Strengthening InternationalEnvironmental Governance:System-Wide Responses

JUNE 2012

I N T E RNAT I ONA L P E AC E I N S T I T U T E

Chris Perry, rapporteur

Cover Photo: An aerial view of Rio de

Janeiro, the city that will host the

United Nations Conference on

Sustainable Development known as

Rio+20. ©Brasil2/iStockphoto.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in

this paper represent those of the

rapporteur and not necessarily thoseof IPI or meeting participants. IPI

welcomes the consideration of a wide

range of perspectives in the pursuit

of a well-informed debate on critical

policies and issues in international

affairs.

IPI Publications

Adam Lupel, Editor and Senior FellowMarie O’Reilly, Publications Officer

Suggested Citation

“Strengthening International

Environmental Governance: System-

Wide Responses,” Chris Perry,

rapporteur. New York: InternationalPeace Institute, June 2012.

© by International Peace Institute,

2012.

All Rights Reserved

www.ipinst.org

ABOUT THE RAPPORTEUR

CHRIS PERRY is a Senior Policy Analyst at IPI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

IPI owes a debt of thanks to its many donors, whose

support makes publications like this one possible. In partic-

ular, IPI would like to thank the Nordic Council of Ministers

of the Environment and the government of Norway for

their generous contribution to IPI for this meeting and

publication.

CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Road to Rio+20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Three-Pronged Approach to Reform . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PROCESS

COHERENCE

CONSOLIDATION

Sustainable Development and Governance . . . . . . . . 6

Systemic Strategies, Frameworks, andSynergies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

HAZARDOUS WASTE

BIODIVERSITY

RIO CONVENTIONS

FURTHER SYNERGIES

Strategic Engagement at the Regionaland Country Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

TIMELINE

AGENDA

PARTICIPANTS

Executive Summary

On December 14, 2011, the International PeaceInstitute and the Nordic missions to the UN in NewYork, supported by the Nordic Council of Ministersfor the Environment, held a roundtable discussionon reform options for international environmentalgovernance in the context of the upcoming UnitedNations Conference on Sustainable Developmentknown as Rio+20.

The half-day event featured presentations anddiscussions on the current challenges for interna-tional environmental governance, addressingsystem-wide frameworks and strategic engagementat the regional and country level. Participants alsoaddressed challenges related to implementation inthe field and considered how national-levelconcerns could be taken into account duringRio+20 negotiations later this year. With represen-tatives from the United Nations, member states,and academia, the meeting brought togetherpractical, political, and theoretical expertise on thesubject.

This meeting report presents a synthesis of theroundtable discussions, which were conductedunder the Chatham House rule of nonattribution.First, conversation around the process of reformlooked toward Rio+20 and how best to ensureprogress in June. In this context, two questionsarose: What should states and policymakers see asideal? And how does this relate to organizationalmanagement, in terms of both the normative andoperational aspects of international environmentalgovernance? Participants also spent much time onthe subject of coherence in the internationalenvironmental governance (IEG) architecture. Thistended toward coherence between IEG and broaderefforts by the international system on the one handand coherence between the global architecture andlocal and national implementation on the other.Finally, participants discussed the pros and cons ofthe consolidation of previous initiatives in thereform process, paying particular attention tofinding synergies within clusters of multilateralenvironmental agreements.

The report demonstrates that the existingNairobi-Helsinki Outcome provides a valuable

roadmap with regard to science and policy,coherent and predictable funding for the environ-ment, and a coherent UN approach to environ-mental issues. At the same time, discussions at themeeting highlighted that much can be achievedthrough simple and relatively inexpensive reformefforts. The report finds that • the proliferation of multilateral environmental

agreements has created opportunities forsynergies among conventions that can fostercoherence and coordination;

• to ensure effective implementation, theseconventions must take the national-level contextinto account; and

• joint agency coordination is possible and hasalready been successfully implemented in somecases.

Overall, IEG reforms should build on thesesuccessful examples of coherence, coordination,and consolidation and design solutions thatsupport, as opposed to hinder, national strategies.

Rio+20 provides member states with a politicalmandate to recommend ways to promote keyreforms of the current IEG structure. As such, thecentral questions for Rio should remain: Where isenvironmental and sustainable developmentgovernance being exercised? Is it being exercisedeffectively and coherently? And are the currentgovernance platforms adequate? To deliverambitious, system-wide reforms, delegates shouldkeep the focus of recommendations on thegovernance architecture that makes up the legal andpolicy framework for dealing with environmentalissues.

The Road to Rio+20In June 2012, member states will reconvene for thefourth decadal review of UN environmental activi-ties at the United Nations Conference onSustainable Development, or Rio+20.1 The confer-ence will seek to secure renewed political commit-ment to sustainable development, assess theprogress and gaps in implementation of previousagreements, and examine new and emergingchallenges. One of the two main themes will bestrengthening the institutional framework for

1

1 UN General Assembly Resolution 64/236 (March 31, 2010), UN Doc. A/RES/64/236.

sustainable development, which covers a spectrumof bodies, organizations, networks, and arrange-ments across the economic, social, and environ-mental pillars.2

In the environmental sphere, ministers of theenvironment from across the globe have affirmedin a variety of settings that reform of the currentinternational environmental governance (IEG)architecture is a necessity. Following the BelgradeProcess, in which the so-called consultative group3

was tasked with developing options for reforminginternational governance structures for theenvironment, five objectives for improving interna-tional environmental governance emerged: • Create a strong, credible, and accessible science

base and policy interface. Focus on providingdata, information, and scientific advice, andconduct environmental assessments for earlywarning.

• Develop a global, authoritative, and responsivevoice for environmental sustainability. Focus onagenda setting, mainstreaming the environmentinto other policy areas, creating and promotingbest practices and principles, and monitoringaccountability for agreed commitments.

• Achieve effectiveness, efficiency, and coherencewithin the United Nations system. Focus oncoordinating policy and programs, maintainingefficient and effective administration andimplementation of multilateral environmentalagreements, and facilitating interagency coopera-tion.

• Secure sufficient, predictable, and coherentfunding. Focus on mobilizing funds for theenvironment at the global level, developinginnovative financing mechanisms, and utilizingexisting funding effectively and efficiently.

• Ensure a responsive and cohesive approach tomeeting country needs. Focus on building thecapacity of both people and institutions,providing technological and financial support,mainstreaming the environment in sustainabledevelopment practices, and facilitating coopera-

tion both between and among stakeholders of theGlobal South and North.4

The consultative group refined these objectivesinto concrete recommendations during its 2009 and2010 meetings, and they were then put forward inthe resulting Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome. Thisdocument lays out both incremental changes to bemade within the current institutional structure andbroader reform ideas. The group further argues thatIEG reform must produce an authoritative voiceand credible leadership for the internationalcommunity’s activities on the environment.

