World Environment Organization: Difference between revisions

At the latest since the disappointing United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen<ref> More information about the conference can be found under [http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/items/5257.php ''United Nations Climate Change Conference'']</ref> in December 2009 it became obvious that we are living meanwhile in a world risk society without an answer to environmental challenges- neither in form of an acting global community nor a promising world environment organization. On the other side we are facing more and more environmental challenges. These environmental problems can be distinguished in three kinds (cf. Rechkemmer, 2004, p. 7; Biermann & Simonis, 1998, p. 561): in regional, local and global environmental problems. Regional phenomena are caused and occur just in a small, limited space for example the imissions in a lake through the local industry. Local problems, e. g. the contamination of a river flowing through different countries, affect more than one country, but do not have an impact on the whole world. The last kind of phenomena are global problems, for example the famous climate change<ref> More scientific information and prognosis can be found under [http://www.ipcc.ch/ ''IPCC'']</ref>, the global loss of biodiversity<ref> Further reading to this loss under [http://www.cbd.int/ ''Convention on Biological Diversity'']</ref>, erosion of the earth’s surface, pollution of the sea etc.. These global problems are characterized by different aspects:

Because of the characteristics of these global environmental challenges there is the need for a global environmental policy or as it is often called: “Global problems need global solutions”. But right now there is no political frame-institution - the success and the speed of an unorganized conference-policy depending on the willingness of national-states was shown in Copenhagen.  

The current environmental policy is characterized by a high fragmentation, especially after Rio the coordination on environmental issues become increasingly confused: More than 30 years after the first global environmental conference in Stockholm the principal players include the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF)- but special organizations are included in managing environmental problems as well e. g. FAO, IFAD, UNESCO, UNDO and the World Bank. Beside that sectional environmental conventions and a huge number of interstate committees and work teams are involved. There were more than 900 multinational agreements (cf. Elliott, 2004, p. 102). In total there are less organizations pursuing cross-sectional purposes (cf. Rechkemmer, 2004, p.5). Only the UNEP calls itself in the Nairobi-Declaration: “The leading global environmental organization […] within the United Nations system and that serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment.”

In total Elliott calls the system “ineffective in providing a lead in environmental governance, […] unwieldy, unresponsive and underfunded, characterized by demarcation and duplication of responsibilities.”  (cf. Elliott, 2004, p. 102)

 

Facing the UNEP as the main organization for environmental problems of the UN it has no fixed financial basis, it depends on the willingness of the members; there is no universal membership; there are only 800 employees (for example the German Federal Environmental agency has about 1300 employees) and it has no own entity (cf. Rechkemmer, 2004, p. 15) - to give just a few examples for the weakness of this program.

 

There is a global agreement for a reform of the political environmental system- but what this reform should look like there Rechkemmer distinguishes about four theoretical attempts (cf. 2004, p. 21). In the following text the approaches will be characterized and the reform processes of the last few years will be presented.

The main idea of the global-governance-Approach is that environmental policy is no longer a question what could be answered by (national) policy itself or what is concentrated on one policy field. It highlights the rising importance of nongovernmental actors as players in filed of the global environmental policy: NGOs, transnational cooperation, trade unions and the epistemic community are the most prominent actors amongst them. Therefore a WEO must integrate and participate these other actors. In the reality of the reform-process this model does not play an important role- merely the scientific model of a World Environmental and Development Organization by Biermann and Simonis presented later in the text includes this approach.  

Since Rio 1992 there is the idea of the integration of social, economical and ecological attempts. Furthermore the worldwide power is situated in the economical entities like WTO, World Bank and IWF. Because of these two aspects the interest of this approach is to integrate the environmental policy into these other organizations- “greening WTO”. It is important to separate environmental issues no longer because it is already a cross-section-task. With a single environmental organization there would be a further separation of environmental issues, moreover it would be not as powerful as other economical organizations are. Therefore a systematic integration of environmental issues into these organizations is needed. As the Global-Governance-Approach the Mainstream-Approach does not play a considerable role in the reform-process either. It has been pushed only by several NGOs and academics over the past few years.

The aim of this approach is to strengthen and to consolidate the UNEP as an already existing “global player” in the field of the environment. Therefore different changes need to be made: the financial system should be changed from a trust-fund-principle to a core budget sum;  the personal capacities should be increased and a universal membership of all UN-members should be installed. To reach higher compliance and enforcement power UNEP’s ability to provide firm political guidance has to be improved by raising the profile of environmental concerns to ministerial levels. The cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) should be intensified and through a conversion of the inner organizational structures and management the assertiveness should increase (cf. Elliott, 2004, p. 105). This model could be colloquial called as “pimp UNEP”, represents the position of the UNEP itself and nations for example China and India – this approach has mainly characterized the reform-process of the last 10 years.  

