Both conferences come at a time when governments are preparing their foreign and environmental ministries for the negotiations at Rio+20 in June. The French government, in particular, has been vocal in its support for creating a UN Specialized Agency for the Environment capable of centralizing international efforts for environmental protection and sustainable development. Fittingly, the conference at the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs centered on three topics: how to structure the new environmental system, how to ensure that valid scientific findings are integrated into global environmental policy, and how to ensure a democratic, multi-level model of governance.

At both conferences, scientific and governance policy experts, representatives from civil society organizations, and government officials were involved in the dialogue. Notable participants at “Towards New Global Governance for the Environtment” included Prof. Maria Ivanova, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, President of the UN General Assembly Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, and Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO.

The authors argue that a global legal framework for the environment would  oversee and centralize research advancements, international transfers of technologies, and implementation of relevant country-specific policy measures. In effect, this would do away with the logistical difficulties associated with having multiple MEA secretariats. The reduction in cost, authors suggest, would benefit developing countries the most by enabling them to transfer more of the administrative cost into implementation of the treaties.

The editorial argues that UNEP could be capable of taking on the role of a centralized environmental agency. Currently a U.N. programme, UNEP has a considerably smaller budget than it would have if it were a Specialized Agency. As a U.N. programme, UNEP has to seek programatic approval from the U.N. General Assembly. If it were a Specialized Agency, UNEP would not be subject to the approval of the General Assembly; it would have its own authoritative governing council that could approve decisions without having to refer to an outside body. Specialized Agencies, such as the WHO and the FAO, possess greater independence from the General Assembly than do the U.N. programmes. Such a change to UNEP would give all participating member-states an equal seat at the governing table.

Environmental issues do not exist in a vacuum, separate from economic and social issues. Many of the tenants of MEAs affect all aspects of society, not just the environmental ones. The editorial explains that, if UNEP became a Specialized Agency, with greater independence and a increased budget, it “could close the gap between ambition and [implementation] reality”.

The authors, however, do not discuss the concrete causal mechanisms that would lead to such results.

Read the full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonian-golmohammadi/climate-change-rio-20_b_1184260.html

In its current form, the ‘zero draft’ calls for signees to reaffirm their commitments to sustainability and the intergovernmental processes that guide the efforts. Moreover, it also deals with a number of specific issue areas, such as the future of UNEP and oceanic governance.

The document calls for a discussion on whether or not UNEP should be reinforced as a UN subsidiary body or a programme, or whether it should be turned into a special agency (presumably, United Nations Environmental Organization {UNEO}). The oceanic governance section contains an ambitious pledge to monitor and enforce environmentally-sound policies in international waters. How international waters are to be policed, with a new international organization or otherwise, is left out of the draft and will presumably be a topic for negotiation. In addition to these issues, the ‘zero draft’ covers food security, water, energy, green jobs, forest biodiversity, and climate change, among others. While the current document has a lot to offer in terms of commitments, many of them are controversial. It is left to be seen which ones will remain after the negotiations at Rio.

The document has thus far been received with mixed feelings. It is lauded for its inclusion of scientific realities and its ambitious goals regarding the ocean. Conversely, it is criticized for not emphasizing accountable, pro-sustainability actions by states. New criticisms, praises, and analyses will inevitably occur over the next 158 days as governments, scientists, corporations, NGOs, and civil society actors pour over the document in order to prepare for Rio+20.

Fatoumata Keita-Ouane

Professor Maria Ivanova of the Center for Governance and Sustainability organized and hosted the event. After opening remarks from Provost Winston E. Langley concerning the global dimension of environmental sustainability, Dr. Ivanova presented the panelists with the opportunity to speak briefly about their personal opinions regarding the successes and failures of global environmental governance. Opinions varied amongst the panelists and the audience gained insight into the challenges faced by environmental professionals and the achievements of international environmental organizations. The issue of, “have we succeeded or failed?” sparked a lively, cordial debate amongst the panelists.

Bernice Lee

Dr. Laszlo Pinter of the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary spoke of our collective struggle with sustainability as a journey with successes and failures alike. Ivar Baste warned that the threat of environmental collapse is looming, but that mechanisms and political will to preserve our planet are falling into place. Engaging the audience directly, Bernice Lee of Chatham House said that the future of environmental prosperity rested on the shoulders of young environmental scholars, professionals, and activists. She also stressed the need to engage the financial and industrial sectors, if we are to preserve our planet. The event was stirring, and the contributions from the panelists inspired the audience with a sense of hope and a trajectory for the future.

The 2012 Global Environmental Outlook is due to be published ahead of Rio +20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

Trista Patterson

Cognizant of the evolution of state interests in international environmental action, Maurice Strong feared that the consequences from the downward shift would be “far more damaging for the human future than the more immediate issues that gave rise to it.” He stressed the need to deal with environmental concerns “as the most dangerous security issue humanity has ever faced, with the very conditions necessary to life on Earth at risk.” Mr. Strong stated that Rio+20 must be seen as a unique opportunity to change the way activities are managed and their impact on Earth’s sustainability and that greater cooperation is imperative. The change of course requires radical changes in the current economic system and called for, in particular the western countries, to lead the change.

Maurice Strong stressed that Rio+20 must endorse and be grounded in the Earth Charter, embracing its moral and ethical principles.Recalling the concept of shared but differentiated responsibilities; Mr. Strong stressed the need for it to be strongly reinforced at the conference.

He pointed out a number of actions, which would make Rio+20 a milestone including,

• establishment of a process of assessment of each country’s past commitments, further leading to a system where countries failing to meet commitments would be subject to penalties and sanctions
• establishing earth bonds as a form of investment instrument for sustainable development projects
• establishing a system where victims of environmental damage can seek legal recourse and compensation
• clarify and strengthen the role of UNEP by agreeing to accord it the status of a specialized agency’, which could lead to the establishment of a World Environment Organization

Mr. Strong also addressed the possibility of providing a new mandate to the Trusteeship Council, which would turn it into a Council on Sustainable Development. He urged Rio+20 to give key role recognition and a strong voice in policy and implementation to cities, as they play an important role in the field of environment. Mr. Strong concluded with stating ‘we cannot afford failure, the security and sustainability of life on earth depends on our success, if our actions at Rio+20 are too little they will surely be too late.’

To see Mr.Strong’s full remarks click here.

To see summary of the event click here.

See Mr. Strong in the GEG Project’s Quest for Leadership documentary

Mr. Strong was a participant in the GEG Glion Forum in 2009.