Globalization’s limits to the environmental state? Integrating telecoupling into global environmental governance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Telecoupling and environmental sustainability.

Source: Adapted from Challies et al. (2014, p. 35), building on Kissinger and Rees (2010, p. 2618); Munroe et al. (2014, p. 18); Liu et al. (2013, pp. 2–3); Eakin et al. (2014, p. 147).

Table 1. Environmental implications of the interregional soy trade.

Germany	Brazil	Transregional/global
Ammonia emissions to air	Soil erosion and nutrient depletion	Biodiversity loss and deforestation
Nitrogen runoff to water	Biodiversity loss	CO2 emissions from production and transportation
Over-nitrification increases susceptibility of crops to pests and environmental stresses	Pesticide contamination of soil and waterways	Genetic risk
Impairment of buffer, storage and filtering capacities of soils	Nutrient runoff to waterways
Agrobiodiversity loss	Groundwater depletion
Bioaccumulation of pharmaceuticals

Note: Own compilation based on Lanje (2005), Grenz et al. (2007), Kessler et al. (2007) and Velten (2009).

Table 2. Linking potential policy responses to telecoupled environmental interrelations.

Identified policy responses	Interregional pollution	Interregional impacts of local ecological change	Interregional extension of ecological footprints	Policy-driven systemic displacement of activities or impacts among regions
Military power/economic land grab	+		+
Bilateral and multilateral conventions	+		+	+
Voluntary or obligatory reporting, labeling, and certification	+		+
Sustainable trade agreements			+
Technology and knowledge transfer	+	+	+
International and bilateral financial support	+	+
Compensation payments		+
Economic instruments, environmental taxes		+	+	+
Full cost accounting	+	+	+	+
Collaborative and network governance	+	+	+	+

Note: Adopted with modification from Kissinger et al. (2011).

Challies, E., Newig, J., and Lenschow, A., 2014. What role for social–ecological systems research in governing global teleconnections?. Global Environmental Change, 27, 32–40. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.015

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kissinger, M. and Rees, W.E., 2010. An interregional ecological approach for modelling sustainability in a globalizing world: reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions. Ecological Modelling, 221 (21), 2615–2623. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.07.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Munroe, D.K., et al., 2014. Using economic geography to reinvigorate land-change science. Geoforum, 52, 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, J., et al., 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecology and Society, 18 (2). doi:10.5751/ES-05873-180226

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eakin, H., et al., 2014. Significance of telecoupling for exploration of land-use change. In: K.C. Seto and A. Reenberg, eds. Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Cambridge: MIT Press, 141–163.

 Google Scholar

Lanje, K., 2005. Perspektiven für einen nachhaltigen Stoffstrom Soja zwischen Brasilien und Deutschland. Loccumer Protokolle 33/03. Rehburg-Loccum: Evangelische Akademie Loccum.

 Google Scholar

Grenz, J., et al., 2007. Umweltwirkungen der globalen Sojawirtschaft. Ressourcen- und Wertströme in Argentinien, Brasilien und Deutschland. Gaia, 16 (3), 208–214.

 Google Scholar

Kessler, J., et al., 2007. Biodiversity and socioeconomic impacts of selected agro-commodity production systems. The Journal of Environment & Development, 16 (2), 131–160. doi:10.1177/1070496507302516

 Google Scholar

Velten, S., 2009. Perspektiven für die Nachhaltigkeit des Sojaanbaus im Nordwesten von Rio Grande do Sul, Brasilien. Eine Akteursnetzwerkanalyse. Lüneburg: Diplomarbeit, Leuphana University Lüneburg.

 Google Scholar

Kissinger, M., Rees, W.E., and Timmer, V., 2011. Interregional sustainability: governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world. Environmental Science & Policy, 14 (8), 965–976. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar