network of research and training centres and programmes
Issue 16: May 2002
| |
UNU Update | |
| The newsletter of United Nations
University and its network of research and training centres and programmes |
||
|
Issue 16: May 2002 |
||
 |
||
|
Revamp world system of dealing with
With a proliferation of more than 500 international agreements and institutions now working to address environmental issues worldwide, the way the world responds to problems affecting the health of the planet needs to be revamped, according to a new two-year study released by the United Nations University. A proposed World Environment Organization – akin to the World Trade Organization (WTO) – is among the options on the table at the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa Aug. 26 – Sept. 4. The UNU says reform is needed to bring coherence to an international system that now features over 500 environment-related agreements and institutions responding to environmental problems ranging from climate change to persistent organic pollutants. The UNU report, International Environmental Governance -- The Question of Reform: Key Issues and Proposals, says “the manner in which these environmental institutions have been established has, to a large extent, been ad hoc, diffused, and somewhat chaotic. This is mostly because the creation of the institutions of environmental governance has paralleled the essentially random emergence of environmental issues onto national and international political agendas.”
“Almost
30 years after the debate over centralization began and as we prepare for
the 10-year anniversary of the landmark Rio Summit, the number of
international environmental institutions has multiplied ten-fold. This has
prompted some to argue that the current system of international
environmental governance is not only too complicated it is steadily
getting worse.” The
Nairobi-based U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) was opened in 1973 “with
the express purpose of playing a centralizing role,” the report says.
Since then, however,
a “multitude” of environmental
treaties and other organizations with environment divisions
has sprung up around the globe. “Now
that there are so many other institutions that have assumed environmental
responsibilities within the international arena, some argue that it may be
time to revisit the debate over the creation of a new centralized
organizational structure,” the report says. “At
one extreme end of the debate over centralization reside . . . proponents
of a World Environment Organization (who) argue that such an institution
is needed in order to reduce overlap, ensure greater coherency, and create
economies of scale in the current system. “On
the opposite side, are those who oppose centralization and instead support
a more streamlined version of the current system, which is comprised of
autonomous and highly specialized institutional arrangements in the form
of multilateral environmental agreements. They argue that the high level
of flexibility and capacity for specialization within the current system
is the very strength that needs to be protected.” The
paper lays out the strengths and weaknesses of several proposed reforms in
an effort to help inform the debate of world leaders at the late summer
summit in South Africa. The
report notes that whatever governments decide, “it would not be
politically feasible . . . to consider the possibility of creating (a
World Environment Organization) within the U.N. but separate from UNEP,
which has been reaffirmed repeatedly in government declarations as
“principal United Nations body in the field of the environment.” “Nor
would it be possible to create a World Environment Organization outside
the U.N. structure. While some would argue that the World Trade
Organization (WTO) provides a good example of the benefits to be gained
from operating outside the U.N., environmental issues are already
pervasive throughout the U.N. organization and it would be difficult, and
of questionable value, to now attempt to extract them.” Giving
teeth to an international institution to enforce environmental laws is
among the most controversial aspects of the debate. “One
of the core benefits to be offered by a judicial settlement system is that
it could bring a much greater level of predictability to international
environmental governance by ending serious violations of international
environmental law regardless of the perpetrator,” the report says. Such
a system does not exist today because “states are reluctant to grant
jurisdiction to courts and tribunals that would allow states and or
non-state actors to challenge their environmental policies or conduct.” The
report was written by Shona E. H. Dodds, who leads the International
Environmental Governance project |
||
|
||
|
||
|
Copyright © 2002 United Nations University. All rights reserved. |
