Transcript We understand global environmental governance (GEG) as the sum

International Environmental
Governance
Robert Wabunoha
Legal Officer,
Regional Office for Africa
What is IEG?
“We understand global environmental governance (GEG) as
the sum of organizations, policy instruments, financing
mechanisms, rules, procedures and norms that regulate the
processes of global environmental protection.”
International Institute for Sustainable Development
Why IEG?
Objective:
 Comprehensive protection of the
environment at the international
and national level.
 Assist policy-makers in developing
laws, regulations, policies,
programmes, etc.
 Complement governance
framework for sustainable
development.
An effective IEG system:
Building blocks of an effective IEG system:
1) scientific evidence;
2) coherent decision-making and objective-setting;
3) institutional architecture to implement and
coordinate;
4) management and operationalization; and
5) coordination of the effective implementation at the
country level.
Why does nobody care for the environment?
Environment’s dilemma
 Public good
 Issue overlaps
History of the current IEG system
Main instruments:
 United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), established in 1972 by General
Assembly resolution 2997
 A plethora of multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs)
Development of IEG system
From 1972 to now:
 Negotiation of numerous multilateral environmental
agreements
 Creation of multiple funding mechanisms
 System’s loss of coordinating mechanism
Result: FRAGMENTATION
Organisations with environmental mandate
Bonn
CBD
CITES
Interpol
IUCN
UNEP
Water
CBD
FAO
GEF
GISP
IMO
IUCN
UNEP
Trade in
endangered species
CBD
CSD
GEF
FAO
IFAD
ITTO
IUCN
UNEP
UNFF
UNHCR
World
Bank
WTO
Invasive species
CBD
CITES
CSD
FAO
ILO
IMO
ITLOS
IWC
WTO
UNEP
WTO
WWC
Forests
CSD
ECLAC
GEF
IAEA
IEA
UNDP
UNEP
UPU
World
Bank
Fisheries
CBD
CSD
UNCCD
ECA
ESCAP
FAO
IFAD
ISDR
ITU
OECD
OCHA
UNDP
UNEP
WTO
Energy
CBD
CSD
ESCAP
ESCWA
GEF
ICAO
IEA
IPCC
ISDR
OECD
UNCTAD
UNDP
UNEP
UNESCO
UNFCCC
UNITAR
WHO
WMO
World
Bank
WTO
Desertification
CSD
FAO
GEF
IAEA
IFAD
ILO
IMO
OECD
OHCHR
SBC
UNCTAD
UNDP
UNECE
UNEP
UNEP
UNHabitat
UNHCR
UNICEF
UNIDO
UNITAR
UPU
WFP
WHO
WMO
WTO
Climate change
Cartagena
Protocol
CBD
CITES CMS
Ramsar
ECA
ECLAC
ESCAP
ESCWA
FAO
GEF
IUCN
UNDP
UNEP
UNESCO
UNU
WIPO
World
Bank
WTO
Chemicals
CSD
ECE
ECLAC
ESCAP
ESCWA
GEF
ICAO
ILO
LRTAP
OECD
OHCHR
UNECE
UNEP
UNHabitat
WHO
World
Bank
WMO
Biodiversity
Air Pollution
Agriculture
UNCCD
CSD
ECA
FAO
IFAD
ILO
ITC
ITU
IUCN
OCHA
SSO
UNCTAD
UNDP
UNEP
World
Bank
WTO
CBD
CSD
Ramsar
ECA
ESCAP
ESCWA
GEF
IMO
ITU
UNDP
UNECE
UNEP
UNESCO
UNFPA
UNICEF
UNU
WHO
WMO
World
Bank
WWC
Summary of meetings and decisions
of major MEAs 1992-2007
Non-alignment of policy and finance
 UNEP Environment Fund
 Global Environmental Facility

Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)

Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF)
 Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol
 World Bank: Climate Investment Funds (CIFs)
Coordination mechanisms
 Environment Coordination Board
 Environment Management Group - 1999
Why IEG reform?
 The fragmentation of the IEG system has led to a number of
deficiencies, including:
 Use of financial resources
 Inconsistency in interpretation of rules
 Neglect of interlinkages
 Structural inefficiencies

No coherent, system-wide environmental strategy
 Implementation gap
 Monitoring, review and accountability
Ongoing IEG Processes
Currently open IEG processes:
 2002 Cartagena Package, UNEP GC/GMEF decision SS.VII/1 – universal
membership;
 2005 World Summit Outcome, Paragraph 169, resulting in the UN General
Assembly Informal Consultative Process on the Institutional Framework for
United Nations Environment Work;
 2008 Commonwealth Consultations on IEG;
 2008 Joint Inspection Unit Report on the Management Review of
Environmental Governance in the UN System (Executive Director’s response to
be discussed by the CPR on 5 November 2009);
 2009 and 2010 Consultative Group set up under UNEP GC decisions
25/4 and SSXI/1 respectively.
UNEP Governing Council decision 25/4
 Established a regionally representative, consultative group of
ministers or high-level representatives, with two co-Chairs, one
from a developing and one from a developed country (Kenya
and Italy)
 The group met twice (Belgrade 39 countries; Rome 43
countries)
 The group presented a set of options for improving
international environmental governance to the UNEP Governing
Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum in February 2010
 President of the Governing Council transmitted the set of
options to the General Assembly in May 2010
The Set of options
Objectives and functions identified:
1. Creating a strong, credible and coherent science base.
2. Developing a global authoritative and responsive voice
for environmental sustainability.
3. Achieving coherence within the UN system.
4. Securing sufficient, predictable and coherent funding.
5. Ensuring a responsive and cohesive approach to
meeting country needs.
UNEP Governing Council decision SSXI/1
 Established a consultative group on the same basis as the
previous group with Kenya and Finland as co-Chairs
 The group met in July 2010 in Nairobi (58 countries) and in
November 2010 in Helsinki, Finland (42 countries)
 The group received input from the UN system through the
Environment Management Group and civil society
 The group built upon the Belgrade Set of options and agreed on
the Nairobi - Helsinki Outcome, submitted to the 26th session of
the Governing Council
The Nairobi – Helsinki Outcome
System-wide responses:
 To strengthen the science-policy interface with the full and meaningful
participation of developing countries;
 To develop a system-wide strategy for environment in the United Nations
system;
 To encourage synergies between compatible multilateral environmental
agreements and to identify guiding elements for realizing such synergies;
 To create a stronger link between global environmental policy making and
financing;
 To develop a system-wide capacity-building framework for the
environment;
 To continue to strengthen strategic engagement at the regional level.
The Nairobi – Helsinki Outcome
Form-related aspects of broader institutional reform
a) Enhancing UNEP;
b) Establishing a new umbrella organization for sustainable
development;
c) Establishing a specialized agency such as a world environment
organization;
d) Reforming the United Nations Economic and Social Council and the
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development;
e) Enhancing institutional reforms and streamlining existing structures.
Essential building blocks
The essential building blocks for transformative IEG
reform are:
 Universal membership of the UNEP Governing Council;
 Alignment of global environmental policy with global
environmental financing;
 Closing the implementation gap through increased capacity
building and technology transfer;
 Voluntary review of MEA implementation.
Contributing to Rio+20
One of the two main themes of the UN Conference on Sustainable
Development, to be held in 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is the
institutional framework for sustainable development.
 IEG is an integral part of it.
 The Nusa Dua declaration of the UNEP GC/GMEF of 2010 calls for
UNEP and the Consultative Group to directly contribute to the
process.
 The outcome of the First Preparatory Committee for the Rio+20
Conference equally calls for the Consultative Group to feed into the
preparatory process.
 Rio+20 provides the political momentum for comprehensive reform.
Thank you