First National Forum on International Environmental Governance14th September, 2010

Addis Ababa University

Satishkumar BelliethathanEnvironmental Science Program/HoA-RECN

College of Natural ScienceAddis Ababa University

IEG Reform Process

First National Forum on International Environmental Governance14th September, 2010

Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Objectives and expected outcomes

Aim

The overall objective of the workshop is to raise awareness and mobilize effective commitment and actions on the part of all stakeholders and partners at all levels to effectively contribute to reforming the International Environmental Governance system.

Objectives Assessing the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements in Ethiopia. Soliciting for CSOs ideas on broader reforms to IEG and participation in the Process

to Rio+20.

Outcomes Effective participation of Ethiopian CSOs in intergovernmental processes and global

negotiations Enhanced support for coordination and implementation of Multilateral

Environmental Agreements (MEAs) in Ethiopia Awareness raised on Environmental Governance

International Environmental Governance UNEP – Governance/issues IEG process until NOW Frustrations Challenges Environmental Governance at UN IEG process NOW IEG and Sustainable Development Role of Civil Society in IEG process Future course of Action

Table of Contents

IEG – Terminologies

Governance

"Governance is the framework of social and economic systems and legal and political structures through which humanity manages itself"

(World Humanity Action Trust (WHAT), 2000)

Governance has also been described as fundamentally about ‘power, relationships and accountability: who has influence, who decides, and how decision makers are held accountable’.

( Institute on governance and Parks Canada, 2003)

International Environmental Governance

Although international can have broader meanings, when referring to IEG, the term usually means intergovernmental. In terms of IEAs the definition is operationalized to include all agreements to which governments of two or more states have (or are allowed to) become parties but exclude instruments between single governments and either international organizations or NGOs and instruments between or among international organizations, corporations, or NGOs.

(based on Mitchel, 2010 accessed September 11, 2010)

Governing council - Established in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2997 (XXVII) (Institutional and financial arrangements for international environmental co-operation) of 15 December 1972. Governing Council reports to the General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council.

58 members of the Council are elected by the General Assembly, for four-year terms, taking into account the principle of equitable regional representation. Had been meeting since 1973 – 25 sessions/11 special sessions.

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/242 (Report of the Secretary-General on environment and human settlements) of 28 July 1999, the Global Ministerial Environment Forum is convened annually to review important and emerging policy issues in the field of the environment, with the Governing Council constituting the forum either in its regular sessions or special sessions.

Currently, UNEP’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum (GC/GMEF) performs both of the governance functions UNEP needs: providing leadership to international environmental governance and overseeing UNEP’s program and budget.

UNEP-Governance

19th Session GC – 1997 - Adopted Nairobi Declaration - expanded UNEP mandates including ‘catalyzing and promoting international cooperation and action’.

20th session of GC/GMEF – 1999 – adopted 30 decisions including support to environmental and environmental-related conventions and policy issues, including the state of the environment, coordination and cooperation within and outside the UN.

6th Special session of GC/GMEF – 2000 – Adopted Malmo Ministerial Declaration, which agreed that the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) should review the requirements for a greatly strengthened institutional structure for international environmental governance (IEG)

21st session of GC/GMEF – 2001 – established Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives (IGM) to undertake a comprehensive policy oriented assessment of existing institutional weaknesses, as well as future needs and options for strengthening IEG.

IEG Process – Until now

7th special session – GC/GMEF – 2002 – Cartegena decision on International Environmental Governance (decision GCSS.VII/1 – universal membership before 64th General Assembly

WSSD – 2002 – The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation – emphasis the international community should fully implement the outcomes of decisions SS.VII/1 on IEG

22rd session – GC/GMEF – 2003 – 40 decisions related to IEG

8th special session – GC/GEMF – 2004 - Jeju Initiative – implementation of SS.VII/1

23rd session GC/GEMF – 2005 – adopted the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity Building and IEG among other issues

IEG Process – Until now

2005 World Summit Outcome – Paragraph 169 - Governments agreed to explore the possibility of a more coherent institutional framework, including a more integrated structure, for environmental activities in the United Nations system.

Pursuant to that paragraph, the General Assembly at its sixtieth session, upon the proposal of the President of the Assembly, established an Informal Consultative Process on the Institutional Framework for the United Nations' Environmental Activities. The first round of consultations took place in June 2006.

