Tuesday, May 13, 2008

A New UNEP?

Think Piece on International Environmental Governance

By: Felix Dodds, Richard Sherman and Jan Gustav Strandenæs

On 2 May, the Swiss and Mexican Ambassadors presented a draft resolution to follow up para 169 from the World Summit 2005. This was 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. The paper draws heavily from their Options Paper which was presented to the Informal GA session in September 2007.

The resolution covered eight areas: strengthening assessment, monitoring and early warning capacity; coordination and cooperation at the levels of agencies; multilateral environmental agreements; regional presence and activities at the regional level; Bali Strategic Plan; information technologies, partnerships and advocacy; and financing. The draft resolution had some very clear recommendations that are now being considered before an informal session on 21 May 2008.

A brief recap of civil society views

In October 2007, FBOMS, Stakeholder Forum, ANPED and UN NGLS collected together stakeholder views in a paper presented to that meeting called ‘Options for strengthening the environmental pillar of sustainable development. In summary, civil society discussions on the complexity of the IEG process have clearly favoured strengthening UNEP in Nairobi as the lead UN body responsible for all environmental programmes and activities within the UN system.

Civil Society has further urged a stronger international authority on environment to safeguard the environmental pillar of sustainable development. A number of principles should be adopted for a strengthened UNEP, namely: broad societal consensus on a long term vision for UNEP; reliable analysis of the present situation and future scenarios for UNEP; integrated planning comprising all dimensions of sustainable development; building on existing strategies and processes; increasing links between national and local level strategies; integration into financial and budget planning; early monitoring to steer processes and track progress; and effective participation mechanisms.

In strengthening UNEP consideration must be given to the specific needs of developing countries and respect of the fundamental principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. Developed countries should promote technology transfer, new and additional financial resources, and capacity building for meaningful participation of developing countries in IEG.

Strengthening of IEG should also occur in the context of sustainable development and should involve civil society as important stakeholders and agents of transformation. There is a need to: improve coordination and dissemination of measurable information about UNEP assistance; define a more secure and permanent place for UNEP in the context of a poverty focused development agenda; integrate UNEP concerns more effectively into development strategies; encourage the increased participation of a range of government institutions in providing UNEP assistance; and support opportunities for direct NGO execution of publicity funded programmes.

Time for a macro-approach to reform

The Co-chairs draft resolution, while welcomed, is limited in its scope and reach. It deals primarily with micro-issues in a context where far-reaching macro-solutions are now needed. We have articulated this in two new problem statements and a number of proposals to address the growing crisis within UNEP. If UNEP’s current insufficiencies are not remedied, serious consideration should be given to guaranteeing greater coherence between environmental and social agendas, making the concept of ‘environment for development’ a reality.