In terms of incremental institutional changes, theNairobi-Helsinki Outcome calls for “full andmeaningful participation of [all] countries” instrengthening the science-policy interface, assistingscientific capacity building at the national level,expanding environmental assessments andinformation networks, and bolstering the role ofthe Global Environmental Outlook reportsproduced by the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP). It suggests the developmentof a system-wide strategy for the environment inthe UN, specifically by defining the division oflabor on environmental activities within the UNsystem, with the involvement of both governmentsand civil society. Further, it encourages thediscovery and development of synergies, at theinstitutional level in general and specificallybetween compatible multilateral environmentalagreements. The purpose of these synergies shouldbe to make implementation more efficient andcost-effective while remaining flexible andadaptable. The document also proposes a strongerlink between policy and financing, as well as thedevelopment of a robust capacity-buildingframework. Finally, it recommends strengtheningUNEP regional offices to offer support forimplementation and coordination of multilateralenvironmental agreements and environmentalactivities.

In addition to these proposals for functionalchanges, the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome sets outfour main options for broad institutional reform:

2 MEETING NOTE

2 United Nations Secretary-General, Objective and Themes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.216/PC/7, December 20,2010.

3 The Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on International Environmental Governance was tasked with developing options for IEGreform through the Belgrade Process.

4 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “Decision SS.XI/1: International Environmental Governance,” adopted at the eleventh special session of theGoverning Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, February 26, 2010.

• Enhance the UNEP.• Create a new umbrella organization for environ-

mentally and economically sustainable develop-ment.

• Create a specialized agency to coordinateenvironmental activities; for instance, a WorldEnvironment Organization.

• Reform both the UN Economic and SocialCouncil (ECOSOC) and the Commission onSustainable Development to better deal withenvironmental concerns.These reform ideas did not garner a comprehen-

sive consensus, and it was determined that anymajor reforms would require further politicalguidance. That said, the consultative group didrecommend that the reform of ECOSOC and theCommission on Sustainable Development and thecreation of a new umbrella organization would bestbe taken up within the wider sustainable develop-ment agenda. And enhancing the UNEP, creating anew coordinating agency, and streamlining currentinstitutions were deemed to be promising possibili-ties for strengthening international environmentalgovernance.5

Against this backdrop, the International PeaceInstitute (IPI) and the Nordic Missions to the UNorganized a roundtable meeting on strengtheninginternational environmental governance in NewYork in December 2011, with the support of theNordic Council of Ministers of the Environment.The main goals of the meeting were to:• discuss the system-wide responses identified in

the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome and comprehen-sive and coherent options for improving IEG;

• create a better understanding of the variousconsiderations and needs involved in IEG reform;

• promote synergies between multilateral environ-mental agreements;

• examine the links between policy and financing;and

• promote strategic engagement at the regional andnational level.

A Three-Pronged Approachto Reform

Over the course of the meeting at IPI, three majorthreads emerged from the discussion. First, conver-sation around process tended to look towardRio+20 and how best to ensure progress in June. Inthis context, two questions arose: What shouldstates and policymakers see as ideal? And how doesthis relate to organizational management, in termsof both the normative and operational aspects ofinternational environmental governance?Participants also spent much time on the subject ofcoherence. This tended toward coherence betweendifferent aspects of IEG and broader efforts by theinternational system on the one hand andcoherence between the global architecture and localand national implementation on the other. Finally,participants discussed the pros and cons of theconsolidation of previous initiatives in the reformprocess, paying particular attention to findingsynergies within clusters of multilateral environ-mental agreements. Overall, the discussionshighlighted that much can be achieved throughsimple and relatively inexpensive reform efforts.PROCESS

Beginning with the Belgrade Process in 2009 andcontinuing with the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome in2010, the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-level Representatives on International Environ -mental Governance has provided valuable inputs tothe preparations for the Rio+20 conference. One ofthe responses identified in the Nairobi-HelsinkiOutcome is to develop a system-wide strategy forthe environment. This will ideally provide the waysand means for the UN system to bring about betterenvironmental outcomes through collective action.

This topic was also touched upon by the InformalDiscussion Group on the Institutional Frameworkfor Sustainable Development (IFSD) in New Yorkduring the fall of 2011. Elements of the IEG reformagenda will be integral to building a new interna-tional architecture for sustainable development.

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 3

5 UNEP, “Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome,” adopted at the second meeting of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on InternationalEnvironmental Governance in Espoo, Finland, November 23, 2010.

Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, UNEP isan important part of the environmental architec-ture and should be strengthened, though what thatmeans is up for debate. The aim is to achieve anefficient, effective, and coherent governance systemthat is able to respond to member states’ needs andis based on the three pillars of sustainable develop-ment: economic, social, and environmental.

The Rio+20 conference presents an opportunityto move this debate forward. IEG reform is acomplex process with several important andinterlinked dimensions. However, participants atthe IPI meeting agreed that consensus at Rio wouldprovide guidance, support, and a strong push formore coherent UN work on sustainable develop-ment. It would help the UN strengthen its work onsustainable development by bringing focus tosometimes disparate and competing strands of UNcompetencies. However, to take advantage of thisopportunity, member states must work together tofind a common vision. In the end, Rio+20 cancreate the political will for a continued process andhelp the UN system achieve more than the sum ofits parts. COHERENCE

Meeting participants highlighted the importance ofbringing coherence to the UN’s work on theenvironment and sustainable development but alsoto the UN system’s work overall. This coalesced intotwo general threads. First, the concept of“delivering as one” at the country level should beboth the focus and the starting point of discussions.Second, strengthened mechanisms for system-widecoherence should be used to support this aim. Inthe words of an unnamed developing nation’sminister of the environment, quoted by onemeeting participant, “I don’t care if you are UNEPor UNDP. You are the UN and you are here tosupport my country.”

Another representative of a UN agencymentioned that, in his experience, workingcoherently today may happen more in spite of thesystem than due to its design. At the national andregional level, initiatives like the UNDP-UNEPPoverty-Environment Initiative and the UNDevelopment Assistance Framework (UNDAF)offer examples for mainstreaming the environmentin UN work at the country level. Indeed, thePoverty-Environment Initiative is a good example

of agencies leveraging complementary corecompetencies through partnership. In both of theseexamples, however, the central tension betweensustainable environmental management on the onehand and rapid poverty reduction on the otherremains.

One of the central challenges, aside from sheercapacity to keep all the balls in the air, is to find theright mix of incentives for maximum national buy-in. To this end, the UN can simplify the tasksrequired by functioning as a “broker” and offeringsupport to countries on investments, knowledge,and operational activities. At the regional level aswell as the national level, participants suggestedthat the key is to design incentives that wouldencourage closer cooperation within the UNsystem.

At the global level, the problem of overallsystemic coherence remains. There is a multitude ofoverlapping mandates and unclear divisions oflabor within the UN system’s work, particularly inthe fields of environment and development. It isnecessary to better equip the agencies that managethe process to meet needs as they arise.Additionally, reform needs to address thewidespread phenomena of turf battles, silos, andunsound competition for funding.

On the issue of funding, participants suggestedthat the linkages between finance and policy needto be stronger in order to fill the implementationgaps. Financing needs to be sufficient, predictable,and coherent with the rest of the UN’s fundingstrategies. This can help to increase transparency,enhance efficiency, and improve coordination andmanagement of financial flows. The discussionhighlighted that current funding structures fulfillnone of these requirements. However, keyquestions remain: What is a sufficient fundinglevel? And how do we better assess the interplay ofthe various actors working on environmentalissues?

