WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
JOHANNESBURG SEPTEMBER 2002

POSITION PAPER ON 
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

The international environmental regime is dogged by the lack of political will to resolve environmental problems and to follow a policy for the sustainable use of the earth’s resources. It is fragmented and therefore weak. It  has a poorly developed compliance system, and suffers from chronic financial problems. Furthermore, there is an imbalance between the international environmental regime and other international regimes. In order to solve environmental problems and to pursue a policy of sustainable use of the earth’s resources it is inter alia needed that:

•	World leaders mobilise new political will for action.

•	UNEP is transformed into a specialised agency.

•	The new UNEP is given expanded responsibilities.

•	An effective compliance system for the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including dispute settlement measures, is established.

	The international environmental regime is provided with predictable and stable resources.

•	The Global Environmental Fund (GEF) is expanded to apply to all MEAs.

•	And finally that  the GEF is more closely linked to the new UNEP and GMEF (Global Environmental Ministerial Forum).

Introduction
At the UNEP Governing Council meeting in February 2001, an open-ended intergovernmental group of ministers or their representatives for international environmental governance was set up. The Group was asked to undertake a comprehensive policy-oriented assessment of existing institutional weaknesses as well as of future need and options for strengthened international environmental governance (IEG).
 
The Group first met in April in New York and later in July in Bonn and in September in Algeria. In December 2001, the Group will meet in Montreal, and in January 2002, in New York. UNEPs committee of permanent representatives has also discussed IEG issues. An expert meeting was arranged in May in Cambridge and an NGO meeting was held also in May in Nairobi. It was reported from these meetings in Bonn. On that occasion the NGO representative proposed a multi-stakeholder dialog on IEG.

The discussion on IEG shall be conclude at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002.

Relevant documentation can be found at the following website: http://www.unep.org/IEG/

The environment and sustainable development
The principle goal is sustainable development. Environment is an integral part of sustainable development. The international environmental regime should be supportive of that principle goal.

ForUM is of the opinion that a strengthened international environmental regime will contribute to sustainable development. It is, however, important that this regime is based upon the Rio Principle (Principle no. 7) on common but differentiated responsibility. Furthermore, an effective mechanism should be established to co-ordinate environmental and socio-economic factors. The mandate for the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) ought to be considered in that light. 
An important factor behind this is that wealth and over-consumption in the North, poverty in the South, and unequal distribution of wealth between the North and South are causing environmental problems together with the lack of a policy for sustainable use of the world’s resources.

Governance  – what does it mean?
Governance is defined as “the act or manner of governing”. Governance includes decision making and policy formulation, as well as the institutional framework/architecture for decision-making and policy formulation.

Is there a need to strengthen the international environmental legislation?
There is a broad consensus that there is a need to strengthen the international environmental regime. The problems with the current regime are:

a.	A lack of political will in solving the environmental problems and of pursuing a policy of sustainable use of the earth’s resources.

b.	Fragmentation of the regime, including the proliferation of  MEAs.

c.	A weak international compliance system.

d.	Lack of financial resources.

e.	Imbalance between the international environmental regime and other international regimes.

Ad a.	Lack of political will
Despite the progress made in important areas, it is obvious that the international environmental regime is dogged by a lack of political will to solve environmental problems, and to pursue a policy for the sustainable use of the earth’s resources.

ForUM holds the view that the Norwegian authorities should:

•	Strengthen Norway’s environmental profile both in a national and international context.

•	Ratify, implement and follow-up the existing multilateral environmental agreements such as the Biosafety Protocol, the Liability Protocol to the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention, and last but not least, the Kyoto Protocol.

•	Work to ensure that other countries also ratify, implement and follow-up existing MEAs.

•	Work to close the gaps in the international legal environmental legislation in areas such as water, forestry and liability. 

Ad b.	Fragmentation of the environmental regime, including the proliferation of MEAs
The international environmental regime is fragmented. In addition to UNEP, the UN General Assembly, UN Economic and Social Committee, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), UN Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations regional commissions ( e.g. ECE), UNHCS and specialised agencies such as FAO, WHO, UNESCO, WMO, ILO, IMO, OCAO, IAEA, as well as organisations outside of the UN such as the OECD, WTO and the World Bank, have an environmental portfolio.

Furthermore, there are more than 500 international environmentally related agreements. Several of these have established their own secretariats, while for others, the secretariats are connected to existing organisations, for instance UNEP or the regional commissions.

This fragmentation has lead to:

•	An ineffective international decision-making process. There is a lack of clarity surrounding who is responsible for what, especially with regard to problems and challenges that are not on the international environmental agenda. Furthermore, there is no mechanism/organ whose role it is to undertake the prioritisation of “new and old” problems and challenges.

•	Ineffective utilisation of resources. For example under the current regime, in certain cases, the same assignments are handled by several bodies (ref. Stockholm Convention about persistent organic pollutants and the Rotterdam Convention which have both set up a body which could or should evaluate certain chemicals). Moreover, the different bodies have built up their own juridical and other expertise. The criteria for reporting often overlap, and this is especially problematic for developing countries. Duplicate reporting also means duplication of work between the organisations and convention secretariats. Besides, technical assistance is provided and funds are given to capacity building projects, which are often not co-ordinated. Overlapping can also occur with regard to scientific/research work performed by the various organisations and convention secretariats. Furthermore, a multitude of international meetings is held which all require preparation, participation and follow-up.

