccess to them). We will only sketchy take into account therelations with clearly not reducible, non-rival goods, likeinformation systems and regulatory systems and only consider in situconservation and leave out ex situ conservation. We will concentrateon human populated land based commons, and on others only if theyinteract with these areas. The study focuses on ethical issues ofglobal commons that more and more are threatened by globalization ofagriculture and domestication of nature.

Introduction of the problemRivers, rural areas, atmosphere, air, animals and seeds, as nature’sgoods, do not recognize borders; moreover, they are often located inareas where borders are impossible to be upheld. That is the reasonthey are often called common goods, i.e. common to all. Many ofthose goods, however, are not equally accessible; if they are, someof them allow for whatever reason a greater share to some than toothers. Moreover, many of these common goods are threatened bydistortion, pollution or depletion. In fact, although in theseventeenth and eighteenth century many of the ethicists andpolitical philosophers like Grotius, Locke, Kant, to name a few,thinking about the commons still could talk about areas not touchedupon by humans, like deep see beds, the North- and South poles, andother types of empty land (as Locke calls it, sect. 45; res nullius,as called by Grotius), nowadays there is nearly an area anymorewhere humans do not tread.

Typical global commons with respect to land are the Sahel,Tropical Rainforests, Antarctica, with respect to water, freshwater,regional seas and oceans, with respect to biodiversity, habitat andgenetic resources and with respect to atmosphere, Ozone, greenhousegasses (ghg’s). Biodiversity has a special function for agricultureand other uses of crops as bank for genetic resources for improvingexisting agricultural crops. Some of the mentioned global commonsare already regulated, like deep seabed by the International SeabedAuthority (ISA), a result of an 8-year long period of negations, theThird United Nations conference on the Law of the Sea (UNlcos III),which ended with the convention governing the world’s oceans, whichconvention is signed by 149 countries (Friedheim, 1993). Geneticresources: the loss of the genetic commons is for many a concern.They are all reducible, exhaustible and destroyable.

4

Commons and global public goods are in decline because ofvarious pressures, partly driven by demographic growth, naturalevents and civil strife, but ‘largely due to rapid conjecturalchanges related to economic and cultural globalization, or skewedpolicies and incentives’ (Speech of Director General NicholasStanley-Price, for FAO/ICCROM, 2000). Although all have interest inclean water and air, nature and landscape quality (biodiversity),carbon sequestration, to name a few, it doesn’t mean that these aresufficiently protected and managed; on the contrary. Moreover,future trends like the live stock revolution will cause a rise inthe use of cereal-based feeds, and therefore increase the pressureon nature and land. Last but not least, globalization can causeincreasing standardization and homogenization of agro-ecologicalsystems and so undermine their biodiversity and adaptive ness.

History and future of global commonsThe history of the commons started approximately one million yearago when homo erectus started to spread from Africa, where itsancestor stayed for more than 5 millions year, to the othercontinents that until that time were the natural habitat of animalsand plants. Mostly, they only ate easily reachable fruits and nuts,and small not dangerous animals. So, it started with res nullius(territory not as yet placed under territorial sovereignty) and rescommunis (territory not capable of being placed under statesovereignty, like atmosphere).

This all changed between approximately 100.000 and 50.000 yearsago, when, based on genetical changes, more elaborate instrumentswere used and language and communication skills were greatlyimproved. Because of the low sea level, Asia, America and Australiacould be easily reached, and humans took those areas as well. Theresulting diffusion of agriculture all over the world, implied thatmany crop genes and genotypes were spread, causing interdependenceamong peoples for plant genetic resources. In this way not onlyhabitats but genetic resources as well could be seen as globalstocks in the common interest. So the problem of the commons startedto confront humankind, in particular with the start of sedentaryagriculture more than 10.000 years ago.

From that date on, trends like globalisation of trade relations,domestication of nature, increasing dominance of markets andprivatization of common resources developed, with the concomitantfree rider problems and tragedy of the commons: by using a commongood without restriction one is depriving others of their right touse this good in the same way.

Nevertheless, also new forms of commons were produced, like atrade system. Trust in each other and in the regulation is a veryimportant thing, and it is often very difficult and takes a long

5

time to anticipate deceitful actions of participants of a regulationand take adequate measures. That is one of the reasons that so oftendraconic governmental policies are called for, because all have acertain interest (till a point) in stable regulations that do notgive premiums to untruthful behaviour. Since the eighteenth centuryselfish detachment from common concerns emerges, encouraged byworshippers of the market and state-hipped socialists.

Dangers to global goodsAs already indicated, complex developments, like globalization, butalso others, can cause increasing dangers for global commons, whilethey also give rise to new commons (like ICT) and new concerns. Anexhaustive list of dangers is impossible to give, but the moststriking seem to be:

o closing of commons (privatization);o increasing unequal use of commons;o loss of quality, deterioration and depletion of resources, even

demise (estimation of WWF 2000 are that in the past 30 yearsthe world has lost a third of its natural wealth);

o technology makes it easier to invade previously unreachable orunfathomable commons, to derive values from them and or todestroy them; technological development can give onestakeholder a prior access;

o one of the main problems is unrestricted access that causes arapid and one-sided exploitation of resources, and finallydepletion of the resource;

o Standardization and homogenization (lack of quality criteriaand management regime to upheld these criteria);

o corrupt of inapt management regimes that encourageinfringements.

The dangers belong either to the category of unrestricted or unfairaccess, unsuitable management regime, negligence or poverty. In thefuture several scenarios are possible (see also Millennium EcosystemAssessment); a worst case scenario is the steady decline of allcommons by privatization accompanied by environmental degradation.

Dilemmas of global commonsTragedy of the commons: from free access commons to deteriorationThe dilemma that is addressed by the phrase ‘tragedy of the commons’(Hardin 1968), starts with a free access common, where everyone isstimulated to increase their profit, because the costs aren’tindividually ascribed but will be bear by the commons. This tragedybelongs to the prisoner dilemma, in which rational actors, at leastaccording to neo-classical theorems, choose individually andcollectively sub-optimal action. Hardin’s original example is the

6

way in the seventeenth century farmers increased their flocks andlet them graze on the freely accessible commons of pasture, whichdeteriorated the commons very quickly. Hardin pleads for a verystrong government that can regulate access to common pool resourcesand even prohibit access.

Free rider dilemmas emerge when there is insufficient complianceof regulation and for some participants it is beneficial to takemore than their share.

Other, ethical dilemmas concern value conflicts like that betweenconservation of a common or global resource versus innovatorymanagement of that common. Conservation of an area can very oftenresult in rapid deterioration because the external conditions arenot always governable or because of internal pressures. However,innovatory dynamics can destroy a common as well.

An ethical dilemma can also be the choice between optimal foodproductivity for external markets versus the cultural acceptableproduction of food.

One ethical dilemma that always pops up in connection with commonconcerns is that between development (of agriculture, nations etc)versus conservation of nature. Often this dilemma is very radicalformulated in terms of feeding people versus saving nature (Rolstonversus Attfield, in Light 2003). However, although it is reasonablenot to start with the assumption that the two values are indeed apriori in harmony, nevertheless, it is ethically seen better toassume that the two should be reconciled, in encouraging people bothto save nature and their life. In a slightly different way thedilemma is formulated in terms of agriculture versus wild nature.

A whole host of ethical dilemmas is connected with the issue ofintragenerational versus intergenerational justice: Do poor membersof the present generation have more rights to use common resourcesthan future generations? Or should the converse be the case? Can oneask of poor present people to restrain because of futuregenerations?

Ethical dilemmas on global versus local interests galore: should adecision be made in places as far to the bottom or more by the top,because of its global implications? Should local policies complyunder all circumstances to more global policies?

Several dilemmas compromise ethics of knowledge issues, like theassessment of knowledge claims of scientific expertise versus thoselocal people; of experts versus lay persons, of certain scientificdisciplines versus other scientific disciplines; of givinginformation versus giving advice and acquiring information formonitoring. In the Rio Declaration, 1992, Principle 22 it is stated:‘Indigenous people and their communities and other local communitieshave a vital role in environmental management and developmentbecause of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should

7

recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests andenable their effective participation in the achievement ofsustainable development.’ A dilemma emerges when claims oftraditional knowledge clash with claims of scientific knowledge.

