Monday, May 5, 2008

Draft resolution puts UNEP
on the agenda: Strengthening
the environment pillar in the UN

On Friday May 2nd the Swiss and Mexican Ambassadors presented a draft resolution to follow up paragraph 169 from the World Summit 2005. This is a culmination of the work that the Ambassadors have undertaken over the past two years to see where consensus might lie for strengthening the pillar of the environment in the UN system.

By: Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

The paper draws heavily from their Options Paper which was presented to the Informal GA session in September 2007. In response to that paper FBOMS, Stakeholder Forum, NGLS and UN NGLS collected stakeholder views in a paper presented to that meeting called ‘Options for strengthening the environmental pillar of sustainable development’. The draft resolution had some very clear recommendations that are now being considered before an informal session on May 21st. The resolution covered eight areas:

(1) Strengthening Assessment, monitoring and early warning capacity

The resolution reiterates that UNEP is the leading agency within the UN for the analysis of the global environment and assessment of global and regional environmental trends. It invites the UNEP Governing Council to create a Chief Scientific Capacity to be responsible for convening leading scientists from within and outside the UN system. This is not going as far as was being suggested last September when the position of a Chief Scientist was being considered. It is also unclear how at this point this differs from the DEWA within UNEP at present. Perhaps an opportunity of looking for a Chief Risk Analyst has been missed.

There is also the support for Environment Watch Strategy, which would bring together the scientific work of the MEAs with UNEP under an MOU. Something stakeholders supported in September last year.

(2) Coordination and cooperation at the level of agencies

This section attempts to strengthen UNEP’s role in relation to other bodies within the UN system and outside. Stakeholders in September called for the strengthening of the Environmental Management Group with a new mandate, which the resolution clearly does. Placing the ‘EMG’ under the management of the UNEP Executive Director strengthens the role of UNEP as coordinator and facilitator of environment within the UN system. The suggestion that the EMG meet twice a year under the UN Secretary General highlights the critical need for the system to operate as one in a set of growing environmental problems. This addresses the question asked by stakeholders in September in relationship to the role EMG might have to the Chief Executives Board (the UN Cabinet). What is not addressed in the resolution is the relationship between the EMG and UN Water, UN Oceans and UN Energy. Perhaps the former three would be better coordinated through a reestablishing of the Interagency Committee on Sustainable Development.

The underlining of a more active role for UNEP with UNDP at the country level under the Bali Strategic Plan is something that stakeholders supported in September as critical to ensure that developing countries have access to the appropriate capacity to address the critical issues facing us today and in the future. Perhaps this will mean much more sustainable development within poverty reduction strategies in the future. Stakeholders suggested in September that perhaps a merging in the long term of the EMG and the UN Development Group into a sustainable development group might be worth considering.

The draft UN resolution also stresses the need for an enhanced role of UNEP in international economic, trade and financial institutions. The recommendation that UNEP and the MEAs ask to be formal observers on all the relevant Committees of the WTO is to be welcomed. Perhaps this will enable there to be a recognition that WTO should not have a mandate to set the rules or criteria hat might restrict the use of national implementation of any trade measures agreed to in MEAs. Ultimately the CSD should request that WTO assess the impact of WTO rules on the promotion of sustainable development policies.

(3) Multilateral Environmental Agreements

The draft UN resolution builds on work already underway in the area of clustering UN Conventions. It asks UNEP to identify clusters for future strengthening of cooperation and coordination. There are some good examples of this already published within input to the Cartagena process and in NGO and academic papers. Perhaps one of the most far reaching suggestions in the resolution is that of the ED of UNEP to manage Secretariats of the Conventions under his authority in the most cost effective manner, and to take a proactive role in enabling synergies among the conventions. This will enable the ED of UNEP to start to bring back together the Environmental family in one house.

(4) Regional presence and activities at the regional level

The call for straightening the regional presence of UNEP and the cooperation with other key regional players is to be supported as it gives UNEP a clear base to offer capacity building in the regions.

(5) Bali Strategic Plan

The resolution urges much more of a common UN approach to building capacity within countries under the Bali Plan and therefore recognizes that not only can UNEP not do everything on the environment, it shouldn’t, as it is not an operational agency. Drawing on UNDP, WHO, FAO and others will only strengthen the implementation of the Bali Plan at a national or local level.

(6) Information technologies, partnerships and advocacy

The resolution urges the use of state of the art information technology within UNEP and its regional offices. This should surely be a no brainer; an effective organization needs to upgrade every few years to utilize the new tools that are available.

(7) Financing

When three NGOs combined (Greenpeace, WWF and IUCN) have more money than UNEP there is something seriously wrong about the global agency for the environment as far as funding is concerned. The suggestion of doubling the contribution from the regular budget is to be welcomed but is not enough. The suggestion that all MEAs should have funding within the GEF, and that the GEF should expand its scope of activity to include this within the fifth replenishment, is an issue for discussion. Perhaps a review of the GEF and the use of funds it has at the moment, and in particular their geographical distribution, should be carried out before moving forward on this.

(8) Finally

The Building Blocks paper that the Swiss and Mexican Ambassadors tabled last August was one of the best documents that has been produced on reform of the UN in the area of environment. The draft resolution that was tabled on Friday is to be welcomed. Many of the ideas put forward by stakeholders can be seen within the paper, as can more importantly those of governments. If the explanation of the paper by the Ambassadors on Friday turns out to be correct, that they have tried to table a draft resolution that is as close as they can see to what governments would accept, then UNEP will be in a much stronger position this time next year and will have the possibility to retake its role as the custodian of the environment envisioned in 1972 when it was set up.