Enhancing the Global Response to Earth System Risks: A Proposal for an Earth System Crisis Response Mechanism

The world is facing a triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. Climate change continues to pose an existential threat to humanity, with the latest science estimating that global warming projections remain well above the Paris Agreement’s temperature guardrail. Pollution is crippling air and water quality—while also worsening climate change—and biodiversity loss has the potential to collapse our food and water supply chains, putting further pressure on some of the most vulnerable countries to manage the ever-growing and interlinked risks of poverty, hunger, and harm to human health. With scientific evidence that seven of the nine Planetary Boundaries have been crossed, we are now at risk of crossing catastrophic, potentially irreversible Earth system “tipping points,” posing major threats to the Earth system and further exacerbating harm to vulnerable communities and nature.

With this in mind, the Climate Governance Commission (CGC), supported by the Earth system governance coalition Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA), seeks to support global governance reform to implement an equitable and effective “whole-of-system” approach to addressing Earth system risks. A “whole-of-system” approach entails recognizing the holistic and interconnectedness of these crises, including with key socio-economic drivers like poverty and inequality, to ensure we can adequately and fairly govern the response to these issues.

The Problem – Fragmented Global Governance in Response to Interlinked Polycentric Crises

The need for a whole-of-system planetary approach stems from a history of a fragmented multilateral system that lacks a coordinated and ambitious response at the speed and scale required to effectively address Earth system risks. For example, climate change is currently treated as a siloed issue, with major areas of concern addressed primarily at annual climate Conference of the Parties (COPs) Given the interdependencies between climate change and other Earth system risks, there is insufficient cooperation between different aspects of the multilateral system and its regional and domestic counterparts, as well as concerns about the fairness and inclusivity of these conferences, given the profound and inequitable implications of climate harm for vulnerable populations everywhere.  This siloed approach to handling the climate crisis, rather than treating it as an interlinked and existential threat to human and planetary wellbeing, illustrates how unequipped current governance structures are to handle the all-encompassing nature of the Earth system. Consequently, global governance at present lacks the preparation, and resilience – with attention to fairness – necessary to address the current and future global shocks caused by Earth system risks (e.g. extreme weather events, potential collapse of food supply chains, and major economic crises).

The Proposal – An Earth System Risk Coordination Response Mechanism

Together, the CGC and MEGA have identified several critical global governance enhancement proposals that can help overcome fragmentation while also advancing nature and humanity toward a fair and holistic model of global governance. A key near-term proposal is the establishment of an Earth system risk response coordination mechanism. In his Our Common Agenda report, UN Secretary-General António Guterres recognized the need for stronger emergency response mechanisms to defragment and better coordinate the multilateral approach to complex global shocks. Guterres proposed the establishment of “emergency platforms” which would coordinate across the multilateral sector to accelerate and improve the response to global shocks. Building on this proposal, an Earth system response mechanism could bring together relevant national and international authorities, scientists, financing bodies, private-sector members, civil society, and other appropriate stakeholders to collectively coordinate responses to accelerating Earth system risks. 

The mechanism could connect with and leverage existing mechanisms and institutions to serve as a central coordination platform, harmonizing and significantly accelerating action across the international system. For example, representatives from the secretariats of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), as well as relevant UN bodies like UNEP and UNDP, could come together with representatives from international financial institutions, civil society, the private sector and other vulnerable groups to advance the implementation of key goals like a just transition away from fossil fuels. Coordination of this kind would support links between actors working to reduce pollution and those supporting the just transition (e.g., highlighting the linkages between reducing methane emissions and the agricultural, air quality, and health benefits), build on existing biodiversity protection efforts that also reduce emissions (e.g., the prevention of deforestation) and ensure local and indigenous voices are represented and integrated. 

An Earth system risk response coordination mechanism can also be linked to other efforts to develop enhanced Earth system risk monitoring units, such as the CGC’s proposal to establish an enhanced Earth system risk monitoring and reporting facility and the proposal of the Global Tipping Points Report to establish Tipping Element Monitoring and Response Facilities (TEMRFs), which would share information and coordinate action on major tipping points in a regionally grounded but globally networked manner. The mechanism could therefore provide the forum through which the “globally networked” aspect of the latter proposal could be facilitated. This would, in turn, ensure that the mechanism can help advance a global response to these Earth system risks informed by the best available science. Further, the mechanism can act as a hub for an Earth system “policy clearinghouse,” which would identify, collate, and disseminate best practices across efforts to address Earth system risks and provide guidance on scaling up and applying these successful policies to different local, national, and regional contexts. This would build on existing efforts like the “Climate Change Laws of the World” initiative and the “NDC Align Tool,” established by the Grantham Research Institute, while scaling them up and expanding them to encompass the full range of Earth system risks.

Support for An Earth System Risk Coordination Response Mechanism

Interest in an Earth system risk response coordination mechanism is gaining traction. Brazil has proposed the establishment of a Climate Council to help drive forward the implementation of agreed outcomes from the climate COP process and to complement the UNFCCC’s norm-building efforts. Separately, leading climate policy expert Simon Sharpe has proposed that the Council “serve as a forum for strategic discussion among countries regarding the most significant challenges faced in low carbon transitions and adaptation, identifying where international cooperation is most needed, and giving a mandate and legitimacy to the institutions best placed to facilitate it, whether they are already existing or newly created.” Additionally, the emphasis of COP30 on the implementation of already agreed climate initiatives highlights States’ renewed interest in finding ways to pool resources and work together to turn ambitions into reality. The CGC and MEGA’s proposal for an Earth system risk response coordination mechanism builds on the climate focus of these proposals and expand it to encompass the necessary range of Earth system risks, including pollution, biodiversity loss, tipping points, Planetary Boundaries, and the interlinks between these risks and poverty and inequality. 

Together with its key partners, MEGA and the CGC are building collaborations with interested UN Member States and key stakeholders to explore the value and design of an Earth system coordination response mechanism. This will include convening high-level dialogues and expert roundtables to better understand local, regional, and national perspectives, identify common priorities, and explore the potential design of a mechanism as a strong action-coordination tool. A priority will be to shape an approach that reflects diverse needs and concerns—and a design that does not supersede national sovereignty, but rather strengthens the international system’s ability to respond more rapidly, fairly, and coherently to complex global shocks. MEGA and the CGC plan to scale up their already accelerating efforts to drive forward support for the mechanism and invite all interested parties to support these efforts.

Mondial is published by the Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) and World Federalist Movement — Canada (WFM-Canada), non-profit, non-partisan, and non-governmental Member Organizations of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Government Policy (WFM-IGP). Mondial seeks to provide a forum for diverse voices and opinions on topics related to democratic world federation. The views expressed by contributing authors herein do not necessarily reflect the organizational positions of CGS or WFM-Canada, or those of the Masthead membership.