Cognitive and normative conflicts around commonsEthical dilemmas and conflicts and conflicts about knowledge claimsabound with respect to commons. This means that the production andprovision and consumption of global goods have to bridge all kindsof at first sight incommensurable frameworks that prohibit apeaceful solution. Breaking social, cognitive and ethical dilemmasinto collectively beneficial interdependence situations is thereforea requirement in managing the commons. Value and culture pluralism(diversity) are an ethically respectable and enjoyable feature ofhumankind; as are particular solidarities concentrated in groups andnations. However, they should not imply that peaceful cooperation ismade impossible, or, the converse that pluralism is wiped out orrepressed. One should look for opportunities of bridging economical,political (power), cultural and ethical divides and tackle thedangers that threaten GPG.

Definitions: What type of goods are global public goods? In several UN documents one can find allusions to global publicgoods, like Preamble of the Madrid Protocol on environmental Protection to theAntarctic Treaty (1991), where it is stated that ‘The development of acomprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environmentand dependent and associated ecosystems is in the interest ofmankind as a whole’. In the preamble of Convention on Biologicaldiversity (1992) is referred to a ‘common concern of humankind’:‘Conscious of the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of theecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational,cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biodiversity and itscomponents; Affirming that the conservation of biological diversityis a common concern of humankind…’ and this term is repeated in theFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC; Kyoto-protocol, willforeseeable enters into force 2004/5): ‘Acknowledging that change inthe Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern ofhumankind…’ and the IUCN/ICAL International Covenant on Environmentand Development (1995), article 3: ‘The global environment is acommon concern of humanity’.

A different concept is the concept of Common Heritage ofMankind, which got an early expression in the preamble of the UnescoConvention on World Heritage, and later in the Outer space Treaty(1967; Article 11: ‘The moon and its natural resources are thecommon heritage of mankind…’); later formulations in the UN 1982 Lawof the Sea Convention, Article 136: ‘The Area and its recourse are

8

the common heritage of mankind…’. According to Hunter et al. 1998,the CHM has four characteristics: non-appropriation, internationalmanagement, shared benefits, and reservation for peaceful purposes(p. 338).

Differentiation between global commons, public goods and private goods In the literature there is widespread consensus on some definitionsof types of goods, but not everyone agrees with respect of theethical implications. The definitions cover on the one extremeprivate goods, and on the other public goods, with several mix formsin between. According to Sen in his 2000 book Development as Freedom,public goods are goods that people consume together, rather thanseparately, like defence, policing, environmental preservation,public health care, epidemiology, basic education, food provision(p. 128). However, he emphasizes that these goods are always limitedby economic resources, like the economical fiscal burden of publicexpenditure of a state or agency (be it national, international orglobal), which can be quite large. Moreover, there is a secondimportant constraint, that is the more social psychologicalconnection with the incentive or disincentive structure thatstimulates or discourages initiative and distorting individualefforts.

Private goods are generally seen as goods and services that deliverexclusive benefits to individuals, such as food aid, inputprovision, market goods; they can be produced and consumedprivately. Mixed private/public goods like common property resources thatbelong to a group or community, e.g. parts of tropical forest.Finally we have national and international (regional and global)public goods. Common pool resources extend beyond the control of anynation-state or even a regional consortium of nations (often calledopen access resources, as global Biosphere reserves and geneticresources). Very often these last types are forgotten, like inOxford Policy Management, p. 11; and Vogler). Global public goodscan not only be sources, but also sinks that are at presentimportant in the global warming climate. Normally public goods aredistinguished by free access; where as international public goodsare beyond national jurisdiction.

In the literature three criteria are stated for goods thatdetermine their public ness: non-rivalry of consumption (consumptionby one does not reduce the availability to others), non-excludability from consumption (all can access the good free ofcharge) and non subtractability (the degree to which the use of theresource diminishes the amount of the resource left for others).

ExclusionSubtractabilityHigh Low

9

Easy Private Goods Toll GoodsDifficult Common Pool Goods Public Goods

(From Buck, 1998)

Many natural goods (physical resources), which are reducible, arenot always non excludible (communities can restrain access to them).Typical global commons are with respect to land: Sahel, TropicalRainforest, Antarctica; with respect to water: freshwater, regionalseas, oceans; with respect to biodiversity habitat, geneticresources; with respect to atmosphere: Ozone, Greenhouse Gasses(ghg’s). Some of these are already regulated, like deep seabed bythe International Seabed Authority (ISA), a result of an 8-year longperiod of negations, the Third United Nations conference on the Lawof the Sea (UNlcos III), which ended with the convention governingthe world’s oceans, which convention is signed by 149 countries(Friedheim, 1993). Genetic resources: the loss of the geneticcommons is for many a concern. They are all reducible, exhaustibleand destroyable.

One of most important issues is that these distinctions are notinnate to material things, properties or areas. Take a highway: mydriving doesn’t consume the highway for others, and also I don’tlimit the access for others. However, if there are too many drivers,we get traffic jams, and highways will deteriorate in quality.Moreover, highways can be levied with a toll and so restrict accessto people with a certain purchasing power, and certain cars. Becauseof globalization many goods that were formerly national publicgoods, can become global public goods and vice versa (like geneticresources etc.). Moreover, private goods can be transformed intopublic goods and back.

This means, that the distinctions between private and publicaren’t fixed for ever, and can change dependent on social, technicaland natural conditions. Therefore, Susan Buck (1998) proposes thesedistinctions as heuristic devices, and to take into account thatdependent upon historical circumstances and decisions, goods (andbads) can shift from one category to the other. I am not saying thatthere are no natural restraints with respect to goods and bads, butonly stating that public goods are a mixture of nature andhistorical (cultural) construction. Kaul et. al. (2003) argue: ‘Overtime natural commons (which exist regardless of human activity) havebeen supplemented by human-made public goods such as roads,irrigation systems, and armies – as well public bads like airpollution and financial contagion. In addition, human-made publicconditions have been made created. Examples include social cohesionand its opposite, conflicts and war.’ This process of transformation

10

makes it indeed urgent to find out ethical viable processes ofdefining global public goods and proper ways of managing them.

Global goods are complex goods: so one can have inclusive GPGand Pro-poor Global Goods: the first are of value for poor and richalike; the second are primarily valued in the poorer parts of theworld; one can have GPG with lots of private benefits (services),and many global costs, and dependent on the management structure,lots of free rider encouragements.

Antarctica, the atmosphere, the seas, biodiversity are a commonconcern for the whole mankind, which means that they not only fallor not fall under the jurisdiction of individual states (althoughthey can be charged with their conservation as trustees). Thesecommons, however, are also a concern for future generations, whichcan be overlapping or non-overlapping (in time further away)generations. Although one cannot predict what future generation’sinterests and concerns are, at least one can (and should) assumethat they have the same interest in biodiversity, air, sufficientand adequate food, etc. as the present generation.

However, many commons are located in certain areas, and notdirectly of interest to the whole of humankind, and here inparticular one should spend some time in identifying the area andthe commoners (public) for which this area is a common. Thedefinition of a certain area or issue as a GPG should take intoaccount that there are always particular people involved(stakeholders) and that certain quality standards should be putforward in maintaining the GPG. For example, if a certain type oftropical forest is identified as a GPG, it is also necessary to laydown the quality standards according to which the area should beregulated. Next to this definition and quality issue, there is theissue that the GPG should be managed in a fair and equitable way bygiving some or all people the right of access and right of voicewith respect to the management. Thirdly there is the issue how themanagement structure can be held accountable for the effectivemaintenance of the GPG.

The three main ethical questions to be answered by this report willtherefore be:

1. The definition of a GPG: who defines what good (or bad) is aglobal public or a global private good (or bad), and why? Whatkind of ethical considerations are valid? What criteria define agood quality of the global public commons and who decides on thatissue?

2. Issues of access, compliance and use of GPG: what are userrights, how to allocate them, or levy fees? How to guarantee

11

international, national and local compliance to the resourcemanagement?How to consume these global goods in an ethically responsible way?

3. Issues of good governance: How to keep agencies for managingglobal public goods accountable?

In short, the process of conservation of GPGs is a tripartiteprocess, in which the first phase comprises of the definition andthe quality of a particular GPG; the second phase the management ofa GPG and the third phase covers the assessment of the managementorganisation according tot the targets set in the first phase byindependent organisations.

