Assessing UNEP as anchor institution for the global environment: Lessons for the UNEO debate (original) (raw)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall: The Case for a World Environment Organization
2014
The first global response to the impending crisis of climate change occurred with the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. Since then, conferences have been convened, agreements have been adopted, and another body has been formed without any substantial global progress on the environment having transpired. I examine how current institutional arrangements have failed and prescribe the construction of a World Environment Organization (WEO) as a normative remedy. Such a body would need to be well resourced, with its mandate expanded to the effect that it could compete against the legally binding edicts of the World Trade Organization (WTO). A WEO could also replace dishevelled inter-state action on climate change with centralized, international agreement, implementation, and enforcement of initiatives. I also explore the moral obligation the industrialized North has to assist the underdeveloped South in actualizing the latter’s environmental commitments,...
The Role of International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance
Published in The Environment Encyclopedia and Directory 2010 by Taylor & Francis., 2009
First paragraph: The organizational network of global environmental governance (GEG) mirrors the complexity of the planet's manifold and overlapping ecosystems. Bursting onto the international stage in the 1970s, environmental issues began to be addressed by a series of new international organizations, most of them affiliated with the United Nations. Some of them, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), were given a broad mandate, whereas others like the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concentrated on a much more precise issue-area and have gained significant authority for their respective sub-fields. After the end of the Cold War, the rise of international environmental organizations has continued unabated. Yet the new institutions came to life in an already institutionalized context: some of the urgent tasks of management and co-ordination had already been allocated, and the newcomers often contributed to a growing trend towards organizational fragmentation.
International Environmental Agreements, 2004
This article argues that a World Environment Organisation (WEO) does not promise to enhance international environmental governance. First, we claim that the establishment of an international organisation alone in a policy field currently populated by regimes cannot be expected to significantly improve environmental governance because there is no qualitative difference between these two forms of governance institutions. Second, we submit that significant improvement of international environmental governance through institutional rearrangement must rely on a modification of decision-making procedures and/or a change of institutional boundaries. Third, we develop three principal models of a possible WEO. A WEO formally providing an umbrella for existing regimes without modifying issue-areas and decisionmaking procedures would be largely irrelevant. A WEO integrating decision-making processes of existing regimes so as to form comprehensive 'world environment rounds' of intergovernmental bargaining would be largely dysfunctional and prone to a host of negative side-effects. A 'supranational' WEO including large-scale use of majority decision-making and far-reaching enforcement mechanisms across a range of environmental issues might considerably enhance international environmental governance, but it appears to be grossly utopian. In conclusion, a WEO cannot be at the same time realistic, significant and beneficial for international environmental governance. Available political resources should be invested in advancing existing and emerging sectoral environmental regimes rather than in establishing a WEO.
UNEP in Global Environmental Governance: Design, Leadership, Location
As debates on reform of global environmental governance intensify, the future of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has come into acute political focus. Many argue that the organization has faltered in its role as the UN’s leading agency for the environment. In this article, I use historical institutional analysis in combination with current International Relations and management theory to explain UNEP’s creation and evolution. Having described how the creators of UNEP envisioned the nascent organization, I analyze its subsequent performance, identifying the key factors that have shaped its record. I argue that the original vision for UNEP was ambitious but fundamentally pragmatic, and that the organization’s mixed performance over the years can be explained by analysis of three factors: its design, leadership, and location. Thus, this article clarifies the record on UNEP‘s intended function, and lays the foundation for a systematic methodology for evaluating international organizations.
Global Governance in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Environmental Pillar
Efforts to reform the international environmental governance architecture are not new. Since the 1960s, debate over existing and potential institutions has played out in newspapers, academic journals, and governments around the world. But it has been the major UN environmental summits – the 1972 Stockholm Conference, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg – and their follow-up meetings which have provided the impetus for the most heated discussions and the boldest proposals for environmental institutions. Governments have yet again expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of both the environment and environmental governance. Scholars and policymakers have proposed several alternative arrangements for environmental governance. Given the erratic history of reform, however, why would deliberations result in reform this time? Moreover, what is the likelihood that reform would consist of concrete, practical and realistic steps toward a broad transformational vision for equitable and effective global environmental governance? This paper outlines briefly the contemporary context for international environmental governance debates, reviews the rationale for reform, analyzes the most recent reform options as drafted by a Consultative Group of ministers, and suggests a possible way forward.
Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock, Moving Forward
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2008
This article provides a focused review of the current literature on global environmental governance. In the first part, we differentiate between three usages of the term "global environmental governance," which we describe as analytical, programmatic, and critical. In the second part, we highlight three key characteristics of global environmental governance that make it different, in our view, from traditional international environmental politics: first, the emergence of new types of agency and of actors in addition to national governments, the traditional core actors in international environmental politics; second, the emergence of new mechanisms and institutions of global environmental governance that go beyond traditional forms of state-led, treaty-based regimes; and third, increasing segmentation and fragmentation of the overall governance system across levels and functional spheres. In the last section, we present an outlook on future study needs in this field.
The Reform of Environmental Governance in the United Nations: the French Proposal
2006
This text may be downloaded freely only for personal academic purposes. Any reproductions, whether in hard copies or electronically, require the consent of the author. If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper, or other series, the year and the publisher.
International Journal of recent Innovations in Academic Research, 2021
Global Governance is the catchphrase of the moment in international relations. Rapidly evolving political discourse focused on environmental issues at the "global" level requires analysis. This paper discusses some of the major challenges of global environmental governance (GEG) as they relate to implementation, compliance and effectiveness. The strides made by institutions like United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in trying to solve environmental problems through the formulation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) is well acknowledged. In an effort to understand some of the challenges that GEG faces in solving environmental problems, a critical analysis of its architecture is made. Nonetheless , summarizing the effectiveness of global environmental governance is no easy task, and an overarching conclusive analysis of all aspects of the global environmental governance is near on impossible. However, by looking at two key areas, the institutional architecture of the GEG system and treaty creation, it can be concluded that challenges to the effectiveness of GEG arise due to its complexity. This complexity derives from the numerous understandings of the concept of 'global environmental governance' itself as well as the characteristics of environmental problems themselves. In short, how we define GEG impacts upon how we think it should be arranged or approached, and such diversity is clearly apparent within the physical character of the global environmental system, as the multitude of environmental institutions demonstrates as a case in point. Finally, this paper contends that the effectiveness of global governance in addressing environmental challenges is hampered not only by the complexity and differing perspectives of the concept of "global environmental governance," but also by other factors such as conflicting interests and power asymmetries among global actors, as well as the complexity of environmental problems themselves.
This paper aims to contribute to the debate on strengthening international environmental governance (IEG) architecture towards more effectively promoting environmental sustainability. To this end, the paper will analyse two broad reform options: 1) introducing universal membership of UNEP’s Governing Council, and 2) elevating the status of UNEP to a specialized agency. The paper will analyze the broad reform options by focusing on their legal, financial and structural implications as well as on potential benefits and drawbacks of each option. In addition to these broad reform options, the paper acknowledges the importance of incremental reform of environmental governance that is taking place to enhance efficiency of environment work within the United Nations (UN) and on national levels. While these incremental improvements are valuable, the paper argues broader reform of IEG and UNEP in particular will be necessary to improve environmental governance, as stronger legal clout is ulti...
UNEP, International Environmental Governance, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
2017
This paper will explore the role of UNEP/UNEA in international environmental governance at the global and national levels,giving particular attention to the 2030 Agenda. The issues and themes themes described in this report follow the developments in international environmental governance in the Rio + 20 outcome document and subsequent General Assembly resolution.