9th special session – GC/GMEF – 2006 outcome of the 2005 World Summit and GC Universal membership did not produce an agreed outcome and divergent views expressed were reflected in the report.

In June 2007 the Co-Chairs of the Informal Consultative Process presented their so-called Options Paper. The Options Paper contained a list of over 50 recommendations for an improved IEG system. Based on these ideas and experiences, the co-chairs saw the IEG reform process develop via two parallel ways. Firstly, there is the reform and strengthening of the existing structures, for which there is a “wide volume of consensus”. Secondly, there’s the debate on a “broader transformation” of the IEG system (i.e. structural change), an evolutionary process concerned with the “future needs”.

(Maes and Goeteyn, 2009)

IEG Process – Until now

9 November 2006 Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel “Delivering as one”, recommends that:

IEG be strengthened and made more coherent in order to improve the effectiveness and targeted action of environmental activities in the UN system.

UNEP be upgraded and given real authority as the environmental policy pillar of the UN system, backed by normative and analytical capacity.

24th session – GC/GEMF – 2007 – IEG issues – need to strengthen UNEP is imperative – Entrenched positions are and will continue to drag out the IEG issues.

2008 Commonwealth Consultations on IEG.

2008 Joint Inspection Unit Report on the Management Review of Environmental Governance in the UN System.

IEG Process – Until now

After a new series of informative talks, the co-chairs of the Informal Consultative Process came out with the “Draft Resolution on Strengthening the Environmental Activities in the United Nations System” in May 2008.

In December 2008 several delegations moved to have a break in the negotiations. The failure of the debate in New York created a window of opportunity for UNEP to step into the debate, in which it had had only a marginal voice before. Nevertheless it is expected that finally UNGA will decide.

Co-chairs of the informal consultations of the General assembly on the institutional framework for the United Nations environment work submitted a report dated 10 February 2009 and had recommended to produce proposals that ‘allow improving the current system’. Through this they have now reached out to other processes, in particular UNEP, to initiate their own processes to feed in fresh ideas for UNGA.

The co-chairs of the process in New York have not ended their mandate. The main venue for discussion on IEG is still the UNGA. The ministerial consultations in GMEF will thus not create a parallel process, but aim only to help the debate in New York.

IEG Process – Until now

The need to kick-start the reform debate prompted UNEP at the 25th Regular Session of its Governing Council in February 2009 to make IEG one of the two central themes to be discussed in the ministerial conference, under the provocative title “IEG: help or hindrance? IEG from a country perspective”.

UNEP Governing Council decision 25/4 (International Environmental Governance): Requests the group of ministers or high-level representatives to conclude its work and present a set of options for improving international environmental governance to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its eleventh special session (February 2010), with a view to providing inputs to the United Nations General Assembly.

IEG Process – Until now

Frustration with lack of progress with Cartagena Package

– Role of GC/GMEF– Bali Strategic Plan– Strengthening financial base– Science base– Coherence & cooperation– Universal membership

Environmental discussion happening in UNEP, while social and economic discussions are happening in UNGA

– Sustainable development has 3 pillars – economic, social & environmental

Frustrations

(AMCEN, 2007)

• Challenges: – Environment & SD discussions happening in “silos”

– “Firewall” between environment and sustainable development in the UN

– Lack of a strong political base for IEG & SD

– Lack of coherence and coordination between different UN bodies and agencies

– Fragmentation of implementation, scientific work and policy development

– Capacity building and technical support not meeting expectations

– Huge resource gap leading to discrepancies between commitments and actions

Challenges

(AMCEN, 2007)

The economy working for sustainable development, Environment as the foundation of sustainable development.

(Scanlon, undated accessed September 11, 2010)

Challenges

Challenges

The current framework of international environmental governance is weakened by institutional fragmentation and specialization and the lack of a holistic approach to environmental issues and sustainable development. The duplication and fragmentation of the work of United Nations system organizations stem principally from a blurred distinction in their work programmes between environmental protection and sustainable development and the absence of a single strategic planning framework.

United Nations system organizations have not defined clearly their responsibilities under the governance framework, which aims at integrating environmental protection into economic and social development and mainstreaming environmental considerations in sustainable development policies.

