| UNEP INSTITUTIONAL REFORM WITH ITS IMPACT ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES author：Chengxin Chen |
| link 空: |
| UNEP INSTITUTIONAL REFORM WITH ITS IMPACT ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Chengxin Chen Introduction This paper begins with two main assumptions. The first assumption is that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) is the key institution of global environmental governance. Developing countries and their individual concerns play a crucial role within the discussion surrounding the reform of the global environmental governance system. UNEP’s current ability to perform its functions properly needs to be developed. The second assumption is that developing countries have to promote the process of development as well as environmental protection. Therefore, they need to participate better in global environmental governance. Following from the main assumptions, several guiding questions are of crucial importance. First, is institutional reform of UNEP necessary and what are the main challenges? Second, what is the impact of UNEP institutional reform on developing countries? What are developing countries’ political positions on UNEP and its possible reform? Third, what will UNEP look like in the future and how can developing countries better utilize and strengthen the institutional frameworks that currently exist? To answer the research questions, a multiple methodology design was adopted. The first method involved documentary research such as: collecting, analyzing, and summarizing related documents and achievements. Three sets of interviews were conducted with scholars and organizations relating to UNEP reform including IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), IGSD (Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development), Department of Geography and Environment at King’s College and others. Interviews with permanent missions of both developing countries and developed countries to the United Nations in Geneva and New York were also undertaken. In addition, interviews with the UNEP regional offices both in Geneva and Paris were conducted and a study of institutional reform models was made. In Chapter 2, after a concise introduction of the analytical framework on which this paper is based, I will first discuss the necessity and importance of global environmental governance and the need to promote UN institutional reforms; then review the background and debates of UNEP institutional reform. Chapter 3 illustrates the current challenges from two perspectives. Lack of resources, lack of capacities, lack of co-ordination and the North-South gap have become severe obstacles for developing countries in their attempts to promote environmental governance and contribute to UNEP institutional reform. There are also challenges from the increase in the number of decision-making bodies for global environmental governance. Meanwhile, assessment of existing UNEP institutions which is based on three elements of analysis provides another profile of the difficulties associated with UNEP reform. Chapter 4 tries to to find out how to improve UNEP’s mandate, its governance structure and its capacity to address developing countries’ needs，by drawing on the experience of past models of institutional reforms for reference. Finally Chapter 5 will discuss related policy recommendations both to UNEP and developing countries for current reform debates and possible future arrangements for global environmental governance in a harmonious world order. Background and Summary of UNEP Institutional Reform Global Environmental Governance Global governance institutional reforms are indispensable to developing countries’ future position in a globalized world. A major priority for developing countries in facilitating their contribution to global governance is to enhance their capacity to construct the norms, rules and laws of global governance. As the sum of organizations, policy instruments, financing mechanisms, rules, procedures and norms that regulate the processes of global environmental protection, global environmental governance is taking shape in a complex structural system with multinational corporations interacting in trans-national standard setting networks. Existing environmental institutions like UNEP have achieved a great deal in reducing the speed with which environmental degradation is proceeding, but there is still a number of pressing environmental problems prevailing throughout the world. These include air and water pollution, the loss of biological diversity, desertification and climate change. Furthermore, accelerated globalization has caused an increase in the number of cross-border environmental problems. The challenges of environmental governance are vast in extent and still growing. It is ironic that as the evidence for environmental degradation becomes more convincing, the political will for action becomes weaker. The key reason for this is the fragmented system of global environmental governance that lacks wide-spread structural stability. What is more, developing countries continue to face the challenges of development and environmental protection. Environmental threats severely affect developing countries. Therefore, it is essential to clarify who the key players are in present global environmental governance and which governance functions they perform best in terms of particular environmental threats. The Need of Promoting UN Institutional Reforms Considering the change of geopolitics and economics in developing countries, a stronger, streamlined, accountable and effective UN system is required to respond effectively to the needs of the south. Developing countries have not been able to participate effectively in a coordinated manner in the UN due to a lack of technical and financial resources. Reform would need to include updated policies, modern systems, streamlined means of delivery and prioritizations while simultaneously emphasizing and reviewing outputs. Change is needed within the UN’s agencies internal systems and intergovernmental bodies. Surely the precondition for reform includes the restoration of the UN as the central institution for global governance and the democratization of UN’s decision-making process. Historical Review and Current Situtation of UNEP Institutional Reform It has generally been recognized that the proliferation of environmental agreements, institutions, mechanisms and processes has exacerbated