Investigate international agreements and stakeholders responding to global sustainability challenges: the UN framework, UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, the SDGs, COP conferences, and the roles of NGOs, multinational corporations and individuals

Note: This page is part of the HSC Geography 11-12 (2022) syllabus content, first examined in HSC 2025. The legacy 2009 syllabus content is preserved as reference for older revision material in the sibling module folders.

What this dot point is asking

The Global sustainability focus area asks you to evaluate how the international system responds to global sustainability challenges and who the relevant stakeholders are at each scale. You need to know the architecture (UN, UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, SDGs), the major moments (Stockholm 1972, Rio 1992, Paris 2015, Glasgow 2021), and the strengths and limits of the framework. Apply the geographical concepts of scale and interconnection, and reach a calibrated judgement on effectiveness rather than a generic endorsement.

The answer

International responses to global sustainability challenges operate through a layered system of treaties, conferences, agencies, NGOs, corporations and individuals. No single body has enforcement power on sovereign states; the system relies on negotiation, reporting and peer pressure.

The United Nations framework

The United Nations (UN), founded in 1945, is the principal forum for international cooperation. Relevant UN bodies for sustainability include:

• UN General Assembly. All member states; one country, one vote; resolutions are not binding but carry political weight.
• UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Established in 1972 after the Stockholm Conference; coordinates environmental work.
• UN Development Programme (UNDP). Produces the Human Development Report and HDI; coordinates development work.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Established 1988 by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization; assesses the science of climate change for policymakers. Has released six Assessment Reports (most recently AR6, 2021-2023).
• World Health Organization (WHO). Coordinates health, including the climate-health interface.
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Food security and agriculture.

Key conferences and agreements

• Stockholm Conference (1972). First major UN conference on the human environment. Led to UNEP and the UN Environment Day.
• Brundtland Report (1987). Our Common Future, by the World Commission on Environment and Development chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. Provided the most widely cited definition of sustainable development: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Rio Earth Summit (1992). UN Conference on Environment and Development. Produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and Agenda 21.
• Kyoto Protocol (1997, in force 2005). First legally binding emissions-reduction agreement for developed-country parties to the UNFCCC. Limited in scope: did not bind major emerging emitters; the US never ratified; expired with the second commitment period ending in 2020.
• Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, 2000-2015). Eight goals on poverty, education, gender equality, health, environment and partnerships. Made significant progress on extreme poverty and child mortality; missed some targets.
• Paris Agreement (COP 21, December 2015). Adopted under the UNFCCC. Universal commitment to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees. Each party submits Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) every five years, with a ratchet mechanism (each NDC should represent a progression). In force from November 2016.
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, 2015). 17 goals, 169 targets, universal scope (apply to all countries), 2030 deadline. Successor to the MDGs.
• COP 26 Glasgow (November 2021). UNFCCC Conference of the Parties. Adopted the Glasgow Climate Pact; produced commitments on coal (phase down language), methane (the Global Methane Pledge), forests (Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use), and climate finance.
• Subsequent COPs. COP 27 Sharm el-Sheikh (2022) established the Loss and Damage Fund. COP 28 Dubai (2023) included the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement. Each COP adjusts the rule book and trajectory.

Stakeholders at different scales

International / state level

UN member states negotiate and ratify treaties. The scale of state is the central unit of formal international agreements: only states can sign treaties.

National level

Governments translate international commitments into domestic law, regulation and budget. NDCs are submitted by national governments. National policy choices (carbon pricing, renewable energy targets, aid budgets) shape whether commitments are met.

Sub-national (regional, state, city) level

Sub-national governments increasingly act independently. The C40 Cities climate leadership group coordinates major cities. Australian state governments have varying climate targets and policies. Cities are responsible for an outsized share of emissions and have direct authority over transport, buildings and waste.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Oxfam, Amnesty International, Climate Action Network and many others conduct research, advocacy, on-ground programs and litigation. NGOs often participate in COPs as observers and provide accountability monitoring.

Multinational corporations (MNCs)

Companies are both contributors to and potential solvers of sustainability challenges. Corporate commitments include the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), and sector-specific initiatives. Critiques include greenwashing concerns and the gap between long-dated net-zero pledges and short-term capital allocation.

Individuals

Consumers, voters, investors and litigants. Climate litigation has expanded substantially (Urgenda v Netherlands, Sharma v Minister for the Environment in Australia, Held v Montana in the US). Personal behaviour (diet, transport, energy use) matters in aggregate but is small relative to systemic decisions.

Critiques of the framework

Strong evaluations name specific limits:

• Voluntary commitments. Paris Agreement NDCs are not legally enforceable in their substance; only the procedural obligations (submitting an NDC) are binding.
• Insufficient ambition. Current NDCs collectively put the world on a warming trajectory above the 1.5 degree target.
• Implementation gap. Many countries are not on track to meet even their existing pledges.
• Equity tensions. Developed countries have higher historical responsibility; developing countries face larger per-capita impact and lower adaptive capacity. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is contested in practice.
• Slowness of consensus negotiation. UN climate negotiations operate by consensus; this can produce lowest-common-denominator outcomes.
• Climate finance shortfall. Developed countries pledged climate finance to developing countries, with the target raised in subsequent agreements. Delivery has lagged commitments.

These critiques do not invalidate the framework; they identify where it needs to be strengthened.

Examples in context

Example 1. The COP 26 Glasgow Climate Pact (November 2021). COP 26 was hosted in Glasgow, Scotland, the first COP after the COVID-delayed pause. Outcomes included: the Glasgow Climate Pact (which for the first time in a COP decision text called on parties to phase down unabated coal power, after a late change from phase out to phase down at India's request); the Global Methane Pledge (with over 100 countries committing to cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030 from 2020 levels); and the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use. A strong response uses Glasgow to illustrate: how COPs incrementally extend the rule book; the role of national negotiating positions in shaping text; and the gap between announcements and implementation.

Example 2. The Sharma v Minister for the Environment case (Australia). In 2021 the Federal Court of Australia found that the federal environment minister had a duty of care to protect young people from climate harm when approving coal projects. On appeal in 2022, the Full Federal Court overturned the finding of a duty of care, but the case remained influential as part of a global wave of climate litigation. It illustrates the individual and NGO scale of stakeholder action: the case was brought by eight teenagers via a litigation guardian, supported by Equity Generation Lawyers. A strong response uses this to show how the international agreement framework is supplemented by domestic litigation and how individuals at one scale can shape state-level decisions.

Try this

Q1. Identify the parent treaty and the 2015 implementing agreement that form the core of the international climate framework, and name one quantitative target from the implementing agreement. [4 marks]

• Cue. Parent: UNFCCC, 1992. Implementing agreement: Paris Agreement, 2015. Target: limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, with efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees.

Q2. Analyse the roles of two non-state stakeholders (NGOs, multinational corporations, or individuals) in responding to global sustainability challenges. [6 marks]

• Cue. Pick two. NGOs: research, advocacy, on-ground programs, litigation, COP observer status. MNCs: emissions reduction, supply-chain influence, capital allocation; greenwashing risk. Individuals: voters, consumers, litigants, investors. Use specific examples (WWF, Greenpeace, named corporate target, Sharma v Minister for the Environment).

Q3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the international agreement framework in responding to a named global sustainability challenge. [8 marks]

• Cue. Pick climate change, biodiversity loss, or development inequality. Strengths: universal participation, shared language, transparency, finance mobilisation. Limits: voluntary, ambition gap, implementation gap, slow consensus, finance shortfall. Connect to scale (international, national, sub-national, individual). Reach a calibrated judgement; do not pretend the framework is either sufficient or useless.