12

2. Ethical perspectives on conflicting interests

IntroductionWhat ethical perspectives can help to cope with the three mainethical problems of Global Public Goods? In broad terms, there arethree approaches in ethics that can serve to answer this question.These are utilitarianism, the deontological ethic, and thedeliberative approach. According to the utilitarian or consequential-ethicalperspective, an act is proper if its effects are good. This perspectivefocuses on the consequences of a certain action. The consequencesmust be evaluated according to the principle of the greatestpossible well-being. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the patriarch ofthis approach, speaks of “the greatest good for the greatestnumber”. If the greatest possible well-being is promoted, also if itdoes not apply for every person in the same degree and some peoplemight even be worse off because of it, then the action can still beconsidered ethical proper if the majority is better off.Utilitarianism thus leads to a consideration of consequences (andonly indirectly of principles). It comes close in that way to thecost-benefit analysis as advocated by certain economic movements.There are many variants of utilitarianism, and, according to onevariant, principles and general rules (as laid down, for example, bylaw) are definitely meaningful, because they reduce the risk of abreach of well-being. However, utilitarianism does not takefundamental rights, principles, or obligations into account in aprincipled way. In general, utilitarianism is permeated by the ideaof not causing damage. It is a negative approach, where the maineffort goes into limiting the negative consequences of an action.

Secondly, there is the deontological approach. This stronglyemphasizes principles and obligations, in the assessment whether anact is correct or good. Well-known general principles are theautonomy of the individual person and justice, in the sense that allpersons are entitled to their own share. The best-knownrepresentative of the principle-ethical approach is Immanuel Kant(1724-1804). He does not start out by preparing a list ofobligations. Instead, he identifies a criterion, which morallyacting persons use to judge whether something represents anobligation. This criterion he calls the categorical imperative. Itreads as follows: “Act only according to the maxim about which youcan wish that it becomes a general law.” In other words: can I wishthat everyone acts as I now wish to act? For example, if I wish toborrow money from someone without wanting to return it, I must askmyself, applying the categorical imperative, whether I indeed wishthat everyone would act this way (borrowing money without ever

13

returning it). The answer to this is obviously “no”, since no onewould then lend money to another person anymore.

Individuals can thus demand respect for their personal choices;collective choices that are based on individual (equal and just)contributions are likewise to be respected. If a group, based onrespect for individual rights, comes to the conclusion that organicproducts are safe, despite scientific advice to the contrary, thensuch conclusion must be respected. Scientific advice is then simplynot convincing enough, or the scientists have not done their workwell enough.

Next to these, there is a third approach that is less directedat principles, the individual person, and individual choice, andmore at the social context, at human solidarity and obligations thathave historically grown – in short, an approach that seeks to givean answer to the question as to what constitutes good living in aworld full of risks. This deliberative approach takes these insights intoaccount, but it also incorporates aspects of the other twomovements, such as respect for autonomy and a certain appreciationof costs and benefits. Individual rights are not, however,considered to possess ultimate value, neither is the cost-benefitanalysis. Interests and rights must be made flexible in forms ofdeliberation, by responding to each other and to the issue to besolved. Nussbaum, one of the main thinkers of this approach,emphasize that democracy is a system about shared deliberationsabout the common good, and not, the utilitarianism is apt to think,a competition among interests groups.

In the end, principles cannot help us to resolve dilemmas; theyhave an analytical but not constructive and synthetic meaning sincethey are not directed at concrete solutions. Principles operate asheuristics rather than as absolute rules. They help us to look atspecific aspects of specific situations, and they focus ourattention to specific characteristics. But of themselves they do notcover the entire field of meaningful and productive ethicalconcepts. In applying norms and principles, we always use the idealsor value aspects thereof, making it clear that other ethicaldimensions that those of principles (such as feasibility, lifestyle,and limited rationality) are similarly relevant. On top of that, theethical issues in agriculture, natural resources and nutrition areso complex and interwoven with so many different matters thatsearching for universal and exhaustive principles is likely to leadus down the wrong path.

2.1. Types of Justice; Justice within and between generations

What is an equitable distribution of resources once common to allmankind? I will discuss here in a cumulative way considerations of

14

justice, by starting with a more crude form (formal equality) andending with more sophisticated forms.

Formal equality Has everyone the same claims to parts of the common resources aseveryone else? This principle of equality applied to states, as inthe form of the principle ‘one state one vote’, would seem to veryunjust to the larger states. Singer (2001) states: ‘A more soundprinciple for states would mean that in accordance with the numberof their inhabitants they will get allocations of the commonresources; this puts a price on population increases, but that canbe prevented by fixing the national allocation on the country’spopulation in a given year’. However, for many states and peoplesspecial conditions apply, and it is fairer to take these intoaccount than strict equal per capita entitlements (Aslam 2002).

Fair equalitySome (many) people have less access to common resources than others(and then emerges the issue of redressing an unequal distributionand aiding the worst-off). Moreover, as Nussbaum argues,‘(nutritional) needs vary with age, occupation, and gender. Pregnantwomen need more protein than a non pregnant woman. Women’s literacyin many parts of the world will require more resources than men’s.’This can be because of vulnerabilities like disease, poverty,hunger, war, or power relationships. The issue is in how far thepoor (in all these aspects) have special rights to be redressed forthe unequal distribution of resources. The motivation can be somekind of instrumental egalitarianism, implying that redressing thebalance is a good instrument for establishing peaceful relations(out of utilitarian reasoning or enlightened self interest) orbecause of a deontological type of reasoning.

Historical and fair equalityMany ethicists include some historical and contextual considerationsin the justice principle, like, who were the first to acquire accessto the resource, what is traditionally developed in terms ofownership and usage. According to the liberal-contractarian-utilitarian tradition, the first individual who uses something hasan entitlement to this something. John Locke, one of the most famousspokespersons of this tradition of first-come-first-served, statesin his Second Treatise on Civil Government, that originally theearth and all that is therein is given to men for the support andcomfort of their being; the earth and its contents “belong tomankind in common”. Through labour (in a minimal or maximal sense,e.g. by collecting, fishing and hunting or by hard work) objects areremoved from the common; the objects are marked as belonging to the

15

marker and to which he or she is entitled. However, Locke alsoformulates restrictions: we are allowed to mark resources as ourown, as long as “there is enough, and as good, left in common forothers”. So the original acquisition is seen by Locke all thatmatters in the justification of private property, be it, that oneshould leave enough to give to others shares equal of the own. Couldthat imply that members of future generations get an equal share fortheir own?

However, not only first appropriation act can be considered, butalso other historical and social circumstances, like the historicaland cultural investment in management and cultivation of GPG, thegeographical position, standards of living, ways of farming. Becauseof the over whelming diversity of nature and culture, and thecomplex and intricate connections between them on local andtranslocal levels, pluralism is a global good as well.

In the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol),contextual and historical considerations are also paid attention to,which means that internationally seen this conception of justice hasa chance of getting maximum agreement (Ashton 2003).

Intra- and intergenerational justice (sustainability) The famous declaration of the Brundtland Commission (1987) definedsustainability in terms of ‘Sustainable development that meets theneeds of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs’. This definition addresses therelation between justice between generations (intergenerationaljustice) and within generations. How much trumping value over theinterests of the present generation should future generations’interests have? According to Rawls, present generations indeed haveobligations to future ones, in particular on transferring to themjust institutions, not in first instance material supplies. Liberaljustice involves a distinction between justice (political)considerations and ideological or comprehensive doctrine on thevalue of life. It’s a kind of unity and difference: we are united inour political will to share fairly resources and to differ withrespect to the goals and values of our life. Intergenerationaljustice can be divided into justice between overlapping and non-overlapping generations; however, that division isn’t very relevanthere. For ecosystem and biodiversity, see also nature ethics, below.

Conclusion: we need justice principles that are both fair andcontextual sensible and that take into account the interests offuture generations. These concepts of justice are in agreement withinternationally widely accepted ethical principles.