the fragmentation of global environmental governance. This can be readily observed from a historical review. In 1972, UNEP was created and meant to be ‘a central coordinating mechanism in the United Nations to provide political and conceptual leadership, to assess the state of the global environment and to contemplate methods of avoiding or reducing global environmental risk and of working out joint norms’. In 1998, the Environmental Management Group (EMG) was set up within UNEP largely for the purpose of reporting to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Since then, EMG has been providing services related to environmental site assessments, soil and groundwater assessments, environmental compliance, indoor environmental quality, indoor air quality, mould and water intrusion, asbestos, lead-based paint, and environmental training. In reality, this process has not yet brought about the required cohesion to the international governance of environmental issues. In 2003, a French proposal was presented to the 58th Session of the UN General Assembly that detailed the creation of a United Nations Environment Organization (UNEO). An informal working group was subsequently set up in New York to facilitate dialogue between governments on UNEP reform. In 2004, the 8th Special Session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum addressed the issue of global environmental governance as a follow-up to the 22nd regular session of the Governing Council. In 2006, the High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence in the Areas of Development, Humanitarian Assistance, and the Environment, made a number of recommendations for strengthening international environmental governance and for making it more logical and effective. In 2007, the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Forum agreed on an enhanced programme to reduce health and environmental threats from toxic mercury pollution, supported by 140 governments. UNEP also revised its institutional functions by working in alliance with other international organizations including the International Olympic Committee and nation-states. One interesting example of this refers to Beijing. After a review of studies and technical assessments by the Olympic organizers, as well as field visits to China by UNEP and communications with relevant NGOs, UNEP concluded in a report, that ‘considerable effort has gone into fulfilling the letter and spirit of the promise by the Beijing Olympic Games Organizing Committee (BOCOG) to deliver a 'Green Olympics’. Current Challenges Challenges for Developing Countries Lack of Resources and Capacities Developing countries require continued assistance from developed countries in terms of technology support and capacity building initiatives to respond effectively to environmental challenges. However, worldwide financial resources allocated to environmental issues are scarce. To add to this problem, a significant portion of the available resources come from voluntary contributions and are therefore unpredictable. Another impediment for developing countries is the lack of capacities to build and maintain strong environmental institutions, lack of capacities to set up effective environment monitoring and implementation schemes, lack of capacities to create a strong scientific knowledge base for environmental policy, and lack of capacities to fully integrate environmental concerns into Poverty Reduction Strategies and other related documents. Some developing countries perceive the current system of international environmental governance as unbalanced in the sense that the agenda is mainly driven by northern countries and does not sufficiently address the specific needs of developing countries. Lack of Coordination The current international system is comprised of a wide variety of institutions and activities that are sometimes uncoordinated and it does not adequately take advantage of synergies. While different key players have their own mandates, implementation of these mandates often disregards optimum use of scarce resources. The rapid increase of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) may result in the danger of some contradictory frameworks, particularly in regards to interconnected issues. UNEP is responsible for providing general policy guidance for the direction and coordination of environmental policies within the UN system. However, its resources and authority are generally regarded as insufficient to adequately fulfil this mandate. The Commission on Sustainable Development has also not been able to overcome the co-ordination deficits. Challenges from the Increase of Decision Making Bodies for Global Environmental Governance The increase of decision-making bodies for global environmental governance could also add insult to injury and make the current situation in developing countries more difficult with regard to the following aspects: to undertake and monitor the implementation of all agreements and conventions on the national level; to ensure coherence among strategies derived from different agreements and approaches; to negotiate and participate actively in the decision making processes; to respond to the growing demand of monitoring and reporting. Assessment of Exisiting UNEP Activities UNEP is entrusted by member states with responsibilities for policy co-ordination as well as capacity building and providing technical support to developing countries. UNEP also supports international negotiations on environmental issues and provides reliable scientific information. With its modest resources, UNEP has operated a remarkably varied and important set of programmes. A point of interest is the fact that UNEP has never been systematically reviewed externally. At present, UNEP lacks the resources to perform all its governance functions effectively and to pressure states to pursue environmentally sustainable policies. It seems to be widely recognized that UNEP cannot perform all its assigned tasks, and some argue that it should concentrate on its scientific function and coordinate science-related activities throughout the UN system (Hass et al 2004). They propose that UNEP should oversee environmental monitoring, and provide the accumulated data to the international community through various channels. If monitoring activities were spread across environmental issues, it would be possible to improve economic efficiency and accelerate the flow of early warning information. Debates