In 1998 the Secretary-General appointed a Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements, chaired by UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer because “the institutional fragmentation and loss of policy coherence […] had resulted in a loss of effectiveness in the world of the UN in the area of environment and human settlements” (cf. Elliott, 2004, p. 103). This conclusion was assumed by the General Assembly and a Global Ministerial Environmental Forum (GMEF) was tied to UNEP. The same resolution approved the Secretary-General’s proposal for an Environmental Management Group (EMG) (cf. Elliott, 2004, p. 104). Since then different working groups are acting, conferences were held, Plants of implementation were made and very often it the importance of strengthening UNEP was stressed- but nothing really happened. Still- this is approach is probably the most realistic proposal.

The aim of the last approach is to get an entity for environmental. A variety of models have been proposed for such an organization, ranging from a hierarchical and centralized body with considerable power to a more loose form of clustering of MEAs and their secretariat. Discussions are about rule making, stand-setting and enforcement; its relationship with existing MEAs: whether it should be part of the UN or excluded of it; whether it would advantage or disadvantage the interest of developing countries. But all models do have some advantages in common: The financial system and the personal situation would be reformed anyway but mainly it would provide a counterweight to the power of the WTO and what is seen to be the increasing dominance of trade principals over environmental protection (cf. Elliott, 2004, p. 104).  

Different models were developed: For example the hierarchical world environmental organization was developed by the WBGU .<ref> The model can be found under [http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2000_engl.html ''WBGU-model'']</ref>. Another scientific model was developed by Simonis and Biermann: The World Environment and Development Organization as a new specialized agency of the United Nations. The World Environment and Development Organization would integrate UNEP, the CSD and the relevant convention secretariats. As well it includes a high participation of non governmental organizations. Moreover to achieve the greatest possible acceptance the decision making process would be as a North-South parity process (Biermann & Simonis, 1998, p.3).<ref> More detailed information about this model can be found in the literature by Biermann & Simonis listed in the following </ref>  

However there is one model in reality in accordance with the specialized-agency-approach: The UNEO-Initiative. It was formed in 2005 by Jacques Ciraque as an international working group. The idea of an UNEO bases on the former reform process of strengthening UNEP: All of the ideas are integrated in this initiative. But the aim is the forming of an own environmental entity. Compared to the WBGU-Concept this idea is not a hierarchical one: The UNEO would be an umbrella organization- for all the other initiatives but without disbanding them. It has been argued that a UNEO should help to systematically pool the scientific knowledge on environmental issues and help to define global environmental strategic guidelines to promote coordination and synergies. But mainly a UNEO would have a greater prominence and a greater political clout than UNEP (cf. Meyer-Ohlendorf & Knigge, 2007, p. 137).

*Facing the national sovereignty “at the end of the day… [a WEO can] do no more than its member states allow it to do ore give the resources to do” and  “[…] if governments wanted to make UNEP stronger now, they could do so” (Elliot, 2004, p. 110). This idea raises the important questions about whether a world environment organization would fare any better  

 

 

Since then there were be different debates, the most important one to link the two main ideas of the reform process in reality was presented in the world-summit 2005: In the final-document §169 it means to create a: »more tightly managed entity in the field of environment«<ref> You can find the document [http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/487/60/PDF/N0548760.pdf?OpenElement ‘here’]</ref>. Beside this in the end of June of 2009 in Belgrade a further step of the very slow reform-process was taken: A next step of the discussion called the Belgrade-Process. Probably right now nobody can say when this process comes to an end. Maybe the decision will be taken under scientific and urgency aspects or economical and power interest will win-for both directions there are different examples in the history of the UN.

From my point of view, facing the advantages, an own entity is needed- therefore the UNEO model is the most attractive- integrating other reform attempts, being a counterweight to other organizations but still more an umbrella organization than a hierarchical one.

But beside the aspect how the current environmental policy is reformed the main point is that there must be a reform- fast. Moreover I hope this decision is made under urgency aspects. Rio+20 can be a chance for the reform process: The world-risk-society gets after Copenhagen a second chance to give the global environmental policy the attention and the action which are  needed right now.