2.2. Ethics of International Relations: representativeness, accountability and peacefulcoexistence of heterogeneous actors

16

Firstly, the last decades global institutions are under increasingpressure to legitimize their type of governance and actions. Many ofthem are not seen as sufficient representative (they lack democraticmeasures), legitimate with respect to their actions, and accountablewith respect to past performances. Nations, peoples and civilsociety institutions and agencies feel insufficiently represented byinternational and global institutions like WTO, WHO or FAO, whichseriously hampers their performance and the legitimation of theiractions. Moreover, they are critiqued for not seriously assess theirperformances and monitor them with purpose of evaluating theirstrategies. Responsible agencies are often not held accountable andcan continue their work without possibility of amendments andlearning by signalling mistakes, flaws etc. and sufficient opennessfor criticisms (Woods 2001).

There is therefore a need for stating explicitly criteria ofrepresentativeness, and accountability, which make it possible forinternational organisations to become learning organisations and toaim for systematic improvement, i.e., improvement that is based onsystematic evaluation of past performances, on the bases of agreedupon aims and targets.

As a matter of fact, these criteria should also be applied forNGO’s and other civil society agencies that are concerned andinvolved in governing GPS.

Secondly, respect for different cultural regimes is an ethicalrequirement that more and more internationally is agreed upon. Itemphasizes the need for respect for the cultural variety andmeanings, but also stresses the need for cooperation, looking forcommon ground between these different cultures and for peacefulcoexistence between the different cultures. In section 6 we willdiscuss a study that in particular addresses these issues in coastalmanagement. The study sketches a model for doing boundary andtransboundary work between different cultural frameworks on ethicaland cognitive level (e.g., different knowledge claims) that oftenmake cooperation so difficult. Overcoming misunderstandings andprejudices determined by these different frameworks should be a maintarget.

Thirdly, in close connection with the first two considerations, itis necessary to stress the need for room for ethical manoeuvre: i.e.for spaces of reflection where ethical dilemmas, ambivalences andconflicts between different ethical frameworks can be identified,analysed, and balanced.

Conclusion: we need criteria of representativeness andaccountability for all (governmental and non-governmental) agencies

17

that are concerned with GPG. These criteria should take into accountthe respect for cultural pluralism and the peaceful co-existencebetween different cultures. Moreover, these agencies should takeinto account that different ethical and political framework exits,and that a main part of their work consists in trying to overcomethe misunderstandings and prejudices from these frameworks.

2.3 Nature and animal ethicsWe can discern several types of nature (or environmental) ethics,depending on the role humankind gives herself vis-à-vis nature: onthe one extreme is anthropocentric ethics of nature, where humansare seen as dominant and nature as robust. At the other extreme isecosystem ethics, in which ecosystems are considered to be ofextreme high ethical value and very vulnerable for humankindsinterventions. In most United Nations and FAO documents asophisticated ethics of nature is defended, by connecting ethicalvalues in nature with the needs and interests of present and futuregenerations of humankind.

The Precautionary Principle, stated in the Rio Declaration,1992, doesn’t endorse the anthropocentric view. ‘In order to protectthe environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely appliedby States according to their capabilities. Where there are threatsof serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certaintyshall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measuresto prevent environmental degradation.’ The environment is veryclearly seen as vulnerable, which means that human interventions incases of irreversible damages should not be applied.

Anthropocentric ethics of natureIn the Christian tradition, nature’s destiny is seen as to bedominated by men, in a more or less careful way. In Psalm the Eightis said: ‘Thou maddest him to have dominion over the works of thyhands; thou has put all things under his feet: all sheep & oxen,yea, & the beast of the field; the fowl of the air, & the fish ofthe sea, & whatsoever passeth though the paths of the seas’. Theconcept of stewardship is also of Christian origin, and thismitigates the anthropocentric and speciesist tenor of many Christianapproaches. According to this approach, nature and its elements arecapable of absorbing the activities of humankind; it is conceived asrobust and self adapting towards human interventions.

In many Western ethics this conception of nature is present,e.g. in Descartes view of man as ‘maitre and poseur de la nature’(Discours de la Methode). Many protagonist of modern biotechnologysubscribe this point of view, by arguing for example, that naturealways was able to repair damages done, and that in the case of

18

modern biotechnology (e.g. introducing GMO’s) this will presumablyhappen again (see e.g. Borlaug 2001).

Ecological or ecosystem ethicsAccording to this type of ethics, nature reactions to mankind’sinterventions are not robust, but extremely far reaching, and cannoteasily made controllable. It means that all human interventions cantransgress a very careful balance between tendencies and forces, andcan cause irreversible and irreparable damages.

Animal ethicsWith respect to the ethics of animals, which make up the quality ofenvironments as well, there are different positions, like, theanimal rights approach. According to this approach, all animals haveequal value. Other positions stress the fact that mammals can sufferand that make them objects of ethical consideration. The commondenominator is that all animals deserve serious ethicalconsideration, and should not be treated cruelly or as mereinstruments in the service of human goals.

Concluding: natural processes can react differently on the varioustypes of men’s interventions, and in some cases the reaction can bedisastrously. It is very clear from international documents that thelast thirty years nature is on the decline. So, even if in the pastnature reacted rather robustly on men’s interventions, there isample evidence that at present human interventions have reached anenormous scale that compel for cautious measures and precaution.

Most ethics do agree that animals deserve ethical attention andthat their interests and sufferings should be taken seriously. Thisconclusion is underwritten by internationally agreements.

2.4 Conclusion: consensus on substantive ethical guidelines

It seems to be remarkable, but there is a lot of global consensus onthe most important ethical guidelines. Principles of fair andhistorical and contextual justice, of sustainability (respect forfuture generations), of compassion for animals, of a sophisticatedconcept of nature as vulnerable, increasing recognition ofaccountability and representativeness of international organisationsare agreed upon by many participants of the international forum.

19

3. First Phase: Defining and framing a specific GPG

3.1. Socio-political and cultural dimensions of global agricultural goodsNatural and agricultural goods and services, as they are here themain subject matter, have not only meaning as (nutritional orwhatever) resource; besides the dimension of food security and ofsustainable agricultural development, these goods also haveimportant and very highly valued cultural dimensions. They functionin dimensions of livelihood, of religious life, of social bonds andare often very intrinsically connected with shared social values.

Food and nature are not only commodities, or output products,but intrinsically connected with social structures of entitlements(Sen, 2000) and farming and life styles. Commons and other publicgoods enhance the communal life, and the personal life of theindividuals. The essence of these commons is their distribution toindividuals, although the way of their distribution is oftenethically seen questionable.

Communities don’t consist of an aggregation of privateinterests. Sharing common materials, common values, and commonexperiences can be made possible by participation in a society, thatcontinues over an ‘extended period of time, a span longer than anindividual’s life, and ‘in greater variety and diversity than wouldbe possible if individuals were fulfilling only their own desiresand needs ‘ (Cochran, 1978, p. 229-239).

We can discern several approaches to this interaction betweennatural resources, actors that have claims on them and governmentalinstitutions. There is the science based, ecological orenvironmental science based approach; the (economical) cost Benefitapproach, the social-cultural approach, the participative/commongood/co management approach and last but not least the ethicalapproach, which touches upon most of the other approaches but has aconceptual apparatus and commitment of its own.

20

21

Goverment Ecosystem

Market Co-management

Power

Values

Values

Actors with Claims

Commons

Institutions

Identification of common goodsDifferent peoples identify different global goods and have differentglobal concerns. This pluralism with respect to the global case issomething very priceless, and should be taken into account whentalking on certain global goods. It implies that global agenciesthat are preparing to identify a global good can be confronted withdifferent interpretations of what counts as a particular globalgood, and what is to be managed at all. The ethical considerationsearlier mentioned (section 2) require consultation and deliberationbecause it is not a priori clear how to apply these criteria likebenefiting to everyone, non-rivalry or non extractable. Whatparticular goods are common global goods is contested, and it shouldbe solved in a deliberative way to find out what prioritiesdifferent peoples have and how an overlapping consensus orcompromise can be reached.

Assessing the demand for public goods can confront the sameproblems of interpretation; here we can have exaggeration of demand(pseudo demand) as potential beneficiaries express demand assumingzero costs; but also the opposite is possible, lack of articulationof demand.

GPGs can be of global interest but localized in a restrictedarea, they can be regional; they can be connected with poor peopleor with rich nations etc.