on Upgrading UNEP In the beginning, UNEP was primarily coordinating national governments in negotiations on international conventions regarding issues such as: climate change, chemical products, etc. So for a while, UNEP functioned as a mechanism for consolidating common understanding and raising people’s awareness of environmental protection through analysis and forecasts. Going beyond this institutional purpose, quite a few proposals have called for a full-fledged environmental organization (EO) within or outside the UN. The EO would have its own legal identity, and would contain a general assembly, executive structure and secretariat. It would incorporate UNEP and GMEF and take up UNEP’s mandate with respect to its normative function. There would still exist counter-productive aspects of these proposals such as: 1) A large number of existing organizations are already performing environmental activities. Therefore, the new specialized agency would be one among many and would create counterproductive competition. Moreover, existing organizations would have traditions and well-established relations with constituencies within national and international bureaucracies. A new specialized body would therefore not be well-placed to exercise leadership or coordinating functions. 2) A widespread dissatisfaction among many developed countries with UN agencies has taken hold since the 1970s, especially in the United States. They are viewed as unnecessarily hierarchical, bureaucratic, and cumbersome, impeding initiative, flexibility, and expertise that are deemed necessary in the emerging environmental field. The unwieldy administrative and governing arrangements within a new UN agency could not be deployed quickly enough to respond to emerging issues. In addition, the rigid staffing practices are counterproductive for the recruitment of a secretariat with the necessary skills and qualifications. 3) Environment is an integral issue that should not be relegated to one single agency responsible for just this one sector. In fact, the establishment of a specialized agency for environment was deemed unbeneficial because its focus on the environment as another “sector” would marginalize it. The core functions could “only be performed at the international level by a body which is not tied to any individual sectoral or operational responsibilities and is able to take an objective overall view of the technical and policy implications arising from a variety of multidisciplinary factors.” As a programme, UNEP has the least amount of independence and authority in the UN hierarchy as it is a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. Programmes are small and membership is not universal. Programme budgets rely on voluntary financial contributions. Though the regular UN budget was originally expected to cover the costs of staff and fundamental operations, these contributions have only been a few per cent of UNEP’s budget. Additionally, the proposal for establishing UNEP is unpractical since it disregards the current overlap within the UN system, and therefore neglects the root cause of fragmentation. Institutional Functions and UNEP Orientation UNEP was designed to be a leading co-ordinator with other environmental organizations. UNEP has long-standing experience with coordinating fluid and widespread networks around the world. Thus it may be capable of serving an organizational role to ensure that the multiple elements of MEAs are coordinated, to anticipate any gaps, and to keep members of international policy networks in communication with one another. It could serve as an ‘air-traffic controller’ for issues on the international environmental agenda, as well as for the multitude of associated ongoing studies and negotiations. The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence in the Areas of Development, Humanitarian Assistance, and the Environment recommended that ‘efficiencies and substantive coordination should be pursued by diverse treaty bodies to support effective implementation of major multilateral environmental agreements’. Rather than serving as a coordinating body of MEAs, a reformed UNEP could more effectively serve as a control centre for enhancing synergies and reducing disruption. UNEP performs three core functions: the first being knowledge acquisition and assessment – including monitoring of environmental quality, evaluation of collected data, and forecasting of trends; scientific research; and information exchange with governments and other international organizations. The second function concerns environmental quality management – including setting goals and standards through a consultative, multilateral process; crafting of international agreements; and devising guidelines and policies for their implementation. UNEP’s third and final function is to facilitate international supporting actions – or what we now term capacity building and development – including technical assistance, education and training, and public information. However, from the very beginning, UNEP had to contend with larger political powerhouse organizations that had significant environmental impact, but no interest and no incentive to be “coordinated” by UNEP which is one of the youngest of all international organizations. To make matters worse, the member states have never honestly attempted to give UNEP the political capital to meet the mandate of coordination they so generously lavished upon it. Some have argued that the member states, particularly the more powerful ones, have actually wanted UNEP to fail in this particular task. The rapid growth in the number of players that now have an impact on global environmental governance has made coordination both more important and difficult. The creation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as a main financing mechanism, the various MEA secretariats and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) have further undermined UNEP’s authority and led to fractious territory wars and complex inter-agency politics. UNEP itself is fragmented and it can therefore be difficult to coordinate its 8 divisions; 6 regional offices; 7 liaison offices; 7 out-posted offices; 6 collaborating centres; a number of convention secretariats; and 5 scientific advisory groups. During the Stockholm negotiations of 1972, there was general agreement that environmental action needed a framework, but countries were deeply divided over the appropriate institutional