In the framework of building the United Green Nations as an alliance of green countries, the less scale and more manageable associational agreements, initiatives and innovations (AAIIs) are possible. These AAIIs, including the newest bilateral, trilateral and multilateral environmental coalitions (alliances, associations, etc.), should be based in the first approximation on the theory and practices of self-enforcing International Environmental Agreements, IEAs (e.g., Carraro, 1999), up to IEAs between asymmetric nations.

      Using national footprint data (Ewing et al., 2010), it is reasonable first of all to divide all countries according to their ecological status into two large groups: Great Green Group (GGG) and Great Brown Group (GBG). By definition, the GGG should include eco-surplus and eco-neutral countries (nations). Currently, this group can include about 50-55 countries from around the world (Ewing et al., 2010). In turn, countries with eco-deficit status, that is countries that have more or less pronounced deficit of the biological capacity, should be included into the more numerous (at the current moment) GBG.

      In particular, the GGG can include the following alliances (groups).

      1. Eco-suplus Latin American countries that can be grouped into the Green MERCOSUR.

      2. Similarly, more numerous eco-surplus African countries that can be grouped into the Green African Union.

      3. Four eco-surplus countries with the powerful national economies, namely Australia, Brazil, Canada and Russia, can form the Green ABCR Group (our terms in all the foregoing cases), and some others.

      On the background of alliances homogeneous on footprint undershoot, there are serious problems in interpretation of heterogeneous alliances like the BRIC Group (or G8, G20, etc.). Unfortunately, developing China and India are countries with ever-growing eco-deficit (Global Footprint Network Selected Reports). Moreover, China and India, in contrast to Brazil and Russia, are large net buyers of overseas farmlands (Robertson & Pinstrup-Andersen, 2010). It means that the generally recognized BRIC Group has the deep environment based contradictions in addition to the available political, economical, mental and other problems.

      BRICS Group is also heterogeneous on footprint undershoot, because South Africa is eco-deficit and land-buying country (Robertson & Pinstrup-Andersen, 2010).

      In general, our propositions allow to redesign fundamentally an available global system of alliances based on the deep environmental principles instead of (retro)territorial, (retro)political and (retro)economical ones.