While it is tempting to approach environmentalissues in a strictly programmatic way to ensureconcrete outcomes, there is a risk of losing the bigpicture. On the other hand, systemic approachestend to be long term in nature and so are very hardto reorient to quickly changing facts on the ground.Additionally, it is sometimes difficult to getnational buy-in without the concrete outcomes

4 MEETING NOTE

offered by a programmatic approach. This tensionbetween the systemic and programmatic needs tobe addressed.

Ultimately, UNDP, UNEP, and other interna-tional agencies need to elaborate a joint vision forsustainable development and the environment.This would help to clarify roles, responsibilities,tasks, and synergies, both among agencies andbetween national, regional, and global levels. Forsystem-wide coordination it is also important toexamine and improve existing mechanisms, such asthe Environment Management Group, system-wideframeworks like the UNDAF, and the role of theUnited Nations Development Group (UNDG).While it is a relatively common view that UNEPshould play a central role in this process, there isnot yet clarity as to what type of enhancementsmember states should propose. Finally, the currentsystem is vague when it comes to implications ofreform for governance structures. A joint visionwould help member states addressing shiftingenvironmental and development challenges tocoordinate with managerial organizations andagencies that implement these decisions andmandates. CONSOLIDATION

Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs),which relate to a number of different environ-mental issues, form the core of the IEG architec-ture. The current gaps in implementation could beaddressed by consolidating these instruments. Thiswould require cooperation between states andbetween secretariats. In this respect, the meetingdialogue focused mainly on the topics of globalmanagement and country-level complianceburdens.

Most pressing is the fragmentation of MEAsacross the international system. Over the past fourdecades, there has been a proliferation ofsecretariats and agendas, as well as associatedmeetings, that drain capacity for even the mostresourceful countries. According to the backgroundpaper for the 2010 consultative group, “There are

now more than 500 international treaties and otheragreements related to the environment, ofwhich…302 date from the period between 1972and the early 2000s.”6 For developing countries, thisoften presents a serious challenge of balancingcompliance and implementation of MEAs withnational development plans. At the very least,practices such as shared accounting and reportingcan considerably lighten the burden and free upresources for more effective implementation at thecountry level.

Rio+20 presents an opportunity to furtherdevelop and broaden efforts to enhance synergiesamong related MEAs. The member-state drivenconsolidation that has taken place in the chemicaland waste cluster may be one promising develop-ment. This process has led to the administrativejoining of three separate conventions on the topic:Basel, Stockholm, and Rotterdam.7 While thesethree conventions’ secretariats were housed in thesame building, they had independent decision-making processes and administrative capacity.Over the course of three years, the conventionshave managed to merge much of the administrativefunctions and have appointed an interim joint head.While program coordination and joint decisionmaking have not been instituted yet, the hope isthat this will soon follow. The common registry ofMEAs and sustainable development commitmentsthat will be proposed at Rio+20 could further thissynergistic process.

Participants expressed hope that the lessonslearned here can also be applied in part to the sixbiodiversity conventions.8 This will be a difficultundertaking, however, as these conventions areadministered by three agencies with very differentmandates,9 have separate reporting requirements,and need to be coordinated for efficient implemen-tation.

As the chemical conventions process has shown,the guiding principles for finding MEA synergiesshould be member-state driven, with the autonomyof the convention being respected. Whatever

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 5

6 UNEP, Environment in the United Nations System, report to the twenty-sixth session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, UN Doc.UNEP/GC.26/INF/23, January 28, 2011, p. 7, para. 5.

7 The Basel, Stockholm, and Rotterdam conventions deal with toxic waste, hazardous chemicals, and persistent organic pollutants, respectively.8 The Convention on Biodiversity, Convention International Trade in Endangered Species, Convention on Migratory Species, International Treaty on Plant Genetic

Resources, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and World Heritage Convention.9 Namely, UNEP; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO).

synergies can be found, they will most likely comeincrementally, as MEAs are slowly broughttogether. This consolidation will likely be easier insome areas than others—for example, in technicalwork as opposed to politically charged issues. Threemajor areas for synergies among MEAs have beenidentified: the interface between science and policy,the national-level implementation of action plans,and national reporting. Regardless, during anyprocess of consolidation, participants suggestedthat future MEAs must be taken into account toensure that the problem of fragmentation does notworsen.

Sustainable Developmentand Governance

Developing a more coherent institutionalframework for sustainable development (IFSD)remains a highly complex challenge due to themany interlocking institutions that work onsustainable development issues, the plethora ofMEAs, and the sheer enormity of the issue. Toencourage concrete outcomes from Rio+20, discus-sions on IFSD have been narrowed to three pillars:economic, social, and environmental; so IEG makesup a large portion of this framework. The firstsession of the roundtable meeting focused on thecurrent status of IFSD and the reform of interna-tional environmental governance. Speakersdiscussed progress made within the framework ofthe Informal Discussion Group on the InstitutionalFramework for Sustainable Development (IFSD),initiated by the governments of Indonesia, Kenya,and Mexico to create a coherent agenda for thetopic in advance of the Rio+20 meetings.Additionally, the Belgrade Process and Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome were discussed in the context ofmaintaining momentum through to the Rio+20conference in order to achieve the wider IEGreform agenda.

Through the informal discussion group,consensus has already begun to build around acouple of issues. First, IEG is an important andintegral part of the effort that must be undertakento build a new architecture for sustainable develop-ment. This is reflected in the way that attention hasshifted from the 1992 Earth Summit’s narrow focuson the environment to the full spectrum of sustain-able development being considered at Rio+20 in

2012. Second, when strengthening the environ-mental pillar of sustainable development, UNEPshould remain the central cog and should bestrengthened along with the entire environmentalpillar.

However, differences still remain. For instance,the definition of “strengthening” the environmentalpillar of sustainable development or UNEP specifi-cally can have different meanings and implicationsdepending on whom one talks to. Additionally,though some participants in the informal discus-sion group expressed the belief that theCommission on Sustainable Development (CSD)may have run its course, this is far from agreedupon. Even among those that do agree, questionsremain as to how to carry out the functionscurrently handled by the CSD. Suggestions comingout of the informal discussion group includedfeeding these functions back into ECOSOC oranother institutional mechanism of IEG.

Lastly, there were a few specifics advanced onhow to move forward. Options on strengtheningUNEP ranged from transforming it into a special-ized agency to creating a new institution—a WorldEnvironment Organization (WEO)—to usingUNDP to backstop UNEP capacity. There seems tobe broad agreement that it is not ideal that discus-sions on sustainable development to date havemostly taken place between ministers of environ-ment. There needs to be more open and directcommunication between other ministries, financeand development for instance, as well as with civilsociety and the private sector.

