|
 
|
|
|
A New Vision for Global Environmental Governance
The environmental agenda has expanded and grown in complexity since the establishment of the international environmental regime in 1972. The inherently global nature of many current environmental problems necessitates an effective global response. To this end, a rationalized, integrated and effective global environmental governance structure is needed with the authority, capacity and resources to solve old problems and address emerging challenges. The following functions are central to such a system:
 |
Scientific assessment, including environmental data collection and analysis.
Reliable data of adequate quality and authority would ensure an integrated,
ecosystem-based approach for problem definition and assessment. Long-term
forecasting of environmental trends as well as intergenerational impact
assessments could be devised on the basis of such data.
|
|
Monitoring, including systematic review of environmental indicators and an early
warning system. A common set of indicators and an adequate early warning mechanism
would contribute to the timely forecast and identification of environmental
disasters and areas at risk.
|
|
Knowledge networking, including collection and exchange of information on "best
practices." Provision of adequate and timely information on how to achieve
cutting-edge environmental performance would enhance the opportunities for
consensus-building and coordination of policies critical for the solution of
environmental problems.
|
|
Rule-making,
including the establishment of policy guidelines and norms. It is essential that a forum (e.g., a "policy space") exist for parties to address issues of common and compelling concern in a transparent fashion, engage in a sustained and focused dialogue, identify priorities, and devise action plans. Universal access to information and knowledge promotes universal norms. The codification of principles, promotion of guidelines, and setting of commonly agreed - though differentiated when necessary - performance standards would ensure transparency and strengthen accountability. |
|
Action Mechanisms,
including a more integrated system for existing financing mechanisms that are scattered across the Global Environmental Facility, the UNDP, the World Bank, and separate funds such as the Montreal Protocol Finance Mechanism. The implementation gap in the international environmental system is to a great degree attributable to the lack of effective mechanisms for action. Treaty congestion has led to overload of national administrations where the political and economic capacity to implement agreements resides. The institutional mechanisms for technology transfer have also been less than effective. Even industrialized states with well-developed regulatory mechanisms and bureaucracies have become overwhelmed. |
|
Capacity-building,
including financial, scientific, management, and technical assistance. The mobilization of public and private resources and expertise would be vital for the enhancement of national capacities for the implementation of international agreements. Such harnessing of resources should reflect the needs of and commitments to developing countries. |
|
Conflict resolution,
including convening authority and established procedures. A forum for environmental dispute settlement with an appropriate scientific and technical expertise would facilitate environmental conflict resolution between and among actors on an global scale. Relevant and accepted procedures for dispute settlement in light of cultural, value, and legal diversity would promote compliance, cooperation and reconciliation. If substantially used as the decision-making body in the area of dispute resolution, greater legitimacy and predictability would result for the GEG in general. |
|
Integration and broad-based participation,
including coordination across issues and institutions. Drawing into the international policy making process the best data, thinking, and analysis from the multinational economic institutions (WTO, World Bank, IMF), the private sector, non-governmental organizations, the academic community, and civil society at large would improve the efficacy of environmental solutions. By including the myriad of actors extending beyond government ministers, added legitimacy and transparency would result lending to a strengthened regime. |
Various institutions currently perform many of these functions, but there remains a pervasive lack of coordination, bundling, processing, and further channeling of the accumulated information and knowledge in a policy relevant manner. The current environmental governance system lacks the mandate, the political will, and the capacity to embrace these functions in an integrated and systematic manner and to respond adequately to the increasing demands on our finite pool of resources. If environmental governance is to become more inclusive, responsive, and equitable, reform of the current institutional structure is imperative. Such reform should reflect the development concerns of developing countries; endorse the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and link commitments with the appropriate means for their achievement.
Policy Options for Reform
One vision for reform is the management of global environmental issues by a single organization. A global environmental organization could reconcile goals of efficacy and equity through a streamlined and rationalized structure that would eliminate overlapping mandates, free additional resources, and enhance transparency, accountability and participation. In view of current political realities, however, the creation of such a global environmental body in the near future is unrealistic. Furthermore, a flexible and largely virtual structure could ensure more responsive and responsible governance while preventing additional resources from being diverted to the bureaucracy inherent in a new organization.
Global Environmental Mechanism
An alternative vision to the central environment body described above is a Global Environmental Mechanism
(GEM), which would be comprised of the following elements:
|
Data Collection Mechanism for reliable data, indicators, and State of the Global
Environment reports;
|
|
Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism, a repository for information on compliance;
|
|
Scientific Assessment and Knowledge Mechanism drawing in basic research on trends and risks;
|
|
Bargaining and Trade-offs Mechanism for exchanges of commitments on environmental issues;
|
|
Rule-Making Mechanism for the global commons establishing policy guidelines and norms;
|
|
Civil Society Participation Mechanism providing a business and NGO forum for participation in policy formulation;
|
|
Financing Mechanism mobilizing public and private resources;
|
|
Technology Transfer Mechanism promoting best practices suited to national conditions;
|
|
Dispute Settlement Mechanism with agreed procedures and rules;
|
|
Implementation Strategies Mechanism providing a clearinghouse for best practices and facility for supporting state-based regulatory efforts.
|
The GEM would consist of an effective, lean secretariat complemented by public policy
networks that would serve as the primary problem
solving bodies. The proposed GEM would draw on information age technology to promote
cooperation in a lighter, faster, and more modern and effective manner.
Click here for a schematic presentation of the functional approach to global environmental governance.
Achieving this vision of global environmental governance will indeed be a challenge.
Success will demand an extraordinary mix of political pragmatism, commitment,
collaboration, humility, and idealism. A global dialogue that takes into account
the needs of developing countries, transition economies, and industrialized states
is necessary to advance the understanding of how best to undertake reform. To take part
in and contribute to the discussion on the strengthening of the
global environmental governance system, please join our global environmental governance
public policy network.
|
|
|
