On September 2007, while president Nicolas Sarkozy was making his first speech at the 62nd   session of the UN General Assembly, French minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Bernard Kouchner, invited some civil society participants to discuss the proposal of a United Nations Environment Organization as the panacea for our planet. However, if we were to look only at the framework of international governance while trying to arrive at a conclusion about the problems of the global environment, it would appear that the world is on the right track. There are more than 500 treaties and international agreements of that nature. Since the Rio-92 conference, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of conventions (including Global Warming, Biological Diversity, desertification, the Kyoto protocol, and the additional protocol of Cartagena, the PIC and the POC conventions). Yet, most of these conventions are not supervised by the United Nations Environmental Program; they created their own geographically separate secretariats, each with its own budget, agenda, and strategies. The outcome, of course, is an extremely fragmented governance of the global environment, with a weak UNEP, serious coordination problems, and a lack of credible scientific expertise on a global level.

Environmental degradation is a threat for everyone; it does not respect national borders. Natural disasters, pollution, and global warming are transnational issues; to deal with those issues, a collective effort is needed.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which met in Johannesburg in 2002, former French president Jacques Chirac proposed that, "to better manage the environment and ensure compliance with the Rio Principles, we need a World Environment Organization." A year later, in September of 2003, he announced in a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations that "against the chaos of a world shaken by ecological disaster, let us call for a sharing of responsibility, around a United Nations Environment Organization."

In order to discuss the transformation of the UNEP into the UNEO, France proposed the creation of a working group composed of a variety of countries with different positions towards the issue. The so-called 26 Group  started its informal meetings in 2004. The Japanese delegation was in favor of stronger action against the degradation of the environment, but was against any extra financial contribution. Europeans were cautious about creating a new organization and increasing the bureaucratic machinery, while Brazil, India and South Africa said they would lobby against the project if it clashed with their interests within the WTO. In 2005, after a period of negotiation, the work group finally had some concrete options to address the weakness identified. It proposed, according to the Quai d`Orsay, that “the creation of UNEO should be achieved by transforming UNEP (and not in parallel to it). This forward-looking process should be seen as a complement and build on the strengthening of UNEP based on the recommendations adopted at Cartagena; The new Organization`s headquarters should remain in Nairobi. It would, thus, be the first United Nations Specialized Institution to have its headquarters in a developing country; Finally, the legal autonomy of the main Conventions should be maintained.” Some critics said that keeping the headquarters in Nairobi would isolate the UNEO from the other UN organizations. However, for political reasons, moving it to Geneva would cause the opposition of the Africans and the developing countries when France’s goal is specifically to gather the most support possible.

It should be an umbrella organization within the UN system, under the UN charter principles and sharing the UN legitimacy. It would then provide unified coordination without endangering the “legal autonomy of the Conferences of parties to the existing conventions.” It would avoid exaggerated centralization, as, on a global scale, it is very hard to ensure that the orders given by the core are being followed by the last link of the long chain of command. Based on the trend “think globally, act locally”, the UNEO would allow the development of local issues, but with the coordination of the central body, rationalizing the agenda and making the international environmental governance apparatus more efficient.

The UN High Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change of 2004 didn’t mention the creation of the UNEO. However, based on Jeffrey Sach’s report, the panel made a link between environment and development, security and humanitarian strategies, in an attempt to bring to the negotiation board, the developing countries, the US and  some least developed countries. The HLP report doesn’t mention the creation of the UNEO, but it warns that the “existing global economic and social governance structures are woefully inadequate for the challenges ahead (…)”.

A small but significant paragraph on Environmental activities was added in the last pages of the World Summit Outcome Report of 2005. It states that the countries “agree to explore the possibility of a more coherent institutional framework (…) including a more integrated structure, building on existing institutions and internationally agreed instruments, as well as the treaty bodies and the specialized agencies.” This means that all the countries are opened to the discussion of reformed or new structure to address the global environmental issues. The phrase “building on existing institutions” opens the possibility of a real transformation of the organizational system from the UNEP into the UNEO.

For now, the Europeans are waiting until the next American presidential elections of 2008, when there is a high possibility of change of perspective on environment policies. The initiatives from the former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace prize winner Al Gore and the Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, are signs that the environment is turning to be a core issue in the American political arena. The next years are going to be decisive for the negotiations of a more efficient and coordinated international environment governance system.

⋅ Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, México, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigéria, Norway, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Vietnam, and the European Commission.

References:

United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change report. December 2, 2004

United Nations World Summit Outcome document. September 15, 2005

French Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs. Progress Report, Retrieved August 15, 2007 from, http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/environment-sustainable-development_1097/

united-nations-environment-organization-uneo_1966/french-non-papers_1970/progress-report_1361.

html#sommaire_6

Jacques Chirac. Speech at the opening of the 58th  session of the United Nations General Assembly.

New York, September 23, 2003.

Jacques Chirac. World Summit on Sustainable Development. Speech to the plenary session. 

Johannesburg, September  2, 2002.