approach. The only politically acceptable solution was an organization that would “have minimal administration and not compete legally or financially with existing organizations.” UNEP was created to ‘promote international cooperation in the field of the environment and to recommend, as appropriate, policies to this end, and to provide general policy guidance for the direction and coordination of environmental programs within the UN system’ and designed in a way that prevented it from fulfilling this mandate. It was, what Konrad von Moltke called, ‘the organization of the impossible’. The failure of the policy coordination mandate has been evident since the creation of UNEP: well-established UN agencies working in the field of environment refuse to be coordinated by a new, weak agency lacking authority. Later, new bodies were established that did not feel the need or want to recognize UNEP’s authority (for instance，GEF and CSD) and this further weakened UNEP’s role in global environmental policy. Although UNEP has been very successful in catalyzing negotiations on new MEAs, it has been relatively unsuccessful at coordinating the policies and activities arising from the conventions once they are launched, as conventions become autonomous Institutional Strucutre and Member States’ Support Several structural features have inhibited UNEP’s ability to actualize this impossible mandate: Although it is more realistic to strengthen UNEP rather than to establish a new environmental organization, UNEP’s status as a programme rather than a “specialized agency” limits its influence within the UN hierarchy. Programmes are subsidiaries of the General Assembly, whereas specialized agencies are separate, autonomous intergovernmental organizations with governing bodies independent of the UN Secretariat and the General Assembly. Its governance structure allows for the possibility that the needs and demands of member states may take precedence over its general mission. UNEP’s financial structure which is considered to be insufficient, unstable and unpredictable, is overly dependent on voluntary contributions and, therefore, unreliable and subject to donor whims; UNEP’s location in Nairobi—the only UN agency to be headquartered in the South—endeared it to the developing countries in its early years and has, in fact, made it far more South-friendly than most international organizations. It has also, however, bred a certain resistance and hostility from the North and kept it distant from any avenues of influence. At its inception in 1972, UNEP was provided with two sources of funding: an allocation from the UN regular budget and the Environment Fund consisting of unrestricted voluntary contributions. Both of these financial sources have proved inadequate – an oft-cited reason for lack of action in global environmental governance. The financing mechanisms for the environmental institutions, however, were not intentionally designed to be ineffective and inadequate. For many analysts, UNEP’s limited financial resources is a key factor to consider when explaining its difficulties. The majority of donor countries (about 90 per cent of resources come from the top 30 donors), increased their contributions, mostly by small amounts, or maintained the same level of contributions. A few countries increased their payments two and even more than threefold in order to meet or exceed their voluntary quota of contributions and that of the UN scale of assessment. Unfortunately, at the same time there were a few cases where major donors decreased their voluntary annual payments, including one major donor country which did not make any contribution to the Environment Fund in 2006. As a result, and in spite of increased payments by more than 60 countries, the total income of the Environment Fund is expected to be nearly $12 million below the target of $72 million for 2006. Table 1 Contributions To UNEP’s Environment Fund, 2000–2006 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 * 2005 * 2006 ** Contributions and pledges USD 41 mio. 44.1 mio. 48.3 mio. 52.6 mio. 59.5 mio. 59.6 mio 59.2 mio. * includes pledges ** includes pledges and estimates, without estimate for Italy Regarding supplementary funds which include trust funds, trust fund support and earmarked contributions, UNEP has continued its work within existing partnership agreements with Belgium, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. UNEP has also concluded a new long-term partnership with the Government of Spain by signing a framework agreement in November 2006. This cooperation will focus mainly, but not exclusively, on support for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, especially Goals one and seven. Another long-term partnership agreement with the Netherlands ended in mid-2006 and is currently being evaluated. UNEP, in particular, has been saddled with a huge and expanding mandate without the necessary financial and human resources. The first step in improving UNEP’s management performance is for member states to provide it with a stable and continuous source of funding. Model Study of Institutional Reforms Learning from models of institutional reform is important for promoting UNEP reform. Over the years, many reform proposals have been circulated. UNEP pursued internal efforts at streamlining its activities and achieving synergies amongst its various projects in its 1990 System Wide Medium Term Environmental Programme (SWMTEP). The 1997 Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements, established by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, suggested strengthening UNEP by elevating it to a Specialized Agency and improving its ability to coordinate activities with other specialized agencies. No clear guidelines were given, however, on how such coordination was to be achieved in the absence of strong political will by member states or the heads of the agencies. This prompted the Task Force to make the recommendation that an “issue management” approach be set up within the UN to address issues that cut across the mandates of specific institutions concerned with environment and sustainable development, such as UNEP and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), and to some extent MEAs. Subsequently, the High-level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development was discontinued and replaced by the establishment of the Environment Management Group (EMG) , chaired by the Executive Director of UNEP. The