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
global environmental problems – report

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.”
MEDIA COVERAGE
(MS Word)
Reuters
Canadian Press

UN Wire

IPS

“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
at UNU/IAS. Contributors included W. Bradnee Chambers, UNU/IAS; Steve Charnovitz, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Peter Haas, University of Massachusetts; Sebastian Oberthür, Ecologic, Berlin; Joost Pauwelyn, Legal Affairs Officer, WTO; and Gary P. Sampson, Former Director, Committee on Trade and Environment, WTO.

Home

Copyright © 2002  United Nations University. All rights reserved.