The main constraintsValue and culture pluralism (diversity) is an ethically respectableand enjoyable feature of humankind; as are particular solidaritiesconcentrated in groups and nations. However, they should not implythat peaceful cooperation is made impossible, or, the converse thatpluralism is wiped out or repressed, which means that one shouldlook for opportunities of bridging economical, political (power),cultural and ethical divides and can tackle the dangers of GPG.

Definition of GPGs: ethical guidelines on input, process and output of political decisionmakingOn the base of the deliberative (pragmatist) approach the emphasisis on discourse and consultations that address ethical dilemmas andvalue conflicts in defining GPGs. There are several types ofdiscourse, like expert meetings, representative meetings, ormeetings with focus groups (to get an insight in what is at stakefor the various stakeholders). In organizing discourses with the aimof stimulating opinions and value assessments on the quality ofGPSs, not always and not every discourse or consultation ismeaningful and successful, in the sense of enabling to better copewith an ethical problem. In situations of civil war, already fixedpolicy decisions or very entrenched positions, it is not always

22

meaningful or possible to organize in an ethically relevant waypublic consultations on value conflicts and dilemmas.

We can distinguish the input, throughput and output aspect of adiscourse and these aspects have to live up to certain criteria, toimprove the end result of the consultation.

With respect to the input, the most important issues are, iseveryone involved indeed participating? Is the agenda subject ofdiscussion or has it been imposed form the outside? Do theparticipants have a framework of discussing the ethical issue athand or do they have to reconstruct a framework and are they in thepossibilities to do this? Is the time span of the discourse adequateor is the discourse out of tune with societal developments?

During the process, it is important that experts can beconsulted and information acquired, is that freely possible? Forexample, during the GM-nation consultations in England, experts wereconsulted and doing research, but not on the ecological risks of GM-crops but on the relative value of certain types of pest-management.

With respect to the output, an important issue is how theresults of the consultation are used: are they neglected, and aredecisions made anyway, or are the results only used in a superficialway? Can the process of implementation be monitored and evaluated?Do the participants have any insight in what happens with theresults of their discourse? Are the results used in the way it ispromised at the beginning of the consultation?

23

The different partners of governance on the global, nationaland local level have different responsibilities in starting andsustaining the definition of a particular Global Public Good in acertain area in an ethical acceptable way. If global organisationsget the idea that a global good is threatened, it should start onall levels the activities necessary for defining the Public Good andits quality by involving all the stakeholders on global, nationaland local level. The same could be done by local and nationalorganisations, by involving the global level. A kind of globalwarning system could come off the ground by these organisations.Governmental authorities should be keen on the possibledeterioration of GPGs and organize incentives that local people areindeed feeling responsible for maintaining potential GPGs. Civilsociety groups like NGOs can do a great job by encouraging people toformulate first criteria of the quality of a certain area that hasglobal value. Governments on the national level in particular have aspecial responsibility in considering the criteria of input, processand output and monitoring that all relevant voices are heard in theprocess of defining the quality of a GPGs.

Horizontal:

Vertical:

Government Market Civil society

Global-regional

UN agencies;treaties; WTOetc.Guarding input,process andoutput ofdefining a GPG

TNCCorporateResponsibilityfor GPGs

NGO’sLegitimation;Empowerments

Regional-national

EU etcGuarding input,process andoutput ofdefining a GPG

Commodity/labour marketCorporateResponsibilityfor GPGs

NGO’sLegitimation;Empowerments

National-local National/localgovLocalincentives fordefining andmaintaining

IdemCorporateResponsibilityfor GPGs

Local NGO’sEmpowerment;Representativeness

24

GPGs

In bold: Ethical guidelines for defining the quality of GPGs for multilevel governance

25

4. Management: private, public and mixed forms of regulationAlthough national states are both factually and normatively loosingpower and legitimation in the present situation of globalization, itdoesn’t mean that common resources can only be regulated and managedon one level higher, on the level of a kind of Hobbesian Leviathan(an all powerful global government, whose role is to teach all thedependent states to know their place beneath the sun). Ostrom andBuck make it clear that the rational self-interested nations, justlike individuals, wouldn’t necessarily destroy common-poolresources; they can have even an interest in compellinginstitutional arrangements to increase credible and enforceablecommitments of mutual self-restraint, that leave them and theresources they use better off over the long term.

International arrangements requiring mutual self restraint canbe formulated and implemented; we don’t need an authoritarianLawmaker and Law enforcer to do that.

Kaul (2003) argues: ‘The corollary of the responsiblesovereignty is to promote globalization with domestic autonomy (…),or globalness managed to mutual advantage.(…) It could mean viewingglobal public goods, wherever possible, as national public goodsthat cannot be provided adequately through domestic policy actionalone but require international cooperation to be available locally.(…) In this way the international cooperation component of globalpublic goods would remain linked to the national public goodscomponent – rather than the national public goods componentdisappearing from the concept and global public goods assuming anexistence of their own and becoming an end rather than a means ofpeople’s well-being.’(p. 12).

Markets: commodification through private ownership of individuals or groupsOpen access to commons would mean that markets are created byenabling private individuals to exercise their private freedom andowner ship rights. Some would say that if everyone acts as arational agent, in full possession of private rights and directedtowards her own utility, the overall result will be that a maximumof social well being emerges. However, most scholars would arguethat private ownership is to be seen as a bundle of rights that canshift according to historical and political priorities. Also,nowhere unfettered private ownership indeed exists. In Germany, e.g.the constitution states: ‘private ownership obligates. Its useshould serve the public good.’(Article 14, no 2). Therefore, mostproponents of markets suggest that they should be accompanied byother regulatory mechanisms. Adam Smith states: ‘Man ought to regardhimself not as something separated and detach, but as a citizen ofthe world, a member of the vast common wealth of nature, and to theinterest of the great community, he ought at all times be willing

26

that his own little interest should be sacrificed’ (Smith’ Theory ofMoral Sentiments, 1790, p, 140). The ‘interests of the greatcommunity’ can sometimes be better taken care of by governments orby cooperative management (see below).

Moreover, it depends upon the type of goods that are possessed:cars can be privately owned, but the air, rivers, the earth as awhole, the atmosphere, genetic resources in first instance not. Manyargue that common resources cannot privately be owned, like Mies etal 2001; they oppose to ‘further privatization of common resourcesand spaces, both in the North and the South. In the North re-inventing the commons could well start with responsibility for whatwe described as negative commons, for example, waste.’(p.1021-1022).Collet (2002) in particular criticizes the private ownershipprinciple behind the quota regulations that in the end are nothingelse than economic profit maximization without taking into accountthe non-linear relationship between stock and biomass of spawningfish (‘quota-busting’). He also pleads for some kind of stakeholdermanagement (p. 545), which overlaps with co-management (see below)

State management (global, international, national)Global government, organised more or less like a confederation ofstates is a type of management to secure the global public goods.Peter Singer is one of the most eloquent spokespersons of one megaglobal state, with elections and to be held accountable for globalissues. Singer has a kind of Leviathanic assumption: only a verystrong global government can restrain individual states. Individualstates have no ethical value, a global state has. According to himthe Westphalian legacy of sovereign states is not in accordance withthe global issues that confront every states. Therefore it should begiven up in favour of a global and not international type ofgovernment. Nevertheless, Singer is favourable towards the principleof subsidiarity of the EU, which states that decisions should alwaysbe taken at the lowest level capable of dealing with problem (p.200).

His position is not without critics, like Mies who is veryopposed to a policy from above. Although Mies and others oppose tofurther privatization of common resources, it is not that they arein favour of a ‘policy (…) from above. (…) we do not believe onglobal institutions, or in politics of a new mega state, sometimesreferred to as global governance.’ A more sophisticated position isthat of Martha Nussbaum. She is in favour of a kind of moralcosmopolitanism, but not in favour of the priority of globalpolitical institutions (political cosmopolitanism) vis-à-visnational states. She pleads for making civil society organisationsgiving a stronger position.