EMG was formed to assist in the coordination of activities between UNEP, UNDP and other UN agencies, Funds and Programmes and MEA secretariats, and to “adopt a problem-solving, results-oriented approach that would enable United Nations bodies and their partners to share information, consult on proposed new initiatives and contribute to a planning framework and develop agreed priorities and their respective roles in the implementation of those priorities in order to achieve a more rational and cost-effective use of their resources.” However, to date, its coordinating functions are not very effective. A revitalized UNEP has also been supported by UNEP’s 1997 Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of the United Nations Environment Programme. More extensive proposals have called for the creation of a new World Environmental Organization (WEO) which would possibly replace UNEP, and be given stronger and more centralized resources and influence. The campaigners calling for the creation of a centralized WEO assign it many of the responsibilities currently distributed throughout the UN system. Upgrading UNEP requires less financial and diplomatic investment than creating a completely new organization. While UNEP has a record of institutional success and progress, its potential to perform when given improved legal status, more funds and more staff is promising. Policy Suggestions UNEP reform could provide certain opportunities and risks from a developing country’s perspective. Rationalization could lead to more effective management and co-ordination at the international level in view of the proliferation of MEAs. However, in the process of possible rationalization, attention should be given to ensure that budgetary provisions aimed at fostering capacity building, skills and technological transfer to LDCs and developing countries are not ignored. This is of particular importance given the relatively high cost of appropriate technologies at present and the fact that developed countries would be the main benefactors. An additional risk exists with the possibility of an increase in well-known environmental terms, which could place an even higher burden on developing country exporters and pave the way for a new form of protectionism under the guise of environmental concerns. Policy Recommendations for UNEP UNEP is the right kind of organization to set global standards and to coordinate system-wide environmental activities. It should be strengthened with a renewed mandate, improved funding and a general awareness for international environmental governance. However, while taken for granted today, UNEP’s creation was less than certain in the 1970s. The salient point is that a more ideal system of global environmental governance will not be able to prevent environmental degradation unless UN member states fully commit themselves to making the system work. A comprehensive assessment of the financial resources that member states are ready to invest could be a proactive step in the UNEP institutional reform process. Improve UNEP Institutional Form by Eliminating Competition in UN and Redefining Orientation Do not involve UNEP in ‘one UN’ pilot countries. UNEP has neither the budget nor the capability to make a difference through activities on a national level, even if some of its member states demand such results and the Bali Plan opens a space for UNEP to get involved in this direction. They are pointless and damaging to UNEP’s relations within the UN family. A possible exception involves capacity strengthening, but even this should be reoriented, as suggested below. That said, if UNEP is to withdraw, others – and in particular UNDP – will have to pick up the slack, and UNEP will have a role in ensuring that they do so. UNEP must not appear to be in competition with the very organizations it is supposed to be coordinating. Other agencies in the international system are better equipped to manage development projects and to consider the budgetary and political implications of environmental degradation when they are carrying out activities in their respective fields. UNEP should only exist in an advisory capacity in regards to these issues. To become indispensable, UNEP should be catalyzing the most cutting-edge scientific work on global environmental issues (as it has done in the past). Technical competence and scientific prominence should be UNEP’s key focal points. UNEP collaboration centres, the role of which would be to use UNEP’s convening power and platform to galvanize leading scientists and scholars (including within academia, NGOs, the private sector) into undertaking relevant research and then to coordinate and synthesize the results of such research for policy-makers, could play an important role in this process. As the principal environmental advisor to the UN Secretary-General, the UNEP executive director should be able to provide the UN system and the world with authoritative scientific assessments. Such an assessment should detail the state of the global environment, of ongoing policy initiatives and of unforeseen environmental challenges. The scientific agenda and UNEP’s resulting focus on global issues are important to all UNEP member countries, but they are especially valued by developed countries. Developing countries are more concerned with the link between poverty and environment and immediate assistance on a national level. There is a need for change when considering that UNEP does not have and likely never will have adequate resources to make a definitive impact through direct, national-level activities. There are better ways to serve its constituency of developing countries such as overseeing a change in narrative. This could involve moving away from the “poverty” agenda with its negative connotations to a “prosperity and equity” agenda. This new approach would focus both on the environmental underpinnings of prosperity and the search for it, and on the patterns of consumption and production that underlie prosperity. It would help focus the world community on the root causes of environmental stress, on the extraordinary, equity-denying affluence in some parts of the world. This fresh perspective would also draw attention to the consumption patterns on which that affluence depends and which make sustainability hard to reach. Second, knowledge production from UNEP should be made more inclusive by ensuring fair representation of developing country experts within global processes, and