(Inomata, 2009)

Environmental Governance in the UN

(UN-JIU, 2008)

Environmental Governance in the UN

Environmental Management Group- UN specialised agencies

- UN programs - UN conventions

Other interagency bodiesUN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination

- High - level Committee on Programmes- High - level Committee on Management- United Nations Development Group

UN WaterUN OceansUN Energy

High level Advisory Group on Climate Financing

High level panel on System Wide Coherence in the areas of Development, Humanitarian Affairs and the Environment

High level panel on Global Sustainability

Environmental Governance in the UN

(Mitchell, 2010 accessed 12 September 2010)

Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Total Number – 729 (protocols and amendments) 357 – Original agreements (20 % protocols and 30 % amendments) Several not entered into force - 50 have been replaced or terminated 3 – 1 ratio – Bilateral Environmental Agreements

(Mitchell, 2003)

Multilateral Environmental Agreements

(Ivanova, 2010)

Timeline – major MEAs catalysed by UNEP

(Ivanova, 2005)

IEG – Belgrade Process

First meeting of the Consultative Group in Belgrade, 27-28 June 2009:

Nomination of co-Chairs:

H.E. Mr. John NjorogeMichuki, Kenya, and H.E. Ms. Stefania Prestigiacomo, Italy.

Outcome: Co-Chairs Summary: ‘The Belgrade Process-Moving Forward with Developing a Set of Options on International Environmental Governance’

“The co-Chairs’ summary is a reflection of the interactive dialogue that occurred among the ministers and high-level representatives attending the Consultative Group meeting. It reflects the ideas presented and discussed.” (Belgrade Process, paragraph 5).

The Belgrade Process –guiding implementation of GC decision 25/4.

As per paragraph 7, Ministers and high-level representativesgenerally supported the following:

Developing a set of options for improving IEG should follow from a fresh examination of multiple challenges and emerging opportunities.

Any reform to IEG should be based on the principle that form should follow function.

Consultations on functions will lead to a discussion on forms that could range from incremental changes to other broader institutional reforms that can be considered alongside each other.

The IEG debate should be addressed in the broader context of environmental sustainability and sustainable development.

The work of the Consultative Group should be political in nature.

IEG Process – Belgrade process

IEG – Belgrade Process

Second meeting of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-level Representatives on International Environmental Governance - Rome, 26 – 29 October 2009

Two papers prepared by ED – UNEP

1. ‘The Belgrade Process’ Developing a set of options for improving International Environmental Governance

This paper is prepared by the Executive Director in response to paragraph 17 of the co-Chairs’ summary of the first meeting of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on International Environmental Governance (‘the Consultative Group’), which was held in Belgrade, Serbia from 27 to 28 June 2009. The summary is also referred to as the ‘Belgrade Process’. A draft paper was distributed on 14 August 2009 with electronic comments requested to be sent on or before 13 September 2009 to the Executive Director.

This paper has been prepared to assist the Consultative Group in implementing Governing Council Decision 25/4 in line with the Belgrade Process. It draws upon the discussion of the Consultative Group during its first meeting, subsequent written comments provided by participating governments, comments on the draft paper, and other sources in identifying potential functions and possible forms to address such functions.

2. Table on incremental changes for IEG: Actions to be taken by the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum versus the United Nations General Assembly (short term options)

Creating a strong, credible and coherent science base (Int. panel for natural resource management?)

Developing a global authoritative and responsive voice for sustainability

Achieving coherence within the UN system (between and with MEAs; between and with agencies)

Securing sufficient, predictable and coherent funding (VISC: voluntary indicative scale of contributions)

Ensuring a responsive and cohesive approach to meeting country needs

IEG – Belgrade Process – incremental changes

11th Special session GC/GMEF– February 2010, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia – adopted decision SS XI/1 on International Environmental Governance. The decisions are (among others)

5. Decides to establish a regionally representative, consultative group of ministers or high-level representatives, inviting each United Nations region to propose between four and six Governments to participate, while remaining open to participation by other interested Governments,

8. Decides that the group will consider the broader reform of the international environmental governance system, building on the set of options but remaining open to new ideas

9. Invites the consultative group, through the United Nations Environment Programme secretariat, to seek relevant inputs from civil society groups from each region in the process of further strengthening international environmental governance;

10. Decides that the group will conclude its work in a timely fashion and present a final report to the Governing Council at its twenty-sixth session in anticipation of the Council’s contribution in time for the second meeting of the open-ended preparatory committee of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly;

IEG process Now and role of Civil society

The Malmö Declaration stressed the need to intensify efforts to remedy the alarming deterioration of the natural resource base that supports life on Earth. The window of opportunity to preserve our natural capital is diminishing rapidly. ……. The gulf between the aspiration for environmental sustainability and our achievements remains too wide. Improved international governance of environment and development can help close that gap.