On the topic of IEG reform specifically, discus-sions revolved around ways and means of enablingthe IEG system to produce better environmentaloutcomes through collective action. This need forbetter functions, which could be produced throughreform, has been upheld time and again: in theCartagena package at the World Summit onSustainable Development in 2002, in the UN’sDelivering as One report in 2006, and in theBelgrade Process and Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome. Itwas also stated at the roundtable that UN actionsshould be first and foremost responsive to countryneeds. Any IEG reform should fit seamlessly intothe broader IFSD and must offer facilitative supportfunctions to countries attempting to implementagreements. In the words of the Delivering as Onereport, “The United Nations needs to overcome its

6 MEETING NOTE

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 7

fragmentation and deliver as one through astronger commitment to working together onimplementation of one strategy, in the pursuit ofone set of goals.”10

It was noted that many of the functions in theNairobi-Helsinki Outcome already exist to a greateror lesser extent within the current IEG architecture,but they still need to be stitched together. Forinstance, when examining the science-policyinterface, the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange and the International Resource Panel fillthis gap but are not held together by an overarchingframework.

Systemic Strategies,Frameworks, and Synergies

The second session focused on concrete stepstoward IEG reform. Speakers addressed both thehistory and future of system-wide strategies andframeworks for the environment and the linkbetween policymaking, finance, and MEAsynergies. As in the previous session, participantsstressed that the UN system needs to deliver as onein support of nationally determined priorities.

The session began with a historical overview,showing how UNEP, its governing council, and theUN system actually took a very programmatic andsystemic approach to environmental activitieswithin the UN system in the decade following the1972 Stockholm Conference. But as the complexity,size, and depth of UN activities increased, memberstates decided to move away from this approach, asit was not a practical steering tool and lacked thenecessary authority to enable non-UNEP entities toimplement necessary activities. Instead, environ-mental governance moved toward a much moreissue-based approach, as with the Task Force onEnvironment and Human Settlements introducedby Kofi Annan, for example.11 This issue-basedapproach enabled the UN to better engage inresults-oriented and time-bound activities withconcrete outcomes. Unfortunately, using an issue-based approach has tended to come at the expenseof big-picture, system-wide strategic thinking. Thecurrent IEG reform movement aims to fill that gap.

As stated above, there is broad consensus that thecurrent system requires improvement. And themost fertile ground for coordinated action seems tobe reform of the system as opposed to a completeoverhaul. However, the devil is in the details. Thechallenge will be to maintain the concrete nature ofthe current system while creating a global vision.Participants suggested that any process forreforming the environmental system will do well tokeep reform within the frame of human well-being,rather than focusing on the environment for theenvironment’s sake. Also, whatever system-widestrategy and framework emerges, it should have agood interface with all stakeholders, includingmember states, and supply a neutral body toprovide multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholderguidance. In the words of one participant, “Whenaddressing any global challenge it is imperative forthe UN to deliver as one…in support of nationallydetermined priorities.” This delivery needs to besupplemented by close coordination with large,relevant institutions like the World Bank, as well asother partners and bilateral donors. Finally, thesystem should try to address the tensions involvedin creating a strategic framework while maintainingthe agility to respond to rapidly developingenvironmental challenges.

A key goal for reform outlined in the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome is “to create a stronger linkbetween global environmental policy making andfinancing aimed at widening and deepening thefunding base for [the] environment with the goal ofsecuring sufficient, predictable and coherentfunding.”12 In order to answer the question of whatconstitutes sufficient funding, the system mustcome up with a better way of determining what theexisting financial resources dedicated to theenvironment are. One participant outlined some ofthe current funding distributions but noted thatthese are not available for policymakers in acollated format. For instance, there is around $32billion available per year for general climate changefunding, while the Global Environment Facilityamounts to about $6 billion. The World Bank hasabout $4.3 billion set aside for the environment,UNDP around $500 million, UNEP $217 million,

10 United Nations, Delivering as One: Report of the High-level Panel on United Nations System-wide Coherence in the areas of development, humanitarian assistance andthe environment, UN Doc. A/61/583, November 20, 2006, p. 2.

11 United Nations Secretary-General, Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, UN Doc. A/51/950, July 14, 1997.12 UNEP, “Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome.”

and MEA implementation has approximately $2.9billion annually. When delving into MEAimplementation funds, however, it should be notedthat $2.8 billion goes to implementation of theMontreal protocol on protecting the ozone layer. Infact, the budget of UNEP and non-Montreal MEAscomes to approximately $400 million per year.

On the subject of predictability, UNEP’sEnvironment Fund, which makes up the core of theagency’s funding, is not consistent. While there hasbeen growth in earmarked contributions, thecurrent budget adjusted for inflation is below thatof the mid-1970s and below that of the early 1990s,before the Earth Summit. One proposal floated tobolster funding was to go back to an idea broachedduring the preparatory conference for theStockholm Conference and assess contributions tothe Environment Fund based on energy consump-tion.

Lastly, on coherence of funding, participantssuggested that the primary challenge in the UNsystem is the lack of a clear, overarching vision forUN environmental activity and for a division oflabor. This should not be confused with a call forcentralization, and the distinctions betweenmultiplicity and fractionalization should beremembered. There is a need for multiple fundsand competencies to address multiple issues andpriorities. However, there needs to be a systemicstrategy for channeling funding and resources tothe best places.

An example of a mechanism aimed at remedyingthis situation is the Multi-Partner Trust Fund(MPTF) mechanism. This mechanism falls underthe United Nations Development Group and seeksto improve interagency cooperation, clarifydivision of labor, and enhance coordination andeffectiveness of country-level implementation. Thekey to MPTF success is that it provides system-widefinance coordination and transparency and areporting mechanism designed to increaseefficiency and accountability of UN operations, andit supports globally agreed or country-determineddevelopment priorities such as the MDGs, climatechange, and sustainable development. The MPTFcurrently enables various actors within the UNsystem, such as UNEP and UNDP, to link policy,operations, and financing in more than eightycountries through more than forty-five funds.

An example of the MPTF in action is the UN-REDD Programme Fund. The fund involves threeUN agencies (UNEP, UNDP, and the Food andAgriculture Organization, or FAO) and waslaunched in 2008 with funding from the govern-ment of Norway. In the subsequent four years,REDD+ has moved from a relatively unimportantpart of overall climate change work to one of thesuccess stories. There are currently twelve countrieswhere UN agencies leverage normative andoperational capacity to support nationally ledREDD+ processes. This cooperation across the UNsystem and across the many necessary national andsubnational agencies would not be possible withouta common financing mechanism.

Another important piece of IEG reform issynergies between MEAs and other instruments forsustainable development. There are currently morethan 500 MEAs with multiple compliance andreporting mechanisms. During discussions, partic-ipants addressed examples of synergies within threeMEA clusters: hazardous waste and chemicals,biodiversity, and the Rio Conventions. Each offeredsome insight into the processes and possibilities offinding synergies.HAZARDOUS WASTE

The hazardous waste and chemicals cluster offers acase study of some consolidation already underway.The cluster is composed of three conventions:• Basel Convention on the Control of Trans boundaryMovements of Hazardous Wastes and theirDisposal (Basel)

• Rotterdam Convention on the Prior InformedConsent Procedure for Certain HazardousChemicals and Pesticides in International Trade(Rotterdam)

• Stockholm Convention on Persistent OrganicPollutants (Stockholm) The process began in 2006 with a proposal from

UNEP Chemicals to consolidate the secretariats ofthe three conventions. This was presented as anexercise in efficiency, as there is much overlapbetween the three and all three are actually housedin the same building in Geneva. The member stateresponse, however, was that it would be moreappropriate for the process to be member-statedriven. Over the subsequent year, the parties of allthree secretariats engaged in negotiations over what

8 MEETING NOTE

a combined secretariat could offer in the form ofimplementation support. Due to the autonomy ofthe various secretariats, decisions had to be made ina time-consuming, piecemeal fashion.