also by building developing country capacity for meaningful participation in such processes. However, if UNEP should mobilize the key developing countries behind the new directions it wishes to progress in, it must do so in a way that avoids this agenda becoming an “OECD plus BRICs” agenda, serving the emerging elite and leaving the less fortunate developing countries behind. Improve UNEP Institutional Functions by Selective Focus This title means strengthening UNEP in key areas and strengthening key support functions. Improving institutional functions is related to improving institutional form that can be considered as the prerequisite of the former. UNEP should clearly remain the central hub for all matters related to the environment. Advancing environmental mainstreaming is essential, which means that UNEP should be given the resources and the ability to “coordinate” the system where it is supposedly placed at the centre (especially in terms of coordinating other environmental organizations). UNEP’s coordination mandate and functions should be realistically reassessed and clarified. In order to do so, UNEP will need to revert to its original focus on technical competence and move away from more operational projects that will be better implemented by other agencies. The selected focus for UNEP should be broad policy issues, capacity building, and knowledge generation. Turning UNEP into a leading authority within the UN system for scientific assessment and monitoring the state of the global environment would include the management of scientific assessment, monitoring and early warning work of UNEP; provision of policy makers or governments with authoritative scientific knowledge on the state of the environment and early warning; interaction with scientific work of MEAs and submission of integrated reports to political decision making organs; identification of emerging threats and information to the respective UNEP policy bodies, including information relevant for early warning purposes. Concerning knowledge production, UNEP should move towards the advanced science of environment and supply professional data-based policy advice by setting the standard for the experts all over the world. There should be serious consideration for a system that supports research and the creation of knowledge, as well as its use and dissemination, and that takes into account the special needs of underprivileged countries. The facilitation of independent and authoritative knowledge assessments is also required. In addition, UNEP needs to do a more substantive job on providing capacity building to developing countries especially LDCs and SIDS (small island developing states), rather than focusing all attention on training. The focus in its capacity building should be on issues of relevance to low-income countries. It should make it easy for these countries to undertake their own environmental research and assist the people in gaining the appropriate knowledge. Broad policy issues for UNEP relate to periodic reporting on the performance of the global environmental governance system, and development and maintenance of a financial tracking system for the environment. Developing countries should be provided with additional resources for investment and policy implementation that will aid in ensuring sustainable growth. Providing sustainable development policy space for developing countries, setting up a structure to promote developing countries’ participation and South-South cooperation on environmental issues need to be further assessed. Any solution has to be equitable and based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the respective capabilities. Improve UNEP Institutional Structure by Networking Transforming the global environmental architecture into a more comprehensive and coordinated structure is an ambitious task that requires the involvement of not only UNEP, but other UN agencies, permanent missions, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other interested parties. In other words, UNEP should cooperate closely with appropriate regional organizations, civil society and the private sector, which should be provided the opportunity to contribute to global knowledge formation, knowledge sharing and monitoring. NGOs as well as the private sector often have access to information and insights not available to states and have the potential to make innovative contributions for complex environmental problems. Networks must be actively and continuously sustained in order to be effective. Scientific as well as financial monitoring networks can be efficiently and effectively established by civil society. They should embrace the best practices in reporting and auditing procedures, such as social audits or efforts to monitor compliance, and combine them with voluntary initiatives such as codes of conduct. It has often been suggested that UNEP should be given the ability to assess its own budget. This may be useful, but not to any great extent. A consortium of key donors, led by countries in support of meaningful global environmental governance reform, should commit to providing stability and predictability for the UNEP budget, at least for a period of around five years. Such a conglomerate of donors should take the lead in committing to (and encouraging other countries to commit to) separate caches of long-term institutional funding and shorter-term issue funding. While the latter tends to be tied to the immediate political priorities of individual donors, the former is necessary if organizations are to plan a coherent budget based on strategic global policy priorities. Last year, UNEP played a crucial role in the Bali Consensus which paved the way for the emergence of financial capabilities and a concrete governance structure. Eighty per cent of the funding came from the private sector – one more reason to demand higher involvement from business and civil society in the consultations. To the extent possible, UNEP should be encouraged to explore innovative sources of financing. While inadequate financing is one source of management inefficiencies, it is not the only problem. The financial basis of UNEP could be strengthened through a better balance between earmarked and non-earmarked resources and by the continued application of the indicative scale of assessment. Policy Recommendations for Developing Countries The strong concerns of the South in the early 1970s, that environmental protection should not