Global green alignment
A more just and effective environmental governance system requires shared responsibility, patient institution-building and the creation of real capacity
Global environmental governance is entering a period of institutional stress. Climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and ecological degradation are no longer separate technical issues. They are linked to development, finance, trade, technology, energy security and the basic capacity of states to protect people’s livelihoods. Therefore, the question facing the international community is no longer whether environmental governance matters, but whether the existing system can still generate sufficient authority, resources and trust to deal with problems that are growing more complex.
The current system has important achievements to its credit. The United Nations has provided the central platform for international environmental cooperation. The 1972 Stockholm Conference, the Rio Earth Summit, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2015 Paris Agreement have gradually built a broad institutional architecture. International organizations, governments, scientific communities, civil society groups and businesses have all become part of this governance process.
Yet, this system has its limitations, which are becoming increasingly visible. Environmental governance remains fragmented across institutions, agreements and issue areas. The gap between developed and developing countries persists over responsibility, finance, technology and the pace of transition. In some cases, environmental rules are being reshaped by unilateral pressure, trade protection and bloc politics. Measures introduced in the name of the green transition have become new barriers for developing countries. As a result, global environmental governance faces not only a capacity deficit, but also a trust deficit.
This is the broader context, in which China’s Global Governance Initiative should be understood. The initiative is not simply another diplomatic statement. It addresses a structural problem: the global governance system needs reform, but reform cannot be achieved by abandoning multilateralism, weakening the UN or allowing a small number of states to monopolize rulemaking. Environmental governance is where this reform is needed most urgently, because ecological risks cross borders while the costs of adjustment are distributed unevenly.
The following principles are important when the reform of the global environmental governance system is undertaken.
The first principle is sovereign equality. In environmental governance, sovereign equality means that all countries, regardless of size, wealth or power, should have the right to participate in agenda-setting, rulemaking and implementation. This is especially important for the Global South. Many developing countries face the sharpest climate and ecological pressures, but they often have limited influence over the rules that shape finance, technology access, industrial upgrading and transition pathways. A fairer system must give these countries stronger representation and a more meaningful voice.
The second principle is the rule of law in international relations. Environmental commitments lose force when rules are applied selectively or when powerful states treat international agreements as instruments of convenience. A more effective environmental governance system requires rules that are negotiated broadly, applied equally and respected consistently. This is also a condition for protecting developing countries from arbitrary barriers and double standards in the name of environmental protection.
The third principle is multilateralism. Environmental problems cannot be solved through exclusive circles or selective rule-making. The UN remains the most legitimate platform for coordinating global action, and the authority of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement and other multilateral environmental agreements should be maintained. Multilateralism does not mean a slow or empty process. Properly designed, it allows different interests to be coordinated, responsibilities to be clarified and common expectations to be stabilized.
The fourth principle is a people-centered approach. Environmental governance should ultimately return to the basic needs of human survival and development. Climate adaptation, clean air, safe water, food security and protection from extreme weather are not abstract diplomatic concerns. They are directly connected with people’s well-being, welfare and dignity. This approach prevents environmental governance from getting detached from development. A transition that ignores employment, affordability and social resilience will not be sustainable.
The fifth principle is practical effectiveness. The credibility of global environmental governance depends on implementation. The international community does not lack declarations. It lacks adequate finance, accessible technology, capacity-building mechanisms and platforms that can turn commitments into results. Developed countries should honor their responsibilities on funding and technology transfer, while developing countries should strengthen cooperation, improve domestic capacity and contribute within their means. Effectiveness requires both responsibility and partnership.
Institutional alignment can proceed at several levels. At the global level, the Global Governance Initiative can be connected with reform efforts around the UN and the Pact for the Future. Environmental governance should be linked more closely with international financial reform, so that climate risks, green investment and sustainable development are treated as core issues rather than peripheral concerns. Multilateral development banks should provide more green credit and more predictable support for developing countries.
At the regional level, China’s cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Central Asia, Arab countries and Africa can help link global environmental principles with concrete regional practices. These mechanisms already provide channels for policy dialogue, technical cooperation and capacity building. Their future value lies in moving beyond project-based exchanges toward deeper coordination on green standards, environmental regulation, climate adaptation and clean energy development.
The Green Belt and Road Initiative has a particular role to play. Through climate cooperation agreements, low-carbon assistance projects, training programs and the Belt and Road Initiative International Green Development Coalition, China has helped expand practical green cooperation with partner countries. As this cooperation deepens, it can promote soft connectivity in environmental rules, green finance and technical standards. This gives developing countries more options for transition and creates a testing ground for more inclusive environmental governance.
China’s contribution, therefore, lies in combining ideas, institutions and capacity. It supports a more representative governance order, defends the central role of multilateral frameworks and provides practical cooperation through green development. This does not mean that difficulties will disappear. Differences over responsibility, finance, technology and standards will remain. External pressure and discursive competition will also continue. The task is to turn broad principles into stable mechanisms and visible outcomes.
A more just and effective environmental governance system cannot be built through exclusion or pressure. It requires shared responsibility, patient institution-building and the creation of real capacity. By promoting sovereign equality, multilateralism, international rule of law, a people-centered approach and practical results, China can help provide new momentum for global environmental governance and contribute to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.
Yu Hongyuan is a professor at the School of Political Science & International Relations at Tongji University. Huang Xia is the director of the International Mining Policy Division, Development and Research Center at the China Geological Survey.
The authors contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.