…………environmental ills cannot be solved where influence and institutions are weak. A coherent and effective international environmental governance architecture can provide a foundation for human well-being for generations to come……….. I urge you to be bold and creative in putting forward new ideas. In that spirit, I wish you a successful and productive meeting.

Ban Ki Moon

IEG Processes

IEG Process – NOW – examples

The simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions was held in Bali, Indonesia, at the Bali International Convention Centre in, Nusa Dua, from 22 to 24 February 2010.The convening of three independent treaty conferences simultaneously marked a historic departure for international environmental governance.Stockholm convention – on Persistent Organic PollutantsRotterdam Convention – International Trade in Hazardous chemicals/Environmentally Sound use of those chemicalsThe Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

First meeting of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-level Representatives on International Environmental Governance

Nairobi, 7 – 9 July 2010

Back ground paper submitted by ED - Options for broader reform of International Environmental Governance

CO-CHAIRS’ SUMMARY : Building on the Set of options for improving international environmental governance of the Belgrade Process

Parameters to guide the process (among others)

IEG addressed in the broader context of environmental sustainability and sustainable development.

Work of CG should be political in nature Incremental reforms – UNEP, broader reforms – Consultative Group International environmental governance constitutes an essential part of the

governance of sustainable development and within this context its strengthening will directly contribute to a more effective sustainable development governance system.

High level representatives on IEG

Second meeting of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-level Representatives on International Environmental Governance

Helsinki - November, 2010

Next Meeting

IEG reform in the context of environmental sustainability and sustainable development:

ED’s paper and intervention in Belgrade

Recognition of the negative impacts of a degraded environment on the development process –environment moving from often being considered as a marginal issue to the centre of political and economic decision making

The environmental pillar as the foundation for the economic and social pillars of sustainable development as life on earth is conditioned upon a healthy environment

Mainstreaming of the concept of a green economy throughout the UN system, including agencies dealing with other pillars of sustainable development

Linking the Bali Strategic Plan with the transition to a green economy

IEG and Sustainable Development

Belgrade process is about IEG –in context of sustainable development

Objectives:

1. Securing renewed political commitment to sustainable development, 2. assessing the progress and implementation gaps in meeting already agreed

commitments, and 3. addressing new and emerging challenges.

Themes:

1. Green Economy within the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

2. Institutional Framework for sustainable development

IEG and Sustainable Development

Rio + 20Rio 20Stockholm + 40

Clustering of International Environmental Agreements (Moltke, 2001)

GEF as a pioneering institutions – (Chazournes, 2003)

Non institutional proposals (Perrez and Ziegerer, 2008)

World Environment Organisations (Biermann, 2007)

United Nations Environment Organisation (Ohlendorf and Knigge, 2007)

Greening the treaties (GEF, 2009)

Proposed scenarios – some examples

Reform process - contributions

For afternoons discussions

What do you think are the gaps in the current IEG system based on your experience ?

What do you think should be done at the global, national and local level with respect to deteriorating environment ?

How could we in Ethiopia join hands to address these important issues ?

Possible future course of actions

Synergy between different MEAs at the local level (PANE)

Individual organisations taking lead – thematic areas (EWNHS – Biodiversity, Enda- Ethiopia – Waste Management)

Involvement in the IEG process

Networking on IEG issues (online/physical)

Research on IEG issues (agenda is already being prepared)

Training course on IEG (in discussions with GEG project)

Rio + 20 process (start well ahead – lessons from CC preparations)

This is how the world started

Thank You

EMG

Environmental Governance - UN

1. UN Secretariat 2. Regional Commissions 3. UN Funds and Programmes 4. Other UN Entities 5. Research and Training Institutes 6. Specialized Agencies 7. Convention Secretariats 8. Related Organizations

CEB

Environmental Governance - UN

Environmental Governance - UN