These discussions resulted in the initiation of ajoint synergies group composed of forty-fiverepresentatives, with fifteen members from eachconvention and good regional representation. Thegroup met three times and came up with a series ofproposals, which were brought back to their respec-tive governing bodies (COPs) and were approvedone by one. The result was largely administrative,with the secretariats joining services such as legaland financial. Another contentious outcome was anagreement to appoint an interim joint head of thethree secretariats. Members of the conventions willdecide in 2012 whether to continue this on apermanent basis. Going forward, challenges remainin further organizing secretariats for efficientcooperation. Ideally the cost savings gleaned fromstreamlining will be channeled toward implemen-tation costs, though the specifics of this still need tobe worked out. Additionally, there is still much todo on developing programmatic synergies. Finally,there is hope that a move toward joint decisionmaking and joint budgeting will be made. However,all of this will take time. BIODIVERSITY

The biodiversity cluster represents six globalbiodiversity conventions that work together withinthe Biodiversity Liaison Group:• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)• Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on the Conservation of MigratorySpecies of Wild Animals (CMS)

• International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)

• Convention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance especially as Waterfowl Habitat(Ramsar Convention)

• Convention Concerning the Protection of theWorld Cultural and Natural Heritage (WorldHeritage Convention)Despite this plethora of conventions, biodiversity

continues to be lost at genetic, species, andecosystem levels. For instance, the 2010 biodiversity

target set by the CBD was missed. This points to aneed for more efficient institutions and moreeffective and complete implementation of currentglobal commitments.

The international community has repeatedlyvoiced the idea that finding synergies wouldaddress this need—in the Nairobi-HelsinkiOutcome, the Belgrade Process, and manydecisions of governing bodies of conventions.However, participants suggested that there arechallenges to finding appropriate synergies withinthe biodiversity cluster. The cluster presents a verydiverse set of conventions. Three are administeredby UNEP, one by the FAO, one by the UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), and one by theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN). Additionally, the focus of these conven-tions vary, both in substance and in arrangements.Finally, there are many different departments andagencies (such as environment, agriculture,economic, cultural, etc.) involved in implementa-tion at the national level.

Despite these challenges, much has been done tofind synergies. There has been considerablecooperation both multilaterally and bilaterally, andinitiatives such as the Biodiversity Liaison Grouphave brought together the heads of the secretariatsof the six conventions that make up the biodiversitycluster. There has been cooperation through theEnvironmental Management Group, as well asthematic cooperation on issues such as bush meatand invasive alien species. Lastly, there arenumerous memoranda of understanding, jointwork plans, and programs shared between subsetsof the various biodiversity conventions.

There were three non-administrative areas thatwere put forward at the roundtable where synergiesmight help. First, the science-policy interface couldbenefit, and examples of synergies have alreadybeen seen here, as with the emerging policyplatform of the Intergovernmental Panel onBiodiversity and Ecosystems Services. Second,synergies could help cooperation at the interna-tional level in the implementation of nationalbiodiversity strategies and action plans. The CBDadoption of a 2011–2020 strategic plan was largelyseen as moving toward a system-wide strategic planfor biodiversity. Lastly, national reporting could

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 9

benefit from synergies, such as the Australianproject to assist Pacific island states to develop andtest a joint reporting forum for five of the sixconventions. RIO CONVENTIONS

The Rio Conventions constitute the centerpiece ofthe international legal framework for the environ-ment. They comprise three treaties:• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)• United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC)

• United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification (UNCCD)These conventions were products of the Rio

Process, are sometimes recognized as sustainabledevelopment instruments, and address some of themost profound environmental change phenomenaof our time. There is already some cooperation onthe Rio Conventions through the joint liaisongroup, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as acommon funding mechanism, and some focus oninformation sharing and assessments.

There are three main opportunities for synergiesbetween the three Rio Conventions: coordinationand support from the wider UN system, jointnational reporting, and joint national strategies.First, synergies could help to coordinate thesupport of the wider UN system for goals relevantto sustainable development or the environment inparticular. Under the current system, the issue ofclimate change is connected to the wider UNsystem through the working group on climatechange under the Chief Executives Board’s High-Level Committee on Programmes. The CBD andUNCCD are connected through the EnvironmentalManagement Group (EMG). Using a singleumbrella organization, such as the EMG, could helpto bring harmony to the way that the RioConventions interact with the wider UN systemand mobilize the multi-sectoral competence of theUN system in support of implementing environ-mental goals. One step in this direction might bethe creation of sustainable development goals,which could act as a framing device in the way thatthe MDGs did for international development.

The second opportunity for creating synergieslies in reducing reporting burdens for the threeconventions by creating a joint national reporting

mechanism. This would be especially helpful forleast developed countries and could help to coordi-nate focal points at the national level. To begin thisprocess, guidelines need to be developed, thoughsome work has been started by UNEP’s WorldConservation Monitoring Centre and the GlobalEnvironment Facility in this regard. While jointreporting would take time to develop, it wouldlikely provide a much better basis for determiningthe impacts of environmental change on develop-ment in order to tailor programmatic work.

The last opportunity would be to explore thepossibility of joint national strategies and plans.Similar to joint reporting, this would reduce theplanning burden, especially on least developedcountries. It could also make it easier to linkconventions to the UN Development AssistanceFramework and help to channel UN systemresources to long-term capacity building andinstitutional competence. Again, as with jointreporting, such a step would require the develop-ment of guidelines and decisions by the variousconvention governing bodies, or COPs, toauthorize it. It would also be the type of activity thatwould greatly benefit from piloting. FURTHER SYNERGIES

There are many existing overlaps in implementa-tion and reporting of MEAs. One way to addressthis at the most basic level would be to create acommon registry of MEAs in the vein of the BostonUniversity proposal of a Global Registry ofCommitments on Sustainable Development. Theregistry would essentially be a database of exactlywhat states have committed to, and it would be aspecific and concrete measure that parties couldagree to over the course of Rio+20. And while itmay not be groundbreaking, it would be somethingthat could be built on over time. It would also beginto address accountability gaps in the current IEGand sustainable development architectures. Thistype of registry would not be a new idea; forinstance, there was an initiative to track commit-ments as part of the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development. However, these initia-tives did not have long-term funding or commit-ment periods. One key to overcoming past failureswould be to gain high-level commitment and animplementation timeframe of at least ten years.

When engaging in synergy exercises, discussants

10 MEETING NOTE

mentioned some guiding principles. Synergyprocesses should be party-driven, with ownershipresting squarely with member states. The autonomyof individual conventions must be respected.Attempts to create synergies are more likely to besuccessful if they take an incremental approach thatbuilds on existing cooperation. Finally, synergiesare not ends in themselves; as one speaker put it,“we don’t do synergies because we like to dosynergies.” They must in the end support improvednational coordination to justify the effort.

