Assessing UNEP as anchor institution for the global environment: Lessons for the UNEO debate (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.