Speech at UNEP Plenary on global environmental governance

I am honoured to moderate this plenary discussion on “International Environmental Governance: Help or Hindrance”.

I start from the viewpoint that IEG is neither a help nor a hindrance. It is an imperative – we have no choice. Where we do have a choice is the type of governance reform, the pace of reform, and the process for achieving it.

The nature and scale of current environment and development challenges and opportunities is increasingly better understood. Our challenge now is to convert that improved understanding into a coherent agenda and process for achieving reform, since doing nothing is evidently not an option and since so much energy has been expended on this subject which now needs to be converted into fruitful outcomes.

Different nations find themselves placed at different stages in the order of environmental impact, or the chain of calamity. The small island states, threatened with inundation, are at one of the extremes. Adaptation for them means adaptation to existential extinction. They are contemplating migration of whole populations. They are followed by those that could be drowned in desert. Meanwhile, there are those at the other end of the spectrum for whom adaptation remains in the realm of practical policy, although their environmental policies, in varying degrees, impact on the prospects and choices of the most vulnerable and those with the most negligible carbon footprint.

This is to say that our consideration of governance reform must consider not only the broader sweep of existing governance arrangements, but also outcomes that respond to the voices of all concerned parties, including those at the margins.

The very basis of our economies in our lifetimes and the wellbeing of our societies are being undermined. We must ask ourselves whether we are being worthy stewards of our planet. James Martin, in his “Meaning of the Twenty First Century” makes the chilling observation that, given the evidence of the assiduous self-destruction of our habitat, the fateful thought arises whether humankind as a species is losing the instinct for self-preservation.

Let me therefore set the scene for our grave conversation with three questions, to which others will be added.

The first concerns the fragmentation and complexity of current governance arrangements, and the associated transaction costs at the national level.

Take a small island state like Samoa, which has a strong track record on environmental concerns, but its small policy team is charged with negotiating in far-flung corners of the world on major environmental agreements. And, at the same time, that team has national preoccupations.

Related to this is the extent to which there is coherence at either the international or national level in the governance of environmental and other stresses. We have witnessed in the last year or so alone an energy and fuel crisis, a food crisis, and a financial crisis...and all the while an environmental crisis continues to grow. A more holistic approach seems warranted, in which efforts are directed at the simultaneous pursuit of environmental goals, the MDGs, growth goals, social welfare targets and so on. Environmental concerns need to be mainstreamed into policy planning and governance at both national and international levels.

I am conscious that honourable Ministers here and UNEP itself have continued to pursue a strengthened interface between science and policy, and a strengthened interface between clusters of MEAs on policy. This is most welcome. I am also conscious that the need for appropriate science and technology interventions and resources will, in future, be more pressing and require a more collective response. If fresh water, for instance, will become one of our most scarce necessities in response to changing climate impacts on human settlement, then the solution will lie in a global mission on affordable desalination.

The first question, then, is to ask what is the optimal model of international environmental governance that would be responsive and sustainable at the national level?

I turn next to the proliferation in Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and the associated complexities. What is the root cause of this? Who is demanding this current approach and why, and how can it be remedied? There are also debates about the best institutional mechanism and funding options.

Let me draw to your attention a fresh approach that has been advocated by the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth’s 53 members – representing a very broad diversity of continents and descriptions of states, that must surely provide a signpost. Those leaders said last year that reform of international environmental governance should be based on six guiding principles: start from these as the departure point, and the reform should fall more readily into place.

The six principles are legitimacy, fair representation, responsiveness, flexibility, transparency and accountability, and effectiveness.

Associated with this point, if we were to agree on a more inclusive approach, would be to question whether we should not be opening up to other key players in this business, such as the private sector and civil society. Is it not the case that almost all environmental requirements coalesce around those with the means and the impulsion to be part of the solution. So, should these same actors not have some ability to contribute to the discussion of governance?

My second question, therefore, is to ask whether a new approach is required in which the reform agenda is pursued on the basis of first agreeing underlying principles and goals; in which the consideration is given to a wider group of stakeholders; and whether the political consideration – to be successful – needs to go beyond the remit of Environment Ministers alone.

My third and final question, before turning to the panellists, is to ask how best we can carry forward the reform agenda, spring-boarding from this week’s deliberations. Again, I know of those 53 states whose Heads of Government collectively have agreed that, whatever the chosen process from here on, it must be inclusive...inclusive to the point of seriously exploring the possibility of an international conference through which universally agreed outcomes could be pursued. Could a conference be pursued, whether to add impetus to current incremental efforts or to achieve a broader and more fundamental reform?

The attraction in my mind is not only that it would allow us to get beyond the tinkering approach to reform which is stuck in the slow lane, whilst environmental degradation continues apace in the fast lane, but it would also ensure that there is universal ownership of the reform outcomes.

The point is that we must achieve agreement on a process to move forward even if we are yet to agree on the likely or desirable outcomes.

I am conscious that Ministers and delegations have been wrestling here in recent days with two concepts: an open-ended group of Ministers or a small regionally based group of Ministers. I do not seek to judge your deliberations. I do, however, encourage this plenary and this afternoon’s workshops to be strategic in thinking.

The challenges and reform needs are well known, as I said. Let us not get caught in that debate this morning. What is less clear, and where this discussion could make a significant contribution, is in scoping out what the process should be in future for addressing reform. Either of those two options for engaging Environment Ministers and for a UNEP supported process is a possibility. But should they contribute and lead towards a broader international conference; should it be a summit; what would the preparatory process be; what should Ministers’ role be; what should UNEP’s role be; are there alternatives; and, crucially, how is fresh thinking to be brought into this process?

Until these questions are answered, the debate on reform will tend to be slow and somewhat circular. This is the moment to strike out on to a fresh path.

My question, then, is what is the optimal future process to create forward movement on the reform agenda?

We are next to hear observations from a most distinguished group of panellists with diverse backgrounds and from diverse corners of the globe. Their contributions, and those from the plenary, should hopefully show us the path to wisdom and a direction of collective resolve, which I shall endeavour to recapitulate at the end.

Let me finally say that our discussions today have been prompted by a set of excellent papers prepared by UNEP.

We need nothing short of fresh impetus and new thinking about environmental governance that will forestall environmental catastrophe. I urge all to engage in an open, frank and forward-looking discussion so that we can identify the requisite areas of convergence and signposts for the future of the reform process.

Concluding Comments

Nature of governance reform:

• Must address the challenge for most states of their limited capacity to negotiate and to participate in a plethora of governing bodies.
• Must find ways to integrate environmental governance into other global governance arrangements where there is an intersection of interest, such as development and energy and food, or vice-versa. A more holistic approach to governance of the environment is required.
• Other actors might be brought into play – either in the consultation on reform or in the eventual governance outcomes – such as representatives of the private sector and civil society, given the contribution they can make to the necessary solutions.
• There is a requirement for arrangements that bring together science and policy, and that bring together the various policy interfaces of the MEAs.

Process of reform:

• Ambition is required on the pace of the process, since it continues to lag behind the environmental degradation that continues apace. 
• Ambition should remain for continued incremental change in existing arrangements – we are not starting from a clean sheet, and governments have already committed themselves to many of the MEAs.
• Reform of UNEP remains an agenda item, in order to strengthen its role and relevance. Other institutional proposals have been proposed too. Whatever, UNEP must remain strong and active now and until such time as the reform agenda is realised.
• It is worth giving further thought to an international conference.
• In order to be legitimate and ultimately effective, the process must be inclusive if not universal.