How to build environmental collective action? The question of international environmental governance is increasingly acute. Even though many multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have been signed and ratified over the last thirty years, their implementation poses serious problems at the national, regional and international levels. And the environment continues to deteriorate.
There are several obstacles to progress in this field. First of all, the steps already taken have not involved major changes and have only had a slight economic impact. Going further implies arbitration that is trying at the national level and even more problematic at the international one. Moreover, differences of opinion on action run deep. The percep- tion of a global order based on the interna- tional rule of law and cooperation amongst nations is not shared by everyone involved in international negotiations: it is overtly rejected by the current American administration and criticized by developing countries. With some support from Japan and a number of emerg- ing countries, it is Europe that defends this perception of global governance.
In addition to these perceptive differences, there is a debate on “models” —especially international agreements between countries, which are difficult to negotiate and imple- ment. The pragmatics plead for regimes estab- lished on a case-by-case basis, combining private, public, local and global actors. There is also fundamental criticism of the gover- nance system: lack of effectiveness, the limited and sometimes questionable legitimacy of decisions and the resulting institutions, and the iniquity of procedures and results. All these factors explain why it is so difficult to arrive at a consensus.
Matters of collective interest and the need for cooperative strategies have not disap- peared, however, and negotiation is essential for articulating strategic choices and collective preferences, as attested by the discussions on the reform of international environmental governance (IEG). Several options have been identified and discussed but no consensus has been reached. The debate needs to be recon- sidered to focus on the required functions to ensure that it is equitable, effective and legiti- mate, and on implementation procedures.
A forty-year-old debate
The debate on international environmental governance mainly focuses on the relevance of a centralized institution that manages environ- mental problems at a global level, a world envi- ronmental organization (WEO). There is noth- ing new about this debate. In 1972, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) was created but its structure was relatively small and its mandate not very operational. Since then, the debate has resurfaced regu- larly — in 1994 for example, with the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which appeared to threaten the implementa- tion of multilateral environmental agreements. Proposals for a WEO fall within a broader dynamic: the need to reform the UN due to progression from a bipolar system to a global system and to adapt its institutions to address environmental and sustainable develop- ment issues; the lack of means to achieve the Millennium Development Goals; and the feeble support of the international community.
In 1998, measures were taken: the General Secretary of the United Nations set up a Task Force on Environment and Human Settle- ments, presided over by UNEP. The task force reported institutional fragmentation and a lack of political coherence that were due to the number of intergovernmental environmental bodies, making the UN’s work ineffective. Vari- ous institutional adjustments were decided on: the creation of the Global Ministerial Environ- ment Forum in 1999 (the Malmö Declaration emphasized the need to adapt existing institu- tional arrangements to address the great vari- ety of environmental problems in a context of globalization); the creation of an Environmen- tal Management Group; and the redefinition of UNEP’s financing rules.
Environmental governance reform was a central element during the preparation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. In 2001, the Global Ministerial Environment Forum stated that the summit “should review the requirements for a greatly strengthened institutional structure for international environ- mental governance based on an assessment of future needs for an institutional architecture that has the capacity to effectively address wide- ranging environmental threats in a globalizing world” and specified that “UNEP’s role in this regard should be strengthened and its financial base broadened and made more predictable”.
It then set up a working group to evaluate institutional weaknesses and define future needs and options for strengthening international environmental governance. Eight options were defined: transforming and strengthening UNEP; greater use of the UN General Assembly or ECOSOC; creation of a world environmental organization; transformation of the Trusteeship Council; some integration between UNDP and UNEP; broadening of GEF’s mandate; strength- ening of the CSD; and creation of an interna- tional environmental court. The clustering of MEAs and strengthening of multilateral envi- ronmental agreement secretariats were added to these options.
Entrenched positions
The positions of the actors — countries in particular — are clear-cut and slow to change.
On the one hand, there are those who are in favour of the creation of a WEO, led by France and Germany, and, on the other, those who are for the status quo, led by the United States, their allies and most developing countries.
For
In 1989, 24 countries1 signed the Declara- tion of The Hague, for the first time endorsing the strengthening of existing international environmental institutions or the creation of a new one. Since then, France has multiplied its calls in favour of the creation of a WEO: when it chaired the European Union (EU); in official speeches; and, more recently, by creating a UN working group, made up of 26 countries, to discuss the creation of a United Nations envi- ronmental organization.
Germany has been advocating the creation of a world environmental organization since 1997. The government ordered a report from an advi- sory council, the WBGU, which brought scien- tific arguments to its proposal and recom- mended that the World Summit on Sustainable Development serve as an opportunity to initiate UN environmental policy reforms.
As for the NGOs, the consultation of civil society on environmental governance conducted by UNEP in Nairobi in 2001 revealed that the majority were for strengthening UNEP. However, certain NGOs campaigned for a world environmental organization with a mandate that takes the priorities of developing countries into account, greater participation and transparency, and greater financial means.
Against
The countries against the creation of a WEO fall into three categories: European countries such as the United Kingdom, which underlines the differences of opinion within the European Union; the United States and some of its traditional allies; and the majority of developing countries. Their motivations are completely different.
In October 2002, the EU agreed to “fully engage in the global efforts to strengthen international environmental governance, which could lead to the upgrading of UNEP into an UN specialised agency with a broadly based mandate on environmental matters, and enhance linkages between IEG and sustainable development governance in the relevant UN bodies, in particular in ECOSOC, the Commis- sion for Sustainable Development and UNEP.” Without being opposed to the project supported by the French and Germans, the EU wants to strengthen existing structures. Certain members — the United Kingdom, in particular — consider that the project of WEO lacks maturity and, in view of international reactions, question its short- and medium- term feasibility.
