Abstract
This paper will seek to address the main findings from a multiyear project on ’The potential for increasing the effectiveness of the UN in global environmental governance’. The project is financed by the Norwegian Research Council. It is based at the FNI, but we also have three collaborators from the US (Marc Levy, Pam Chasek and Adil Najam). Most of the work is done on the role of institutions, but we are in the middle of the work on actors: China, the US, G-77 and Norway. Some of this work has been published, or are in the process of being published and it has also been presented at the two last ISA Conferences. Preliminary results on the various state actors will be presented on a panel at the upcoming ISA meeting in San Diego. As this part is not finished, obviously we are not in a position yet to discuss the key question we are addressing: the potential for increasing the effectiveness of the UN in this area. At the time of this Conference, however, we are just about finished – so that will be the first opportunity to present the overall findings.
Within the project we first focused on the role of the UN as an arena discussing the role of the global conferences on environment and development (1972-2002). Although these may still serve important functions their significance have been reduced over time, in part because agenda setting and learning are not the main challenges today and because there is an increasing competition from other international conferences with more clout. New and more focussed approaches need to be considered. Turning then to the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), this is a hybrid between an arena and an organization. We ’scored’ its effectiveness along various dimensions and the score was mixed. There is no doubt that it is important in terms of agenda setting, but it is a problem that the agenda is somewhat broad and also random – not the least due to rotating chairmanship and lack of leadership. However, there are some promising signs as to the new institutional structure being now being developed. Most attention has so far been directed towards the role of UNEP, and particularly its relations to various clusters of MEAs, most notably the biodiversity cluster. In line with previous research we conclude that UNEP has a very high score on agenda setting, in relation to all the three clusters we have studied. However the picture is much more mixed and generally weak in terms of UNEP coordination of these clusters. It appears that when the various MEAs ’mature’ they seek to move away from UNEP and increase their independence. Overall the MEAs hold the opinion that UNEP is not in a position to coordinate them. However, they still see a room for UNEP, more as a think-tank and as provider of assistance on cross cutting areas, but UNEP is not perceived to score very high on these dimension either.
The overall impression from studies of the global conferences, CSD and UNEP is that they have a rather high score in terms of agenda setting. However, the main challenge of today is implementation. A key question is how these institutions can be better equipped to deal with this. The GEF has a main focus on implementation. We have studied the GEF’s achievements in China, as China is the main recipient of funding from the GEF. A rather positive picture emerges as the GEF has had positive impact both in terms of increased environmental awareness in China, contributed to institution building as well as improved environmental conditions. Interestingly, based on Chinese perceptions, the World Bank has the highest score in terms of effectiveness among the Implementing Agencies. However, there are considerable bottlenecks both domestically as well as internationally. Domestically in terms of turf battles and also corruption and internationally lacking coordination between the Implementing Agencies.
In the last stage of the project, which we are now working on, main focus is in key state actors (see above) and at this stage I am only able to provide some scattered findings from some of them. As to Norway, she places very high emphasis on the UN in general – and this also goes for the UN in the environmental area. Norway’s UN environmental policy is quite well coordinated with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the lead agencies. Strong efforts are made to strengthen the UN in this regard, not the least UNEP. Norway is a main contributor to UNEP, but its efforts to strengthen UNEP has so far mostly failed – not the least due to opposition from the US, but to some extent also China and the G-77. The roles of China and Norway in relation to UN environmental governance are quite different. While China sees various UN fora essentially as a way to learn and create understanding for Chinas position, the main challenge for Norway is to strengthen these bodies through various mechanisms. The US is general seems to take on the opposite position, while the role of G-77 varies by institution and issue area.
As of yet, this abstract is far too broad and unfocussed. I could have taken a part of the project and narrowed in on that – to make it look more ‘neat’. However, the aim of this paper is to draw these pieces together – and add the missing pieces in order to be able to learn more about the significance of key state actors and state and institutions as barriers and drivers for a more effective UN environmental governance. In about half a year’s time I hope to be able to do that.
|