| While it's true that the majority of decisions made during global environmental treaty-making efforts are made by consensus, there is really very little consensus building that takes place. The current process lacks a full range of stakeholding interests, is fraught with positional bargaining, and the process and outcomes often fail to achieve the common good. In this thesis, I propose the use of new consensus building techniques as a possible means for improving the current process, so that the process might better achieve the common good. The research I conducted attempts to shed some light on whether or not there is some promise in trying to get the secretariats, or "the organizational glue that holds the actors and parts of a treaty system together" (Sandford 1996, 17), to play a stronger consensus building role. By interviewing relevant stakeholders -- the defenders of the common good -- from both the Ozone and Desertification regimes, I found that those participating in the process felt that the overall aim of global environmental agreements was to protect the common good. The majority of those interviewed felt that State actors were most responsible for protecting the common good and just because decisions were currently being made at consensus did not guarantee a better result. Finally, secretariats are influential actors and to my mind, need to be empowered to act as skilled mediators during these complex negotiations. If the Parties can agree that there is a better way to negotiate global environmental treaties, and support the idea that secretariats ought to lead consensus building efforts, then I believe both the policies as well as the process itself have a better chance at achieving the common good. |
