International Environmental Governance

1. International Environmental Governance Robert Wabunoha Legal Officer, Regional Office for Africa

2. 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

3. 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.

4. An effective IEG system: Building blocks of an effective IEG system: scientific evidence; coherent decision-making and objective-setting; institutional architecture to implement and coordinate; management and operationalization; and coordination of the effective implementation at the country level.

5. Why does nobody care for the environment? Environment’s dilemma Public good Issue overlaps

6. 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)

7. 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

8. Organisations with environmental mandate

9. Summary of meetings and decisions of major MEAs 1992-2007

10. 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)

11. Coordination mechanisms Environment Coordination Board Environment Management Group - 1999

12. 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

13. 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 Reporton 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.

14. 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

15. The Set of options Objectives and functions identified: Creating a strong, credible and coherent science base. Developing a global authoritative and responsive voice for environmental sustainability. Achieving coherence within the UN system. Securing sufficient, predictable and coherent funding. Ensuring a responsive and cohesive approach to meeting country needs.

16. 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

17. 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 encouragesynergies 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.

18. The Nairobi – Helsinki Outcome Form-relatedaspects of broader institutional reform Enhancing UNEP; Establishing a new umbrella organization for sustainable development; Establishing a specialized agency such as a world environment organization; Reforming the United Nations Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development; Enhancing institutional reforms and streamlining existing structures.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Thank you