27

On trustees, loan, renting, and other conditionsExisting global governments agencies can make individual states,companies or NGO’s a trustee charged with the conservation andmanagement of the common resource, e.g. in accordance with theprinciple of subsidiarity. For the EU, this principle is definedexplicitly in article 3b of the Treaty of European Union agreed bythe intergovernmental conference and signed in Maastricht on 7February 1992 (EC Commission, 1992a): "… The Community shall actwithin the limits of the powers conferred on it by this Treaty andof the objectives assigned to it therein. In areas which do not fallwithin its exclusive competence the Community shall take action, inaccordance with the principle of subsidiarity only if and so far asthe objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member Statesand can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposedaction, be better achieved by the Community. Any action by theCommunity shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve theobjectives of this Treaty…" (Vaubel 1997). Stewardshipresponsibilities are then laid upon individual states or individualgroups.

One possibility can be, that, in case of the particularprovision of services from a GPG, a contribution or rent is levied,and so a fund is formed for the maintenance and management ofconservation projects or capacity building. One of the mainadvantages is this type of management is, that local interests arestimulated in protecting and maintaining GPG’s.

Cooperative or co-management (and other types of stakeholder management)Co-management (or common good approach) stresses the fact thatindividuals are not maximizing profits but also have long termsocial interests, here it conflicts with the presuppositions of themarket model. Co-management approach brings together usercommunities, scientific organizations, NGO’s and governmentalagencies that cooperate together in establishing sustainable,equitable and responsible forms of management of common resources.This approach is often used in small scale common-pool resources,where it enhances common pool resources through a council orauthority, but is not restricted to small scale commons withinformal relations. Co-management is therefore not exclusivelyoriented towards local communities, like in Community SupportedAgriculture (CSA). It turns out in numerous experimental and non-experimental settings that members of ‘communal properties’ exerciseformal and informal pressure on free riders, by building large scalesocial networks (Berkes, 1995). In this way they transcend Hardin’sTragedy of the commons. Depending on the cultural and socialbackground influencing the measure of self-regulation or stewardshipethic, more or less stronger government influence is necessary to

28

enforce rights, obligations and responsibilities. This is alsonecessary for the stability of the system. Pretty, 2003, gives a lotof examples like Joint and participatory forest management, IPM andFarmer Fields Schools, and Community based wildlife management; intotal more than 400.000 local groups. Central issues of cooperativemanagement are:

o what values in the common resources should exactly be protectedand managed?

o how to organize councils: who participates? States, NGO’s,groups with special economic and social interests, others?

o how to allocate user rights and to guarantee the compliance ofthe resource management

o what type of accountability structures?

When to apply what regime? Advantages and disadvantagesThe regimes have different capacities and produce differentdistributions of benefits and losses dependent on the socialsituation, participation or market regimes. We should distinguishfirst between situations in which normative differences and beliefson a GPG galore, and those situations where normative conflicts arenearly absent. A second variable is the policy complexity, which isdependent on the amount of actors and passive involved people. Ifboth policy and normative complexity are low, which means that allstakeholders agree what the quality of the GPG should be, and how itshould be managed, one can rely on market regulations and partners,as a matter of fact on the basis of rules laid down by an authority.Markets can in situations with lack of contentious issues produce alot of efficiency. However, in the radical opposite case of highnormative and policy complexity and with really contentious issuesmarkets do not take into account ethical issues likemisdistribution, disrespect for individuals and groups (that havenot sufficient purchasing power) or misrepresentation of individualsand groups. In those complex and contentious issues political andcivil society institutions, as a matter of fact organized byinternational and / or national governments should take the lead. Inbetween there are a lot of grey zones where a mix of managementregimes can be applied (Bromley 2002).

Policy ComplexityLow High

NormativeComplexity

Low Rules /Government-Market

Rules andValues /Government /Civil Society

29

High Stakeholderdialogue / Co-management

Social dialogue/ Civil society

Table 3: The interplay of increasingly complex ethics and policies

In all circumstances, the three levels of section 1 must be takeninto consideration; GPG’s are in need of international agreements ofnational policies to implement the agreements and of local policiesto commit local people, like farmers, hunters, herders and fishers(Kaul, p. 542) and to stimulate them and to build the necessarycapacities.

Of course, the various management regimes should take intoaccount the guidelines (section 5) of representativeness andaccountability for all (governmental and non-governmental) agenciesthat are concerned with GPG. These criteria should cover respect forcultural pluralism and peaceful co-existence between differentcultures. Moreover, these agencies should take into account thatdifferent ethical and political framework exits, and that a mainpart of their work consists in trying to overcome themisunderstandings and prejudices from these frameworks.

As said, advantages of markets in non-contentious issues areefficiency and giving incentive to private ownership; however, inmore complex situations the disadvantages increase, like no regardfor misdistribution of benefits and losses, disrespect for poorpeople and misrepresentation in market authority. The othermanagement approaches have disadvantages in relative low complexsituations because they are then too cumbersome and over organized;in more complex situations with deep inbuilt dissent however, theyshould be used and can overcome the (ethical) disadvantages likemisdistributions, disrespect and misrepresentation.

30

5. Third phase: AccountabilityMonitoring and assessing managements regimes of GPGsAudits are needed to assess the performances of existing regimes, bymeasuring their activities vis-à-vis their original politicaltargets defined in the first phase (their efficacy, not theirefficiency in monetary terms; Blanchard 2003). Assessing theperformances should as a matter of fact better not be done by theagencies themselves, but should be done by independentorganizations, on local, national and international and thatcoordinate their activities for auditing (Woods 2001). Theseindependent organisations should act according to transparency,integrity and clarity with respect to the assessment goals, coveredby the results of the definition and the quality standards of theparticular GPG done in the earlier phase. Dependent on the urgencyof the issue, the auditing organisation can publish yearly reports,which have to take into account by the responsible organization. Ifthe responsible organization doesn’t react or take the assessmentserious, actions should be taken that pressure for compliance.

Next to these formal organisations, informal public spaces arenecessary to give voice to opinions on the performance of theresponsible organization and channel them towards the auditingprocess.

31

Horizontal:

Vertical:

Government Market Civil society

Global-regional

UN agencies;treaties; WTOetc.Startingmeasures foraccountability:audits; in caseof non-compliance,taking actions

TNCContributing toauditingprocess

NGO’sContributing toauditingprocess

Regional-national

EU etcStartingmeasures foraudits of GPG-organisations

Commodity/labour marketContributing toauditingprocess

NGO’sContributing toauditingprocess

National-local National/localgovSupporting andcontributing toindependentauditing

IdemContributing toauditingprocess

Local NGO’sContributing toauditingprocess

In bold: Ethical guidelines for auditing multilevel governance of GPG

32

6. Discussion of management regimes of natural resources of commonconcern: boundary and transboundary work

6.1 Derawan Island Chain (Indonesia)

In their report the authors (Keulartz and Zwart, 2004) focus oncoastal zone management in Derawan (Kalimantan, Indonesia) and thecomplex problems sustainable management is confronted with. Theissue is complicated by a growing heterogeneity of stakeholders,both on a regional, national and international level. Besidesgovernmental agencies thousands of NGO’s (civic, commercial,transnational, research pressure groups) on these levels are active.A consequence is that many voices and many vocabularies are used.The serious ecological problems are overlogging, forest conversion,pollution, destructive fishing methods, urbanization, decline ofnearly extinct species (green turtle) etc.The coastal zone comprises three types of marine ecosystems thatdepend on each other for nutrients, organic matter, fish and marineanimal migrations, and physical protection: mangrove habitats, seagrass beds, and coral reefs. The study looks for boundary objectsand organizations that lie between the often competing and rivallingstakeholders, and are able to overcome differences in values,knowledge claims, interests and power positions. The reportpresupposes a historical-hermeneutical perspective on concepts ofjustice and freedom.

Important are the three steps: making intensive stakeholders’analysis on these four dimensions (values, knowledge claims,interests and power); looking for common grounds and stimulating theboundary objects. One of the boundary objects is the green seaturtle, a species on the brink of extinction that gets differentmeanings dependent on the stakeholders. For the nature organisationthe turtle is an icon of nature, and if they succeed in saving thespecies, an important core element of the ecosystem is saved. Forthe leisure organisations the turtle represents sport likeactivities to attract tourists; for the fisherman it stands for anoverall quality of the fishing grounds. It doesn’t seem necessary tohave consensus on these meanings; it is sufficient for the requiredamount of cooperation that the stakeholders realize that they differin their construction of the meaning of this turtle in coastalmanagement. This is typical of a boundary object: participantsconnect different meaning components with it in cooperating on theimprovement of an area.

