Passing the buck: Getting to the bottom of environmental problem shifting

From climate change to albatrosses, and from whales to wetlands, there are over 1000 multilateral environmental agreements, each trying to protect its own self-contained slice of the environment. But if every country complied with all the treaties that exist in the world, would we actually end up in a better place? This is the overarching question being investigated by Rak Kim, assistant professor at Utrecht University’s Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development. “I have my doubts,” he says.

Environmental problem shifting is a phenomenon that occurs when we try to solve one environmental problem, but through this action another emerges elsewhere. This new problem may be even more serious than the original. It could become chronic, transform into a completely different type of problem, appear at different geographical locations, or be postponed to some point in the future.

Problem shifting is different from other types of problem transformation that occur through natural processes. Due to climate change, the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and acidifies, with huge knock-on effects on ecosystems and livelihoods. “That's not what we are trying to understand. What we are interested in is problem shifting that occurs due to a certain policy or action,” explains Kim, an interdisciplinary social scientist at the intersection of international environmental governance and law.

Well-known examples

There are a few well-known examples. One is biofuel policy. Because of the incentives given by the UN Climate Change Convention to achieve carbon neutrality, some countries have cut down forests and planted biofuel crops like palm oil. Although these crops remove carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, they also result in biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and have negative consequences for the livelihoods of local communities.

Another example can be seen through policy intended to halt ozone destruction. When it came into effect, the Montreal Protocol incentivized states to make the switch from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting chemicals to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). But HFCs are incredibly potent greenhouse gases; their global warming potential is thousands of times that of carbon dioxide. The problem of ozone layer destruction was shifted to that of climate change, until the Montreal Protocol was later updated.

Treaties are often self-interest driven, meaning they compete against each other to achieve their own narrowly-defined goals. In attempts to be seen as legitimate, relevant or important, they don't have a big incentive to put effort into achieving the aims of other treaties

The politics of problem shifting

Kim and his team focus on the politics between treaties. “Treaties are often self-interest driven, meaning they compete against each other to achieve their own narrowly-defined goals. In attempts to be seen as legitimate, relevant or important, they don't have a big incentive to put effort into achieving the aims of other treaties”. 

This is the big picture in which everything is unfolding. “Why would the Montreal Protocol  start phasing out HFCs—which although detrimental to climate change is totally acceptable according to its own goals—when that is beyond its mandate?” 

The issue, explains Kim, is that we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture when we prioritize certain problems over others. “Whatever action we take there is always some sort of trade-off or problem shifting.” He uses the temperature target of the Paris Agreement as an example. “So much emphasis is on not going beyond 1.5-2C—a very particular parameter of the climate system as a whole—that we may end up legitimizing controversial temperature-controlling geoengineering techniques. This would buy us some time, but at the cost of ecosystems and human beings in other parts of the world”. Only once we understand the broader consequences of our actions, he argues, can we really achieve the ultimate goal of sustainability.

I think we are probably too late to avoid most imminent tipping points, but that doesn’t mean all we can do is sit and wait. We should focus on governing globally networked environmental risks and manage, to the best of our ability, how tipping cascades unfold.

Assigning responsibility

So whose responsibility is problem shifting—the decision-making body of the treaty, its COP—or member states? “This is actually a question we are trying to address. COPs would say that it is up to states whether or not they implement a treaty, but still, these treaties do provide incentives”.

The project aims to come up with solutions for how the entire treaty system network could be better coordinated. “The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is responsible for coordinating all UN environmental treaties,” explains Kim. He also hopes to involve the bureaucratic arms of the treaties—the treaty secretariats. “They can be difficult to reach. So much depends on existing networks, but we are working hard to build these relationships”.

With doubts surrounding the effectiveness of our complex environmental treaty ecosystem, is Kim hopeful for the future of Earth? “I think we are probably too late to avoid most imminent tipping points,” he reflects. “But that doesn’t mean all we can do is sit and wait. We should focus on governing globally networked environmental risks and manage, to the best of our ability, how tipping cascades unfold.” What is also important, he says, is that such planetary governance is done in a just manner. “We need to make sure that it's not the rich and powerful who come out even better off, and instead make this an opportunity to create a more just and equal world”.