Strategic Engagement atthe Regional and CountryLevel

The final session focused on bringing institutionalanalysis to the level of regional and countryimplementation. Speakers helped to bring to lightexperiences of local and regional synergy processesand collaboration among agencies, funds, andprograms. Ideally, these experiences can helpinform the global-level debates and vice versa.Participants shared experiences relating to thedevelopment of UNDAFs and collaborationbetween UNDP and UNEP on the Poverty-Environment Initiative in Africa and in Malawi inparticular.

The Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI)supports governments to better integrate environ-mentally sustainable natural resource use intonational planning, implementation, and budgetingmechanisms. PEI-Africa was piloted in 2005 withfunding from the Norwegian government. After asuccessful pilot phase, the initiative was scaledglobally in 2008. PEI-Africa represents a fully jointprogram, with joint management, budgeting,program documentation, and staffing, as well aspooled funding. At the global and regional levels,PEI has joint UNEP-UNDP teams. At the countrylevel, it works through joint UNDP-governmentteam country offices.

PEI-Africa develops specific, substantive countryprograms in-country, which are led by theministries of planning and finance in a cross-government approach that views the ministry ofenvironment as a key partner. The initiative usesconcrete economic evidence to make the case thatincreased investment in environmental sustain-

ability can help achieve development objectives likepoverty reduction and food security. This evidenceis the basis for convincing key planning, finance,and sectoral decision makers to include morespecific and detailed sustainability objectives innational development plans and budgets. PEI-Africa also tries to support improved cross-governmental coordination in the environment andnatural resource sectors and to support longer-termincreases in financial allocations from governmentsand country donors for investments in sustainabledevelopment. PEI tries to bring together UNEP’snormative work on the environment and UNDP’swork on poverty as a model of “one UN” in action.As examples of PEI at the country and regionallevels, participants explored the cases of Malawi’sPEI country-level implementation and the UnitedNations Development Group’s (UNDG) regionalwork in Asia-Pacific.

The Poverty-Environment Initiative in Malawibegan in 2008 and provides a good example ofsuccessful PEI implementation. Consistent with thegoals of PEI, work in Malawi established a jointplatform between UNEP and UNDP that marriedecological and sustainable development perspec-tives. Instead of locating PEI discussions in theMinistry of Natural Resources, Energy andEnvironment, PEI-Malawi put the discussionsquarely in the Ministry of Development Planningand Cooperation, at a level that impacts nationaldevelopment plans and national budgets and helpsto cement national ownership. Consistent with thebroader PEI-Africa approach, PEI-Malawi has alsoutilized knowledge, information, and data towardpolicy and day-to-day decision making.

In the case of Malawi, the initial success of thePEI platform was expanded to collaborateprogrammatically on climate change issues with theAfrican Adaptation Program (funded by Japan) andthe existing climate change program (funded byNorway, the UK, and Ireland through the One UNFund). In practice, this has helped the governmentof Malawi to view the environment, sustainabledevelopment, and climate change as overlappingissues that must be addressed together. It has alsoled to direct collaboration between UNDP, UNEP,and other organizations and agencies like the WFP,FAO, and World Bank. The end result is bettercoherence both within the UN and at the nationalgovernment level. At the country level, this was

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 11

demonstrated by the inclusion of climate change,the environment, and natural resource manage-ment as an additional key priority area in thenational Malawi Growth and Development Strategyproposed for 2012–2016. This puts the environ-ment and sustainable development on a par withissues such as economic growth and HIV/AIDS. Atthe UN level, this enabled the evolving UNDAF toinclude a topic that covers climate change, theenvironment, and natural resource management.

There are a number of opportunities andchallenges for further implementing greatercoherence on the environment and sustainabledevelopment in Malawi. A major issue goingforward will be the green economy—both theopportunities that it presents and the fears thatgrowth will be slowed. There will be a need tobroaden the incentives and assistance to offset theshort-term costs of slowed growth incurred by thelong-term strategy of smarter growth. Because ofthe complexity of the endeavor, governments see alarge number of national institutions that have avarying degree of overlap in a very complex agenda.There is also an enormous diversity of financingmechanisms for the green economy agenda:approximately twenty-six organizations such as theWorld Wildlife Fund, the EU, three or four sourceswithin the World Bank alone, the GEF, and twenty-eight UN agencies.

Because of this, and because of the relatively lowinstitutional capacity of developing countries suchas Malawi, there is a need for external actors to playa brokering role. In the case of the PEI platform,this brokering role is largely operational in natureand aimed at offering country-based policysupport, advice, and assistance with the develop-ment of mitigation planning, especially at thehuman development level. Tools include UNDAFs,the One UN Fund, and joint programming—all ofwhich are aimed at bringing agencies together atnational and international levels. There is also aneed to broker investments, such as carbon tradingand the massive mitigation and adaptation invest-ments that will be required. The World Bank willmost likely fill this role. Lastly, there is a need tobroker analytical and normative knowledge. Thiswill require both conducting research and formingconnections with existing knowledge bases, such asthe UNFCC in the case of climate change, and itwill play an important role in policy coordination

and the formation of global standards.At the regional level, UNDG Asia-Pacific’s

experiences share many similarities with those ofUNEP and UNDP in Malawi. UNDG Asia-Pacificwas established in 2008 to respond to the challengesfacing the region in sustainable development.Specifically, after high rates of growth coupled withleaps in economic development, many countriesbegan to question the quality of that growth,especially in the context of growing inequalities andenvironmental degradation. As the complexity ofsustainable development for these countriesincreased, so too did the challenge for the UN torespond to a rapidly changing development agendain a coherent manner.

UNDG Asia-Pacific is comprised of nineteenagencies that largely focus on country-level workand have development activities at the nationallevel. Regional Directors of the various agenciesmeet regularly to discuss coordination and supportto countries. Work has tended to focus on assistingUNDAF country rollout in terms of support todevelop high-quality, results-based frameworks forUN assistance. This has involved the use of jointmissions, particularly at the thematic or sectorallevels, which have included UNDP, FAO, UNEP,PEI, UN-REDD, and Mangroves for the Future.The goal is to develop a set of products to supportcountries as they engage in development. Thisincludes packages on training, awareness raising onclimate change, and mainstreaming of the UNDAFsin broader development discussions.

In the three years since the inception of UNDGAsia-Pacific, coordination has largely improved.UN country team mechanisms seem to be the keyplatforms at the country level. Operational andnormative division of labor also seems to beworking, particularly in terms of the relationshipsin Bangkok between the regional offices of UNDPand UNEP. One problem has been that, at times,incentives actually push agencies apart, asindividual agencies are sometimes seen as contrac-tors competing for limited funding.

The speaker at the roundtable also identifiedsome areas for improvement. First, the regionaldirectors should engage in more joint planning.This should not be limited to individual programsbut should involve scanning the pipeline across theboard to create concrete joint plans. In addition,

12 MEETING NOTE

efforts at regional level to break down silos shouldbe replicated at the country level and withinnational governments. National ownership andimplementation should also be enhanced, and theorientation of funding mechanisms shouldreinforce this. Finally, there is demand fromnational governments for more integrated andcustomized approaches for different kinds ofcountries.