6.2 Peace parks

33

Peace parks are areas of common global concern that are undertransboundary regulation (Mekong, Lake Victoria), they areTransboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation (Sandwith,T. a. o., WCPA). In the report non-agricultural areas, so-calledtransboundary protected areas (TBPAs), which management cancontribute to secure regional integration and landscape-levelconservation, of which there are at least 169 complexes.The report describes nine broad guidelines that together comprisegood practice guidelines:

1. Identifying and promoting common values (includes a commonvision and symbols and joint events)

2. Involving and benefiting local people3. Obtaining and maintaining support of decision makers4. Promoting coordinated and co-operative activities5. Achieving coordinated planning and protected area development6. developing co-operative equipments7. working towards funding sustainability8. monitoring and assessing progress9. dealing with tension or armed conflict

The report than comprises a Draft Code for transboundary protectedareas, offered to neighbouring States, jurisdictions and otherstakeholders concerned with the establishment and management ofTBPAs. However, its orientation, as in the previous guidelines, istowards sovereign states.

6.3 Discussion of several reportsBiodiversity and the ecosystem approach in Agriculture, forestry andFisheries, FAO, 2003This study shows that diversification and heterogeneity arefundamental conditions for a viable food production and ecosystemmanagement. It favours a combination of biodiversity and ecosystemapproach to farmers and policy makers. Ecosystem services are asvaluable as agricultural products in providing public goods.

Optimizing heterogeneous conditions in changing contexts; goodconditions within the total food production chain; integration withwildlife conservation; community based management

Glantz, M., 2003, Guidelines for establishing audits ofagricultural-environmental hotspots, Roma: FAO,Agricultural-environmental hotspots: to better manage them, beforethey degade further into environmental flashpoints

34

Questions asked and answered are: How to define the term hotspots?What can de done with respect to hotspots?Who might benefit from a hotspot arrangement?Who could undertake the hotspots activity?Who’s responsible it is to oversee a hotspot programme?

6.4 EvaluationThe studies lay different emphasis and have different flaws. Thefirst study is the most comprehensive, but doesn’t consider the lackof legitimization and representation of stakeholder consultations.The second leaves out the role of NGO’s, and the third stresses thefunction of biological, social and cultural diversity, but leavesout the role of national and supranational governance.

The afore mentioned considerations (section 3, 4, 5) require amulti level strategy, that takes into account organizationalprinciples of market, state but also civil society in therelationships between mico-, meso and macro level (or local,national, regional and global). Neither market, nor state, norscience can do the job in its own (Cochran, 1999). Theseorganizational principles should be empowered on all three levels,dependent on the GPGs at hand.

First, to strengthen the state (government) principles,different types of representation could be implemented; theserepresentations should bring into birth new global institutions thatcan monitor and evaluate common resources regimes and can bearresponsibilities for the strategies chosen. Second, to strengthenthe civil society principle, democratic deliberations (like citizencouncils, focus groups or) on all levels should be constructedaccording to the constraints and problems that are at stake in thoselevels (and in between the levels). These deliberations can functionas part of a system of check and balances with regard to theemerging power structure of transnational companies and large stateson various levels (Keulartz, 2002). Moreover, they can enhance thepeaceful and global interaction between regimes, farming and foodstyles and values. Fusion in cookery is not always tasteful, but ininternational affairs there are lots of ethical and politicaladvantages for a peaceful interaction between very different regimesand food and farming styles.

Finally, we should strive for making international organizationsmore democratic and accountable, by giving them a morerepresentative structure, and not only through representation vianational states. These deliberations can counteract the sciencebased global organizations; therefore they should closely attachedto existing and new expert organizations, like Codex, Cites, FAO and

35

others. The credibility of their policies depends not only onelections processes, as the monism of state would argue, but also onthe connected network of public spaces in which opinions are formedon the interpretations of risks and the meaning of global publicgoods.

The interaction between markets, states and global civil societycan give birth to new structures that are able to tackle thestruggle between common resources regimes, and farming and foodstyles (like global biotechnology, GMO's and the world nutritionproblem). The horizontal shift of politics from governments towardscivil society and market, and the vertical shift from governmentstowards local and super-national regulatory and representativegovernmental agencies should be complemented by vertical publicspaces closely connected with them and by statutory agencies, ruledby experts and others. New representative measures (like the onesproposed by Held), measures according to checks- and balances (likepublic spaces) and accountability should check each other byproviding democratic legitimating and accountability, and viceversa: the three cannot be separated. It is in between thesemeasures that we have to make the choices regarding the quality andmanagement of common resources.

36

7. Ethical recommendations for GPG

Commons and global public resources are of a composite nature,depending on a lot of actors, historical circumstances andgovernmental levels (there are no innate GPG). Because of theirpublicness, their definition, production, consumption and assessment(monitoring) is a case for communities and peoples involved.Their goods character should guarantee that all benefit, inparticular the poor. Their globalness means that they requireintense cooperation between nations, groups of experts, NGO’s,professions and economic partners.

We have distinguished between three processes of managing andassessing GPSs:

1. Political decision making: Who decides whether to make a goodpublic or private? Definition of the quality of common goods andinterest

With respect to the political process of defining the GPGs, wedistinguished input, process and output requirements on three levels(local, national, internationally).

2a. Production of the goods: who pays what? Financing andmanagement2b. Consumption: Fair and equal access: International and globalManagement

Production and consumption of GPGs: ethical guidelines on input, process and output ofmanagement regimesIn the study we outlined the advantages and disadvantages of severaltypes of management regimes, dependent on low or high complexity ofmoral issues and the political playing field. As in theconsultations on definition and quality of GPG, also here ethicalguidelines for stakeholder management of GPGs (rights of access,exit, and voice) apply.

Policy ComplexityLow High

NormativeComplexity

Low Rules /Government-Market

Rules andValues /Government /Civil Society

High Stakeholderdialogue / Co-management

Social dialogue/ Civil society

37

3. Accountability: setting targets, assigning responsibilities,for the global goods to be produced, monitoring and assessingthe results, correcting mistakes and mistaken routes of theproduction of global goods

With respect to the growing demand of accountability (monitoring andassessing of management regimes), we outlined the importance ofindependent agencies and public spaces. However, we also underlinedthe need for accountability structures for these agencies (NGO’s),as, of course, for international institutions. Therefore, next toformal organisations, informal public spaces are necessary to givevoice to opinions and channel them towards the auditing process.

On these three aspects, ethical guidelines can be implemented. Inthe study we evaluated concepts of justice, of representativeness,accountability, nature, and animal welfare, and gave reasonedpreferences. In tackling these questions, we firstly stressed theneed for developing criteria for justice for all (in particular thepoor), that are both fair and contextual sensible and that take intoaccount the interests of future generations (sustainability). Theseconcepts of justice are in agreement with internationally widelyaccepted ethical principles.

Secondly, we emphasized the need for criteria ofrepresentativeness and accountability for all (governmental and non-governmental) agencies that are concerned with GPG. These criteriashould take into account the respect for cultural pluralism and thepeaceful co-existence between different cultures. Moreover, theseagencies should take into account that different ethical andpolitical framework exits, and that a main part of their workconsists in trying to overcome the misunderstandings and prejudicesfrom these frameworks.

Thirdly, we concluded that most Western ethics do agree thatanimals deserve ethical attention and that their interests andsufferings should be taken seriously. There is no reason to doubtthat this conclusion is not underwritten by internationallyagreements.

Fourthly, we concluded that natural processes can reactdifferently on the various types of men’s interventions, and in somecases the reaction can be disastrously. It is very clear frominternational documents that the last thirty years nature is on thedecline. So, even when in the past nature reacted rather robustly onmen’s interventions, there is ample evidence that at present human

38

interventions have reached an enormous scale that compel forcautious measures and precaution.

