UN Adopts Roadmap for International Environmental Governance
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
In the aftermath of the United Nations’ failed effort to adopt an international treaty relating to climate change, the United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”) is accelerating the UN’s effort to globally govern the environment. By preparing a set of options for improving international environmental governance to be presented at the upcoming 64th session of the UN General Assembly, the UNEP has raised the stakes far beyond the UN’s effort to regulate global warming, which remains a priority.
From February 21-26, 2010, more than one hundred national environment ministers, heads of UN agencies, scientists and other environmental experts, business and civil society leaders, journalists, and “high-profile” environmental figures from around the world gathered in Bali, Indonesia for the largest global environmental gathering since the December 2009 Copenhagen, Denmark climate change conference.
In conjunction with the UNEP Ministerial Meeting held from February 24-26, the 11th Special Session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (the “Governing Council/Global Ministerial) was convened. The Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum is the UN’s high-level environment policy forum and brings the world’s national environment ministers together to review important and emerging policy issues in the field of the environment. The Council/Forum provides broad policy advice and guidance with the aim, among others, of promoting international cooperation in the field of environment. In so doing, it invites officials of UN agencies and heads of multilateral environmental agreement (i.e., international environmental treaty) secretariats to participate and interact with ministers at meetings and seeks to promote the meaningful participation of representatives of major groups and non-governmental organizations, including the private sector.
On the morning of Friday, February 26th, Governing Council/Global Ministerial delegates met in the Committee of the Whole (the “COW”) to consider draft decisions prepared by various subcommittees. In the afternoon, a plenary (general) session of the delegates adopted a decision on international environmental governance (the “Decision”).
It was the earlier work of a smaller consultative group of national environmental ministers and high-level representatives on global environmental policies that crafted the roadmap for international environmental governance contained in the Decision. As a result of “the difficulties faced in the [UN] General Assembly in finding a consensus on a resolution to strengthen the current international environmental governance system,” in February 2009, the UNEP Governing Council established the regionally representative consultative group of ministers or high-level representatives to work on a set of options for improving international governance and present them to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial with a view to providing “inputs” to the UN General Assembly for possible adoption.
Based on the set of options adopted by the consultative group of ministers or high-level representatives, the Decision recommends to the UN General Assembly the following objectives and corresponding functions for international environmental governance within the UN system:
(a) Creating a strong, credible and accessible science base and policy interface:
(i) Acquisition, compilation, analysis and interpretation of data and information;
(ii) Information exchange;
(iii) Environmental assessment and early warning;
(iv) Scientific advice;
(v) Science-policy interface.
(b) Developing a global authoritative and responsive voice for environmental sustainability:
(i) Global agenda-setting and policy guidance and advice;
(ii) Mainstreaming environment into other relevant policy areas;
(iii) Promotion of rule-making, standard-setting and universal principles;
(iv) Monitoring, compliance and accountability for agreed commitments and building related capacity;
(v) Dispute avoidance and settlement.
(c) Achieving effectiveness, efficiency and coherence within the United Nations system:
(i) Coordination of policies and programmes;
(ii) Efficient and effective administration and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements;
(iii) Facilitating inter-agency cooperation on the environment.
(d) Securing sufficient, predictable and coherent funding:
(i) Mobilizing and accessing funds for the global environment.
(ii) Developing innovative financing mechanisms to complement official funding sources.
(iii) Utilizing funding effectively and efficiently in accordance with agreed priorities.
(e) Ensuring a responsive and cohesive approach to meeting country needs:
(i) Human and institutional capacity-building;
(ii) Technology transfer and financial support;
(iii) Mainstreaming environment into development processes;
(iv) Facilitating South-South, North-South and triangular cooperation.
The international environmental governance objectives and functions contained in the Decision provide a valuable example of what this author refers to as the matrix of human rights governance networks.
As formulated by the author of this article, the ten human rights governance networks comprising the Matrix include:
1. Advocacy networks: The networks of international human rights activists that articulate and advocate for human rights, including so-called “emerging” economic and social human rights.
2. Research networks: The networks of social scientists and academics that conduct research on how the lack of human rights protection negatively impacts individuals and society.
3. Policy networks: The networks of government officials and other policy makers that discuss and formulate human rights policies.
4. Standards-setting networks: The networks of multilateral international organizations that meet to adopt treaties or declarations containing or expressing human rights norms or standards.
5. Interpretive networks: The networks of human rights treaty body committees and UN-sanctioned expert committees that interpret the norms and standards contained in human rights treaties and declarations.
6. Explanatory networks: The networks of UN agency field staff that explain the human rights interpretations to members of civil society at the local, national, and regional levels.
7. Implementation networks: The networks of national legislatures that, upon the recommendation of the human rights experts, adopt laws promoting and protecting human rights.
8. Assessment networks: The networks of non-governmental organizations that encourage the use of human rights impact assessments by legislatures and businesses to measure the potential human rights impact of proposed legislation or products.
9. Enforcement networks: The networks of local, national, and regional courts that decide cases involving human rights.
10. Funding networks: The networks of governments, TNCs, and private foundations that fund the promotion and protection of human rights by supporting one or more of the other human rights governance networks.
If the UN General Assembly approves the international environmental governance objectives and functions contained in the Decision, in implementing them, the UN will rely on all ten of the networks comprising the matrix of human rights governance networks:
· In “creating a strong, credible and accessible science base and policy interface,” the UN will rely on research networks.
· In “developing a global authoritative and responsive voice for environmental sustainability,” the UN will rely on policy, standards-setting, interpretive, assessment, and enforcement networks.
· In “securing sufficient, predictable and coherent funding,” the UN will rely on funding networks.
· In “ensuring a responsive and cohesive approach to meeting country needs,” the UN will rely on advocacy, explanatory, and implementation networks.
In order to prioritize the implementation of the changes contemplated by the international environmental governance options contained in the Decision, the Decision calls for the creation of a new regionally representative, consultative group of environmental ministers or high-level representatives, the members of which are to include high-level representatives from “relevant” UN agencies. To facilitate (and, not doubt, control) the work of the consultative group, the Decision requests the Executive Director of the UNEP Governing Council, in his capacity as the Chair of the UN Environment Management Group, “to invite the United Nations system to provide input to the group, including by assessing gaps, needs, and considerations related to how the United Nations system is currently achieving the identified objectives and functions for international environmental governance.”
Of course, to ensure that UN officials (and not national representatives) are at the center of all dialogue with the civil society organizations that are key to international environmental governance, the Decision “invites the consultative group, through the United Nations Environment Programme secretariat, to seek relevant inputs from civil society groups from each region in the further process of strengthening international environmental governance.” (emphasis added).
The Decision instructs the consultative group to complete its work in time for the presentation of its final report at the twenty-sixth session of the UNEP Governing Council so that it can be presented to the 65th session of the UN General Assembly for its consideration and adoption. Once the UN General Assembly adopts the final report and the prioritized set of options contained therein, UN officials and the participants in the matrix of human rights governance networks will officially begin their efforts to globally govern the environment.
Jim Kelly is the President of Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, P.C., a public interest civil and human rights law firm based in Atlanta, Georgia. The opinions expressed herein are his own.
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