be achieved at the expense of needed development, underlies the North-South divide then as it does now. Referring to this, Chinese President Hu Jintao enunciated China's propositions on climate change at the outreach session of the G-8 Summit : ‘How we cope with climate change is related to the country's economic development and people's practical benefits. It's in line with the country's basic interests’. The developing countries must work together to place action on global environmental governance in the context of sustainable development, and to ensure that a well-articulated development agenda is incorporated as a central component in global environmental governance regime. Integrate UNEP into National Strategies On the one hand, in the context of UNEP institutional reform, institutional arrangements may fulfil similar functions in different countries, but their form varies from country to country, as well as within the same country over time. Likewise, the diversity of culture and historical experiences means that, while general principles can be identified, there is no refined model for improved, growth-enhancing governance and institutions. On the other hand, many countries have recognized that the linkage between environment and development needs to be established. Environmental issues have to be brought to the forefront of any economic model or development path; progress in this area should be accompanied by similar advancement on issues of development and social equity. Developing countries need to integrate the systematic ideas of UNEP and effective measures of environmental issues which are from UNEP, into their own national strategies, especially long-term objectives, according to their characteristics. Developing countries should reinforce their efforts in establishing national institutions, legal frameworks and technical capacity to address environmental concepts, global standards of environmental protection and environmental data from UNEP. Participate More Actively in UNEP Developing countries should not be afraid that this system will result in unattainable financial demands, as countries will still be able to negotiate these contributions. The Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity-building could serve as the overarching guiding framework for operational activities of MEAs, UN agencies and the international financial institutions at country level. With universal membership and a reliable financial position, UNEP would be better prepared to serve as the platform for analytical work, norm setting, policy learning and coordination. Developing countries could therefore have a positive view on UNEP’s future and put more enthusiasm into their participation. Developing countries should make full use of this platform to advocate their needs on an international level, to bring their own interests and consideration into dialogue and negotiations, and to get support at the operational level, which should be left to the responsibility of existing funds and programs. Meanwhile the Resident Coordinator and the UN Country Team should make full use of UNEP, to respond to the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition with regard to the strengthening of government capacities in order to achieve the objectives of the Bali Strategic Plan. Strengthen Experience Sharing and Cooperation Via UNEP Last but not the least, there is a need for developing countries to intensify efforts directed towards institutional capacity building, including through the exchange of expertise, experiences, information and documentation between the institutions of the South in order to develop human resources and strengthen the institutions of the South. Experience sharing and learning from more sophisticated models can create new opportunities for more development paths. In spite of different domestic situations, countries can learn form the mistakes and successes of others, especially in an international setting that creates a global pool of existing experiences. Regional arrangements or South-South cooperation may help countries to deal with some issues, forge consensus and establish a common bargaining position. In order to strengthen such experience sharing and cooperation, encouraging UNEP to establish a partnership forum to enhance and promote cooperation could be a sensible choice for developing countries. An Update on International Environmental Governance. 2008. Report Paper, 25. February 2008. Biermann, F. 2000. ‘The Case for a World Environment Organization’, Environment (42)9. -. 2001. ‘The Emerging Debate on the Need for a World Environment Organization, A Commentary’, Global Environmental Politics February 2001. -. 2007. ‘Reforming Global Environmental Governance: From UNEP Towards A World Environment Organization’, in L. Swart and E. Perry (eds) Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives On The Current Debate, Center for UN Reform Education, Biermann, F. and Bauer, S. (eds). 2005. A World Environment Organization: Solution or Threat for Effective International Environmental Governance? Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Chambers, W. B. 2005. ‘From Environmental to Sustainable Development Governance: Thirty Years of Coordination within the United Nations’, in W. B. Chamber and J. F. Green (eds) Reforming International Environmental Governance: From Institutional Limits to Innovative Reforms, Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Charnovitz, S. 2002. ‘A World Environment Organization’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (27)2. Dodds, F. 2000. ‘Reforming the International Institutions’, in F. Doods (ed.) Earth Summit 2002, London: Earthscan. Esty, D. C. 1994. ‘The Case for a Global Environmental Organization,’ in P. B. Kenen (ed.) Managing the World Economy: Fifty Years After Bretton Woods, Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics. German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). 2001. World in Transition 2. London: Earthscan. Haas, P. M., Kanie, N. and Murphy, C. N. 2004. ‘Conclusion: Institutional Design and Institutional Reform for Sustainable Development’, in N. Kanie and P. M. Haas (eds) Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance, Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Halle, M. 2007. ‘The UNEP That We Want - reflections on UNEP's Future Challenges’, www.iisd.org. Informal Consultative Process on the Institutional Framework for the United Nations’ Environmental Activities. 