A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

Therefore the outcomes document must fully reflect this new and realistic understanding
of our predicament.

It must announce to the global community that a radical shift in behaviours and values is
now demanded of us.

It should also emphasis that such a change may actually represent an improvement in
the real and perceived quality of life for many, if not all, as opposed to the false metrics
we have been chasing haplessly for so long which have been a primary cause of the
predicament we now face.

Therefore the outcomes document must make a powerful and unequivocal statement
that:

1 Humanity is a part of the biosphere and is totally dependent upon it for life, and
for the maintenance and continuation of life, and is likely to remain so for the
eternal future.

2 That dependency applies to each of us as individuals, and as collectives in all
forms.

3 The biosphere is in a state of deep crisis that poses a serious threat to the future
well being of all of us, permanently, and which jeopardises the prospects of all
future generations.

4 This crisis is already impacting with serious adverse consequences on the lives
of billions of people.

5 Therefore we must recognise that the well-being of the biosphere is the primary
determinant in our welfare and our future well-being.

6 So henceforth its integrity and maintenance must take precedence in all human
decision making at every level, from the individual to the global community.

7 Accordingly ecological integrity must now be prioritised before economics in all
decision making.

8 Perpetual growth on a finite planet is an impossible and most dangerous myth
which must be abandoned instantly if we wish to avert the calamity for which it
has predestined us.

9 Hence a rapid transition from a consumer-based to a conserver-based society is
an absolute prerequisite for a benign outcome, and must now become the top
priority in governance at all levels.

51

To give practical expression to these aims, the Conference should resolve to implement
as a matter of ultimate priority either

• a United Nations Declaration of Ecological Integrity; or

• a framework convention on ecological integrity which would subsume all
existing environmental, economic and other UN treaties and conventions

to give effect to the three fundamental principles outlined in this paper at every level of
governance and decision making, globally. This should incorporate the secondary
values and transitional arrangements set out above.

It is critical that such a declaration or convention should be signed and ratified as a
matter of the utmost urgency in order to signal to society at large that this change is
unavoidably necessary and must happen with the utmost speed.

To avoid the possibility of delay it should first be negotiated and ratified on the basis of
the principles alone, which would seem common to all of humanity and indisputable to
any reasonable person, in order to decouple it from negotiation of the delivery
mechanisms which, on the basis of experience, are likely to be protracted and delayed
by narcissistic behaviour on the part of member states.

The statement must include an absolute commitment to provide effective mechanisms
to address equity issues, not merely so that new ones do not develop under the new
framework, but so that existing ones are ameliorated. With careful design this should be
possible within the mechanisms proposed.

It should also recognise the critical importance of accelerating our scientific
understanding of ecological integrity and make funding available on a major scale to
make this happen.

Particular support should be given to refining the techniques for assessing the health
and integrity of ecosystems, especially concerning the critical threshold at which
ecosystem decline commences.

Institutional arrangements must be established to pool this work internationally, with the
objective of establishing a single yet comprehensive set of methodological tools and
standards which must be applied universally and consistently.

52

To conventional thinking, such a proposal may appear ambitious, possibly unrealistic,
perhaps utopian.

What is indisputable, however, is that the critical threshold of large scale ecological
collapse exists: to remain viable as a species, humanity must remain on the safe side of
that line, or perish.

However inconvenient the changes this demands of us may be perceived to be, what is
ultimately more unrealistic is to persist a moment longer in the idea that our existing
models of governance and environmental regulation can possibly deliver any other
outcome than the ultimate calamity impending. Our present trajectory is very directly for
self-destruction, and that outcome is intrinsic in the doctrinaire and outdated beliefs of
the existing paradigm.

Neither is it realistic to posit that we shall desist as a result of choices made voluntarily
by individuals and corporations. There is simply no evidence for this; rather, a massive
body to the contrary.

Therefore that line must be drawn. It must be drawn consciously; and implemented via
foolproof mechanisms that ensure it will never be violated. We must either develop
absolutely robust governance and policy instruments which prevent us from crossing
that threshold, and very quickly; or face widespread, perhaps general, collapse and
human misery on an unprecedented scale.

That is our present destiny. To deny that realisation is the most unrealistic position of all.

If the mechanism proposed here is not the means, then it is incumbent on every one of
us to find a better one, and quickly enough for it to be agreed and set in motion at
Rio+20.

This document is a first draft written hurriedly over the last few days which would not normally
be considered fit for submission or publication, and is only submitted in view of the imperative
of the situation. Profuse apologies are proffered to all recipients for all imperfections accordingly.

The Righting Institute
01 November 2011

53