Conclusion

Rio+20 provides member states with a politicalmandate to recommend ways to promote keyreforms of the current IEG structure. The Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome provides a roadmap with regardto science and policy, coherent and predictablefunding for the environment, and bringingcoherence to the way that the UN deals with theenvironment. The proliferation of MEAs hascreated opportunities for synergies among conven-tions that can help to provide coherence and fostercoordination. It is evident that seeing these conven-tions in the national-level context is necessary toensure effective implementation. Additionally, aswas shown through the examples of PEI andUNDG Asia-Pacific, joint agency coordination ispossible and has already been successfullyimplemented. IEG reforms should draw on thesesuccessful examples and design solutions thatsupport as opposed to hinder national strategies.

Going forward there a number of options forpromoting IEG reform. For instance, one meetingparticipant suggested convening an “Inter -governmental Working Group on SynergiesBetween MEAs.” Within clusters, synergies can beachieved by identifying the most workable or mostimportant MEAs rather than approaching theentire cluster in one go. The good news from thechemical cluster, for example, is that reform andcoordination can work. The bad news, however, is

that it is a long and difficult process that requiressustained energy, and it is not a silver bullet. Andwhatever MEA synergies do for coherence, they donot directly address issues like the weakening ofUNEP.

Finally, going into Rio+20, delegates should keepthe focus of recommendations on the governancearchitecture that makes up the legal and policyframework for dealing with environmental issues.This will be much less about secretariats of conven-tions and more about the way effective governanceis exercised through UN General Assembly resolu-tions, convention negotiations, and policiesenacted. The central questions for Rio shouldremain: Where is environmental and sustainabledevelopment governance being exercised? Is itbeing exercised effectively and coherently? And arethe current governance platforms adequate?Effective IEG reform will not be about the bureau-cracies and how they implement decisions; it will beabout how these decisions are reached, howcoherent they are, how strategic they are, and howclear decisions are issued as mandates. Toparaphrase one participant at the meeting, theproblem is not about knowing how to cooperate.Cooperation can be seen in the wide variety ofconventions, fora, meetings, and outcomes. Rather,the challenge is for the UN in its current configura-tion to deliver scalable and credible responses to acontinued erosion of the planetary ecosystem. Thesuccess of the synergies process in the chemicalscluster shifted the paradigm—setting a standardwhereby for every problem, the answer is notnecessarily a new international convention but arefinement of the existing system. This represents amajor step toward IEG reform. However, on thebig issues facing the planet, it was a small step thattook three years. Now, the 2012 Rio conferenceneeds to deliver on more ambitious, system-widereforms.

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 13

14

Annex

Timeline: International Environmental Governance

The management of human effects on the environment has long been acknowledged by the internationalcommunity as a key global challenge. Here is a list of milestones that have come to define IEG as we know ittoday.

Year

1972

1982

1992

Event

UN Conference on the HumanEnvironment (the StockholmConference), Stockholm, Sweden

UNEP Governing Council specialsession to consider ten years ofimplementation of the StockholmAction Plan

UN conference on Environmentand Development (the EarthSummit), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Summary

The Stockholm Conference firmly established the environ-ment and development agenda as an area for considerationwithin the UN General Assembly. The UN EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) was created, at least in part, as an institu-tional mechanism to ensure that the environmental concernshighlighted at the conference would not fall by the waysideand to follow up on the Stockholm Action Plan for theEnvironment, the outcome document of the StockholmConference.1

The Governing Council considered a decade of implementa-tion of the Stockholm Action Plan and determined prioritiesfor the next decade. This review also helped to establish theWorld Commission of Environment and Development.

The Earth Summit resulted in many milestone achievementsand documents including Agenda 21, which established a setof guiding principles on sustainable development; the RioDeclaration on Environment and Development (RioDeclaration),2 which helped to define rights and responsibili-ties for member states dealing with environmental protectionand sustainable development; and three landmark multilateralenvironmental agreements collectively known as the RioConventions: the UN Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD). The preparatory committee for the Earth Summitwas the precursor to the UN Commission on SustainableDevelopment (CSD), which was established shortly after theEarth Summit3 and served as the preparatory committee forthe third decadal review.

1 UN General Assembly Resolution 2997 (December 15, 1972), UN Doc. A/RES/2297.2 United Nations, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June, 1992), UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26.3 UN General Assembly Resolution 191 (January 29, 1993), UN Doc. A/RES/47/191.

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 15

2002

2009

2010

2011

2012

World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD), Johannes -burg, South Africa

25th session of the UNEPGoverning Council/Global Minis -terial Environment Forum (GC/GMEF)

11th special session of the UNEPGoverning Council/Global Minis -terial Environment Forum (GC/GMEF)

26th session of the UNEPGoverning Council/Global Minis -terial Environment Forum (GC/GMEF)

United Nations Conference onSustainable Development (Rio+20), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Member states endorsed the Johannesburg Plan ofImplementation as well as the Cartagena package of IEGreforms.4 This was a set of basic requirements for a strength-ened IEG architecture. It was further elaborated at the 2005World Summit where member states explored the possibilityof a more coherent institutional framework for dealing withthe environment under the auspices of the UN. The WorldSummit led directly to the initiation of the InformalConsultative Process of the Institutional Framework for theUN’s Environmental Activities, which in turn recommendedfurther informal engagement on the issue.

Member states launched the Consultative Group of Ministersor High-Level Representatives on International Environ -mental Governance, which was tasked with developingoptions for IEG reform through the Belgrade Process. Theconsultative group held two meetings later in 2009.5

The options developed by the consultative group wereproposed at the eleventh special session of the UNEPGC/GMEF in February 2010, who then established a secondconsultative group6 to build on these options. The secondconsultative group met in July 2010 in Nairobi, Kenya, andagain in November 2010 in Helsinki, Finland, and created theNairobi-Helsinki Outcome document.7

The Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome was presented to the twenty-sixth session of the UNEP GC/GMEF in February 2011 as aset of recommendations going forward.

Rio+20 will be the largest gathering of member states andNGOs in the history of environmental governance. The twomain topics to be addressed are sustainable development andthe green economy.

SummaryYear Event

4 United Nations, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002), UN Doc. A/CONF.199/20, pp.64-72.

5 UNEP, “Belgrade Process: Moving Forward with Developing a set of Options on International Environmental Governance,” co-chairs summary of the first meetingof the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on International Environmental Governance, Belgrade, Serbia, June 27-28, 2009, p. 2.

6 UNEP, “Decision SS.XI/1: International Environmental Governance,” adopted at the eleventh special session of the Governing Council/Global MinisterialEnvironment Forum, February 26, 2010.

7 UNEP, “Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome,” adopted at the second meeting of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on InternationalEnvironmental Governance in Espoo, Finland, November 23, 2010.