2007. Co-Chairs’ Options Paper, New York, 14 June 2007. Ivanova, M. 2005. ‘Can the Anchor Hold? Rethinking the United Nations Environment Programme for the 21st Century’. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Online: http://www.yale.edu/gegdialogue (Accessed March 2006). -. 2007. ‘Moving Forward By Looking Back: Laerning From UNEP’s History’, L. Swart and E. Perry (eds) Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives On The Current Debate, Center for UN Reform Education. Kanie, N. 2007. ‘Governance With Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Healthy Or Ill-equipped Fragmentation?’, in L. Swart and E. Perry (eds) Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives On The Current Debate, ed. Lydia Swart and Estelle Perry, Center for UN Reform Education. Meyer-Ohlendorf, N. and Markus, K. 2007. ‘A United Nations Environment Organization’, in L. Swart and E. Perry (eds) Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives On The Current Debate, ed. Lydia Swart and Estelle Perry, Center for UN Reform Education. Najam, A. 2003. ‘The Case Against a New International Environmental Organization’, Global Governance, (9)3. Najam, A., Papa, M. and Taiyab, N. 2006. Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda, IISD. Rechkemmer, A. (ed.). 2005. ‘UNEO—Towards an International Environment Organization, Approaches to a sustainable reform of global environmental governance’. Nomos Baden-Baden. UN General Assembly. 1972. Resolution 2997 (XXVII): Institutional and Financial Arrangements for International Environmental Cooperation. UNEP. 1981. ‘Development and Environment: The Founex Report: In Defence of the Earth’, The Basic Texts on Environment. UNEP Executive Series 1, Nairobi. -. 1997b. Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of UNEP (UNEP/GC19/1/1997). Adopted during the Nineteenth Session of the Governing Council. -. 2001. Proposals of the President of the United Nations Environment Programme Governing Council for Consideration by the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives on International Environmental Governance (presented at the fourth meeting of this group, Montreal, 30 November—1 December 2001), UN Doc. UNEP/IGM/UNEP/IGM/4/2 of 12 November, 2001. -. 2001a. Implementing the Clustering Strategy for Multilateral Environmental Agreements— A Framework. Background Paper for the Fourth Meeting of the Open- Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives on International Environmental Governance, Montreal, 30 November—1 December 2001, UN Doc. UNEP/IGM/4/4 of 16 November, 2001a. -. 2001b. International Environmental Governance: Report by the Executive Director. Prepared for the Fourth Meeting of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives on International Environmental Governance, Montreal, 30 November—1 December 2001, UN Doc. UNEP/IGM/4/3 of 16 November, 2001b. -. 2004c. Resource Mobilization, Environment Fund, 2004c. Online: http://www.unep.org/rmu/en/Financing_environmentfund.htm. UN Secretary General. 1998. ‘Environment and Human Settlements’. A/53/463, 1998. Online: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/53/ plenary/a53-463.htm (Accessed in March 2006). UN General Assembly Document A/53/463. Von Moltke, K. 1996. ‘Why UNEP Matters’, in Green Globe Yearbook 1996. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -. 2001. ‘The Organization of the Impossible’, Global Environmental Politics, (1)1. -. 2005. ‘Clustering Multilateral Environment Agreements as an Alternative to a World Environment Organization’, in F. Biermann and S. Bauer (eds), A World Environment Organization: Solution or Threat for Effective Environmental Governance?, Aldershot: Ashgate. Annex Acronyms AOSIS（SIDS)—Alliance Of Small Island States (Small Island Developing States) BRIC(s)—Brazil, Russia, India and China CDM—The Clean Development Mechanism CSD—Commission on Sustainable Development GEF—Global Environment Facility GMEF—Global Ministerial Environment Forum IADGs—the Internationally Agreed Development Goals IISD—International Institute for Sustainable Development IGSD—Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development IPCC—The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KP—The Kyoto Protocol LDCs—The Least Developed Countries MEA—Multilateral Environment Agreement NAPA—A National Adaptation Programme of Action to Climate Change (/A National Action Plan on Adaptation) ODA—Official Development Assistance OECD—Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development R&D—Research and Development SWMTEP—System Wide Medium Term Environmental Programme The Principle of CDR—The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities UNCBD—United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCCC—United Nations Climate Change Conference UNCCD—United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNFCCC—United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme WTO—World Trade Organization Environmental Management Groups Basel Convention Secretariat Convention on Biodiversity Secretariat Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Secretariat Convention on Migratory Species Secretariat Economic and Social Commission for Africa Economic Commission for Europe Economic and Social Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Economic and Social Commission for West Asia Food and Agriculture Organization Global Environment Facility International Atomic Energy Agency International Civil Aviation Organization International Fund for Agricultural Development International Labour Organization International Maritime Organization International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Secretariat International Trade Center International Telecommunication Union Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Convention to Combat Desertification Secretariat UN Conference on Trade and Development UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Div. for Sustainable Development United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat United Nations Population Fund United Nations Human Settlements Programme United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Children’s Fund United Nations Industrial Development Organization United Nations Institute for Training and Research United Nations University Universal Postal Union World Food Program World Health Organization World Intellectual Property Organization |
| (2011-1-11 14:55:00hits:1009) |