Ethical guidelines for multilevel governance of GPGAll these guidelines can be given full flesh in the nine boxes ofdifferent types of horizontal and vertical governance structures:

Horizontal:

Vertical:

Government Market Civil society

Global-regional

UN agencies;treaties; WTOetc.RepresentativenessAccountability:audits

TNCCorporateResponsibilityfor GPGs

NGO’sLegitimation;Empowerments

Regional-national

EU etcRepresentativeness; NationalIncentives forGPGs; audits

Commodity/labour marketCorporateResponsibilityfor GPGs

NGO’sLegitimation;Empowerments

National-local National/localgovLocalincentives forGPGs

IdemCorporateResponsibilityfor GPGs

Local NGO’sEmpowerment;Representativeness

In bold: Ethical guidelines for multilevel governance of GPG

Ethical recommendations for the global level

International organisations:1) Coordination of GPGs. Several international organisations (like

FAO, United Nations Environment Programme and Globalenvironment Facility) cover at present GPGs, and their effortsresult in at best a patchwork of measures and at worse afragmentation. Coordination is necessary.

2) To FAO: start international program: Research in to state ofthe art of global commons, and into strategies to limitdamaging activities, models of burden sharing of environmentalprotection, and of supporting on national programs.

39

3) Accountability requires independent audit agencies that shouldbe accompanied by public spaces to discuss assessments made.

International NGO’s:Improve legitimation, representativeness, accountability, monitoringCreate body that issues these standards and oversees them.

International Market Actors:Develop transparent standards of corporate global responsibility(CGR) that can be assessed independently with respect to thetreatment of services of GPS. Create such an independent body

Ethical recommendations for national levelNational governments:

1) Strengthen efforts for national coordination and implementnational and local incentives for definition, management,capacity building and monitoring of GPGs.

2) Improve civil society structure for strengthen deliberationsand consultations on definitions, management and monitoring ofGPGs.

3) Dialogue with local actors

NGO’s:Improve legitimation and representativenessInvolve in management and capacity building schemesMarket actors:Improve corporate social responsibilityCreate national body of overseeing CSR

Ethical recommendations for local level1) Start political process of defining GPGs2) Start management; Coordinate local production and consumption

structures of GPGs with national and international levels; structure incentives towards goods, and disencourage bads. Start capacity building programm to manage GPG’s

3) Improve local structures for auditing

40

Literature

Arts, B. (1998). The Political Influence of Global NGOs. Case Studies on the Climate

and Biodiversity Conventions. Utrecht: International Books.Ashton, J. & X. Wang (2003). ‘Equity and Climate: In principle and Practice. In Aldy, J. et al. (eds). Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort Against Climate Change. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate

Change: 61-85.Aslam, M.A. (2002). ‘Equal Per Capita Entitlements : A Key to GlobalParticipation on Climate Change?’ in: K.A. Baumert (ed.). Building on the Kyoto Protocol. Options for Protecting the Climate. World Resource Institute:

175-201.Berkes, F., 1995. Community-based Management of common Propertyresources. Encyclopaedia of Environmental Biology 1: 371-373, Academic Press.Berry, Wendell, 1981. The Gift of Good Land. Berkeley: North Point Press.Blanchard, O., et al. (2003). ‘Combining Efficiency with Equity : A Pragmatic Approach’. In: I. Kaul et al. (eds.). Providing Global Public

Goods: Managing Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press: 280-303.Borlaug, Norman E., 2001. Ending World Hunger: The Promise ofBiotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry. In: Transactions ofFrankenfoods and Golden Rice: The Risks, Rewards, and Realities of Genetically ModifiedFoods, Volume 89: 6-12.Boyce, J., 2003, Natural Assets: democratizing environmentalownership, Island Press.Bromley, D., Paavola, L. (Eds.), 2002, Economics, Ethics, andEnvironmental Policy, London: BlackwellBuck, Susan J., 1998. The Global Commons: An Introduction. London, UK:Earthscan, CESCCR.Cochran, M., 1999. Normative Theory in International Relations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Collet, S., 2002. Appropriation of marine resources: from managementto an ethical approach to fisheries governance. Social Science Information41/4: 531-553.Dewey, J. The Public and its Problems.Dower, Nigel, 1998. World Ethics, The New Agenda, Edinburgh Studiesin World Ethics, Edinburgh University Press, Duncan, A., 2002. Agricultural Research, Globalization and Global Public Goods,Rural Forum. Oxford Policy Management.Echols, Marsha A. 2001. Food Safety and the WTO. The Interplay of Culture, Scienceand Technology, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Ferroni, M., and A. Mody (eds.), 2002. International Public Goods. Boston:Kluwer.

41

Food Ethics Council, Agri-Food Research. Participation and thePublic Good, 2004, www.foodethicscouncil.orgFriedheim, R.L. 1993. Negotiating the new Ocean Regime. Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.Frost, M., 1996. Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory. CambridgeUniversity PressGeuss, R., 2001. Public Goods, Private Good.. Princeton University Press.Glantz, M., 2003. Guidelines for establishing audits of agricultural-environmentalhotspots. Roma: FAO.Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS)Goldsmith E. and J. Mander, 2001. The case against the global economy and for aturn towards localization, London: Earthscan.Habermas, J., 1996. Die Einbeziehung des Anderen, Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp.Held, D., 1996. Models of Democracy, London: Polity Press.Hunter, D., J. Salzman, D. Zaelke, 1998. International Environmental Law andPolicy. New York: New York Foundation Press.Kaufmann, J. and N. Schrijver, 1990. Changing Global Needs. Expanding Rolesfor the United Nations System. Hannover, New Hampshire: Academic Council.Kaul, I., Grunberg, I., and M. Stern (eds.), 1999. Global PublicGoods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, Oxford, OxfordUniversity Pres.Kaul, Inge, Pedro Conceição, Katell Le Goulven, Ronald U. Mendoza(Eds.), 2003. Providing Global Goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Keane, J., 2003. Global civil Society? Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Keulartz, J., Korthals, M., M. Schermer & T. Swierstra, 2004.‘Ethics in a Technological Culture. A Programmatic Proposal for aPragmatist Approach’. Science, Technology and Human Values 29/1: 3-30.Keulartz, J., M. Korthals, M. Schermer and T. Swierstra, 2002.Pragmatist Ethics for a Technological Culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Korthals, M., 2004. Before Dinner. Philosophy and Ethics of Food,Springer.Kunast, R., 2001. Think global, eat local, Franfurter Allgemeine,March. Mies, M. and V. Bennholdt, 2001. Defending, Reclaiming andReinventing the Commons. Canadian Journal of Development Studies XXII, p.998-1023.Millennium ecosystem Assessment, Volume 2: Scenarios Assessment,Chapter 8.Nordhaus, W., 1999. Global Public Goods and the Problem of GlobalWarning. Lecture, Toulouse France.Nussbaum, M., 1998. The Good as Discipline, the Good as Freedom, in:David Crocker, Toby Linden, Ethics of Consumption. Oxford: Rowman.Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons.

42

Oxford Policy Management, 2003. Meeting the 21st century challenges.International Architecture in the areas of Food, Agriculture,Natural resources and environment.Petit, Michel, Fowler, Cary, Collins, Wanda, Correa, Carlos, Thornström, Carl-Gustaf, Why Governments Can’t Make Policy. The Caseof Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena, CIP. PeruPretty, J., 2002 Agri-Culture, Reconnecting People, Land and Nature,London: EarthscanPretty. J. , 2003. Social capital and connectedness: Issues andimplications for agriculture, rural development and natural resourcemanagement in ACP countries.Rabbinge, R., 2004, Realising the promise and potential of Africanagriculture, in: WUR, Ridding the world of hunger, Wageningen Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge MA: Harvard UniversityPress.Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. Ecology and Food Productionin West Africa. London: Unwin Hyman.Sagasti, F., K. Bezanson, 2001. Financing and Providing Global Public Goods.Insitute of development Studies. Sussex (Ministry for ForeignAffairs, Sweden)Sen, A., 2000. Development as Freedom. New York: KnopfSinger, P., 2002. One World.The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture, FAO.Thompson, P., 2003. Agricultural Intensification: An Introduction tothe ethical issues. Man.Thomson, A., J. Kydd, 2002. Global Public Goods in Food,Agriculture, Forest, Fisheries and the Related Natural Resource BaseImperial College.Vaubel, R., The constitutional reform of the European Union, European Economic Review, Volume 41, Issues 3-5, April 1997, Pages 443-450 WCPA, 2001. Transboundary Protected Ares for Peace and Co-Operation.Woods, N., 2001. Holding International Institutions to account,Ethics and International Affairs, 17.3.

43

44