After agreeing to the creation of the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1992, the United States — and the new Bush administration in particular— opposes the creation of international environmental organizations and the strengthening of UNEP and UNDP. Some of its traditional allies support this position.
These countries, which are critical of multi- lateral cooperation, intend to preserve the predominance of voluntary initiatives and bilat- eral agreements. They are not willing to have new legal, political or financial constraints imposed on them. They are opposed to the creation of institutions that can interfere with trade negotiations. Lastly, considering UN insti- tutions ineffective, they worry about the admin- istrative obstacles and negotiations necessary to create a WEO.
Developing countries assert their interests and constraints in a global regulation system which only meets a few of their requirements and which they consider inequitable in terms of both priorities and procedures. With the notable exception of South Africa, Brazil and Singapore, which support a WEO, the G77 countries and China are afraid that environ- mental standards defined by industrialized countries will be forced on them and see them as obstacles to their economic and social development. What is more, they fear that the creation of a WEO could involve relocating UNEP, the only United Nations agency of its kind based in Africa, and redefining the repre- sentation system (from UNEP’s one person one vote to a system based on financial contri- butions). Lastly, they do not feel that the creation of a new institution will make up for the industrialized countries’ lack of political goodwill.
For the most part, intergovernmental organizations are opposed to the idea of a WEO. Their reservations vary according to the institutions concerned. Having developed their own environmental competency, they are afraid of losing power, financing, competency and independence, and worried that new hier- archical networks will be created that alter the balance of power to their disadvantage. The WTO’s position is more ambiguous: on the one hand, former executive director Renato Ruggiero says that with a WEO, there would be the advantage of one single body for envi- ronmental issues; on the other hand, the creation of the Committee on Trade and Envi- ronment supports cooperation with other programs dealing with the environment, with a balance of power favourable to the WTO.
New Initiatives
While the institutional debate has been unable to produce a coherent system or recog- nized standards, other forums of discussion and regulation have emerged, based on part- nerships between actors, with or without their countries’ participation: ad hoc regional and international initiatives (NEPAD), “coalitions of the willing” (Kimberkey Process), public- private initiatives (Global Compact), and private initiatives (Forest Stewardship Coun- cil). They were promoted in the name of effec- tiveness, but their real impact on the environ- ment remains to be seen in the long term. Although they make it possible to develop a normative framework, these initiatives have brought about further fragmentation of the current system: How can they be integrated into a broader system?
Reconsidering the debate
The process engaged by UNEP and the initiatives of France and Germany have breathed new life into the debate on environ- mental governance. The conditions for supporting one option over the other have not all been met, however. Political actors show differences of opinion regarding both the analysis of the system’s deficiencies and the solution to these problems.
There are two opposing perceptions or visions: criticism of multilateralism, for the sake of effectiveness and protection of national interests; and promotion of interna- tional law and the concept of global public goods. Even without a consensus on solutions, the revival of the debate is a positive thing. A number of steps must be taken if an accept- able solution is to be put together. Even if there are still differences of opinion on the institutional solution, we should endeavour to build a consensus on what the essential func- tions of international environmental gover- nance should be. The Paris conference on this subject organized by Iddri in 2004 identified seven themes, or building blocks, which are essential to a legitimate, effective and equi- table system. Iddri will publish new contribu- tions on these specific issues coming from a wide scope of experts.
Seven issues for the debate
Multi-level governance layers
A consensus has emerged on the importance of analyzing the national implementation of multi- lateral agreements and regional environmental initiatives. The assumptions are that actions such as these are more effective today, they are perceived as being more legitimate and equitable, and compromises are negotiated more easily. How can national and regional agreements be articulated with international regimes? Can local and regional actions help solve global problems such as the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer?
Public and private initiatives
It is important to analyse public and private initiatives that involve coalitions of countries or actors in order to identify success and failure factors. What is the impact of these initiatives on the environment?
Governance of networks
NGOs, private actors, local communities and professional organizations take part, directly and indirectly, in the definition of environmental standards and the implementation of these standards and environmental agreements. Advocates of these decentralized initiatives present them - if not as alternatives to a formal system - at least as the only truly dynamic ones. Do these initiatives need an institutional framework? What part can they play in negotiations and the operation of the overall system? Can they lay the founda- tions for a more formal overall system?
Environment and other international priorities
The Millennium Development Goals defined by the international community incorporate social, environmental and economic aspects. In practice, however, the relationships between these aspects are not taken into account. To improve their integration and thereby increase effectiveness and equity, specific examples should be applied: access to water and its purification, health, agriculture or biodiversity. Furthering the debate sector by sector should make it possible to form an overall vision and define criteria for developing an effective, legitimate and equi- table system involving a vast major- ity of countries and actors.
Scientific expertise
The organization, legitimacy and accessibility of scientific expertise and its usefulness to
stakeholders need to be exam- ined. This reflection should focus on the scientific community’s ability to identify environmental problems, treat them on a hierar- chical basis, sustain the debate, and propose policies and actions to achieve major goals.
Information systems
Implementation of environmen- tal agreements also depends on data collection and management, as well as the public nature of information. Environmental obser- vation and evaluation systems and national and regional initiatives need to be set up. There is no coordinated or shared thinking, however, on the status of informa- tion systems, access to databases, financing, or the role of informa- tion in the follow-up and monitor- ing of national commitments.
Economic and legal instruments
Ongoing work on economic and legal instruments should place more emphasis on the concrete study of the tools used and their evaluation. How can regulations and market instru- ments be combined? What roles should be played by contracts, voluntary agreements and the right to compel?
1) Germany, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Spain, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malta, Norway, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Senegal, Sweden, Tunisia, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