•	 Non-harmonisation of and in certain cases,  inconsistent international
      environmental laws.

•	A weakening of UNEP’s authority and role.

FoRUM holds the view that:

•	UNEP should be transformed into a specialised agency.

•	The authority and role of the new UNEP should be strengthened by giving UNEP the responsibility for all multilateral environmental related agreements that are not under the responsibility of other specialised agencies.

•	Relevant global environmental agreements should be placed under the headquarters, while regional environmental agreements are placed under the regional offices. This should also imply having a common location.

•	The headquarters should remain in Nairobi.

•	Work should be initiated with the aim of harmonising international environmental legislation.

•	Work should be initiated with the aim of rationalising the reporting procedures.

•	The Global Environmental Ministerial Forum  (GEMF) should continue within the framework of the new UNEP. The GEMF should have a special responsibility for inter alia undertaking regular prioritising of ”new and old” problems and challenges.

•	The Environmental Management’s Group’s (EMG) should be strengthened. Even with the new UNEP, there will still be a need for a body to co-ordinate environmental activities and related projects of various organisations. The EMG mandate and areas of activity should be clarified and expanded.

Ad c.	A weak international compliance system 
A number of MEAs have been negotiated over the past decades. Unfortunately  lack of enforcement Is a problem.  Therefore, there is a need to establish an effective international compliance system.

ForUM holds the view that:

•	An effective international compliance system  for the MEAs should be established.

•	Such a system should be established for both the existing and new agreements.

•	The system should include the reporting of related provisions, and incentives and sanctions.

•	With regard to reporting, a supervising body should be established with the assignment to assess compliance by the parties to MEAs.

•	The regime should also include an international  dispute settlement mechanism.

•	The civil society should have access to this dispute settlement mechanism.

•	All new MEAs should contain provisions which would enhance enforcement.
.
•	Support to developing countries for enforcing the MEAs should be increased. Keywords in this regard are technical assistance, capacity building and technology transfer.

Ad d.	Lack of financial resources
The international environmental regime suffers from chronic financial problems, with UNEP struggling especially. Moreover the multilateral financial system is fragmented. Examples of mechanisms under the multilateral financial systems are:

•	UNEP’s environmental fund and 68 trust funds earmarked for specific purposes. The environmental fund’s share has decreased dramatically, while the share for the trust funds has increased correspondingly.

•	Financial mechanisms under Multilateral Environmental Agreements.

	Multilateral financial mechanisms that were designed to obtain new resources. These mechanisms consist of the Global Environmental Fund (GEF),  the global mechanism for UN Convention on Desertification and the multilateral fund for the Montreal Protocol. The GEF provides funds to projects on biodiversity (ref. CBD and the Biosafety Protocol), climate (ref. UNFCCC), water and ozone. Recently, it was decided that the GEF would also be utilised for projects in connection with the Stockholm Convention (POPs). The GEF projects are managed by UNEP, UNDP and World Bank.

ForUM holds the view that:

•	The international environmental regime should be provided with sufficient, predictable and stable financial resources. It seem reasonable that the financial system is based upon burden sharing, assessed contributions and multi-annual financial commitments.

•	A multilateral financial system should be established that does not lead to a ”struggle for money” or continuous redefining of the funds such as is the case in today’s fragmented system. This should include inter alia the expansion of the GEF to additional MEAs and closer links to the new UNEP and GMEF’s work. The new UNEP and GMEF should be given a stronger role in the work on defining GEFs strategy and profile.

Ad e.	The imbalance between the International environmental regime and other international regimes
The international environmental regime has less political clout, fewer resources and weaker institutional structure than other international regimes such as the WTO and Bretton Woods institutions. Furthermore, the international environmental regime lacks an effective international compliance system.

ForUM is of the opinion that this imbalance should be rectified. We believe that this can be achieved by transforming UNEP into a specialised agency, and by strengthening the new UNEP’s role and authority. In this manner, it will be easier to integrate environmental consideration into other policy areas. This is vital for the achievement of the principal objective on sustainable development.

The international environmental governance and the role of civil society
The civil society (CSO), including the NGOs, plays an important role in the international environmental regime since its members are “agenda-setters”, watch dogs, experts, lobbyists, ”implementers”, disseminators of information and educators. In the discussion about IEG, several have emphasised the important role of the civil society, including NGOs. CSO and NGOs have, however, not been included in the IEG discussion process. At the Bonn meeting the rapporteur from the NGO meeting in Nairobi in May proposed a multi-stakeholder dialog on IEG. No one responded to this suggestion.
 
ForUM holds the view that:

•	The civil society should be actively included in the IEG discussion process.

•	Norway should take the initiative for a ”multi-stakeholder” dialog to be arranged in connection with the meeting in December 2001.

Oslo, 21 September 2001