16

Agenda

Strengthening International Environmental Governance:Exploring System-Wide Responses

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

09:00–09:10 Welcoming Remarks

Ambassador Morten Wetland, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UnitedNations

09:10–09:40 Opening Session

Moderated by Rio+20 Ambassador Staffan Tillander, Sweden

Brief summary of the work of the Informal Discussion Group on IFSD.Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UnitedNations, and Ambassador Yusra Khan, Deputy Permanent Representative of Indonesiato the United Nations

“Strengthening International Environmental Governance in Bringing Forward theNairobi-Helsinki Outcome,” Kerstin Stendahl, Finland

09:40–11:30 Session 2: System-Wide Strategies and Frameworks

Moderated by Ambassador Dessima Williams, Grenada

“System-Wide Strategy for the Environment,” Hossein Fadaei, EnvironmentalManagement Group

“System-Wide Frameworks,” Bisrat Aklilu, United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office

“Linking Policymaking and Finance/Financial Tracking Systems,”Maria Ivanova, University of Massachusetts Boston

“Common Registry of MEAs and Other Instruments for Sustainable Development,”Miquel Muñoz, Boston University, and Jacob Scherr, Natural Resources DefenseCouncil

Synergies and Clustering of MEAs Panel Discussion

“Chemicals,” Kerstin Stendahl, Finland

“Biodiversity,” Peter Herkenrath, United Nations Environment Programme WorldConservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)

“Closer Collaboration Between the Rio Conventions,” Ivar Baste, Norway

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 17

11:30–11:45 Coffee Break

11:45–13:00 Session 3: Strategic Engagement at the Regional and Country Level

Moderated by Ambassador Staffan Tillander, Sweden

“Engagement at the Country Level and UNDAFs,” Richard Dictus and David Smith,Poverty-Environment Initiative

“One UN and Regional Presence,” Nicholas Rosellini, United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)

13:00–13:30 Wrap-Up and Summary

Ambassador Staffan Tillander, Sweden

13:30 Lunch

18

Mr. Bisrat AkliluUnited Nations Development AssistanceFramework

Mr. Nick BarnettUnited States Mission to the United Nations

Mr. Ivar BastePermanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations

Ms. Malene BaunsgaardPermanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations

Mr. George BoumaUnited Nations Development Programme

Ms. Agnes BudzynBlackRock

Ms. Bronwen BurfittAustralian Commonwealth Department ofSustainability, Environment, Water, Populationand Communities

Ms. Anne Marie CarlsenUnited Nations Development Programme

Ms. Juanita CastañoUnited Nations Environment Programme

Mr. William ChambersUnited Nations Environment Programme

Mr. Seon-Mi ChoiUnited Nations Development Programme

Ms. Shadel CortorrealPermanent Mission of the Dominican Republic tothe United Nations

Ms. Katarzyna Ewa CzopPermanent Mission of the Republic of Poland tothe United Nations

Mr. João Bezerra da SilvaPermanent Mission of Portugal to the UnitedNations

H.E. Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba GóngoraPermanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations

Mr. Ewout de GraafPermanent Mission of the Kingdom of theNetherlands to the United Nations

Mr. Johannes de Millo TerrazzaniPermanent Mission of the Principality of Monacoto the United Nations

Mr. Richard DictusPoverty-Environment Initiative

H.E. Dr. Elmi Ahmed DualePermanent Mission of the Somali Republic to theUnited Nations

Ms. Idunn EidheimMinistry of the Environment, Norway

Mr. Hossein FadaeiEnvironmental Management Group

Ms. Clotilde FerryPermanent Mission of the Principality of Monacoto the United Nations

Ms. Natalia Frozel BarrosPermanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations

Mr. Sascha GabizonUnited Nations Economic and Social Council(ECOSOC)

Mr. François GaveMinistry of Foreign Affairs, France

Ms. Johanna Gesteby-TsokasMinistry of the Environment, Sweden

Participants

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 19

Ms. Alessandra GreggPermanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations

Mr. Peter HerckenrathUnited Nations Environment Programme WorldConservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)

Ms. Lucia IglesiasPermanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations

Ms. Maria IvanovaUniversity of Massachusetts, Boston

Mr. Jón Erlingur JónassonPermanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations

H.E. Mr. Macharia KamauPermanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya tothe United Nations

Ms. Elizabeth KennedyPermanent Mission of the United Kingdom to theUnited Nations

H.E. Mr. Yusra KhanPermanent Mission of the Republic of Indonesia tothe United Nations

H.E. Mr. Csaba KörösiPermanent Mission of the Republic of Hungary tothe United Nations

Ms. Anne Heidi KvalsørenPermanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations

Mr. Jorge Rene Laguna CelisPermanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations

Ms. Lynn LaiPermanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations

Ms. Annika LindblomPermanent Mission of Finland to the UnitedNations

Ms. Annika MarkovicMinistry of the Environment, Sweden

Ms. Ingeborg Mork-KnutsenMinistry of the Environment, Norway

Mr. Agus MuktamarPermanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations

Mr. Miquel MuñozBoston University

Ms. Nina NordströmPermanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations

Ms. Katrine NørlyngMinistry of Environment, Denmark

Ms. Maria NyholmUnited Nations Development Programme

H.E. Ms. Josephine OjiamboPermanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya tothe United Nations

Ms. Ewa OlszewskaPermanent Mission of the Republic of Poland tothe United Nations

Mr. Chris PerryInternational Peace Institute

Mr. Andreas PfaffernoschkePermanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations

Mr. Jean Claudy PierrePermanent Mission of Haiti to the United Nations

Mr. Selvi RamachandranUnited Nations Development Programme

Ms. Tarja ReponenMinistry of Foreign Affairs, Finland

Mr. Nicholas RoselliniUnited Nations Development Programme

20 PARTICIPANTS

Ms. Lies SacréPermanent Mission of Belgium to the United Nations

Mr. Syahda Guruh Langkah SamuderaPermanent Mission of the Republic of Indonesia tothe United Nations

Mr. Jacob ScherrNatural Resources Defense Council

Ms. Anna SkantrePermanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations

Mr. David SmithPoverty-Environment Initiative

Mr. Trym SonstadPermanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations

Ms. Urawadee SriphiromyaPermanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations

Mr. Achim SteinerUnited Nations Environment Programme

Ms. Kerstin StendahlMinistry of the Environment, Finland

Ms. Alexandria StraussPermanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations

H.E. Mr. Staffan TillanderPermanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations

Ms. Veerle VanderweerdUnited Nations Development Programme

Mrs. Jeannine VolkenPermanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations

Ms. Susanna von SydowPermanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations

Mr. Wang QunPermanent Mission of the People’s Republic ofChina to the United Nations

H.E. Mr. Morten WetlandPermanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations

Ms. Vanessa WileyPermanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations

H.E. Ms. Dessima M. WilliamsPermanent Mission of Grenada to the United Nations

The INTERNATIONAL PEACE INSTITUTE (IPI) is an independent,international not-for-profit think tank with a staff representing more

than twenty nationalities, with offices in New York, facing United

Nations headquarters, and in Vienna. IPI is dedicated to promoting the

prevention and settlement of conflicts between and within states by

strengthening international peace and security institutions. To achieve

its purpose, IPI employs a mix of policy research, convening,

publishing, and outreach.

777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017-3521, USA

TEL +1-212-687-4300 FAX +1-212-983-8246

Freyung 3, 1010 Vienna, Austria

TEL +43-1-533-8881 FAX +43-1-533-8881-11

www.ipinst.org