UN Reform: Is it Time to Renew the Idea of Clustering the Major Environmental Agreements?
- “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Winston Churchill’s famous maxim feels very relevant today, when multilateralism and many environmental causes seem to be in retreat. We now face a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.
Yet,
the existing international environmental agreements and science bodies are not
addressing these interconnected crises as effectively as they could. Can we
turn the current situation into an opportunity for positive change and
progress?
Despite
the rise in geopolitical fragmentation-or perhaps because of it—many countries
appear to be as invested as ever in international cooperation and diplomacy as
a means to achieve progress. To take a recent example, last month, negotiators
at a meeting in Uruguay agreed to establish a scientific panel on chemicals,
waste, and pollution.
Not all bad news
This
new panel, which will be known as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on
Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) will become the third scientific panel
of its kind, joining the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
which was set up in 1988, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), established in 2012.
Both
IPCC and IPBES have been hugely important in informing and driving
international policy development around climate change and biodiversity. Now,
ISP-CWP has an opportunity to do the same for chemicals, waste, and pollution.
The
creation of the third science body also provides a much-needed link to public
health concerns such as the quality of our air, water and soil. Having access
to better scientific information and analysis could be a game-changer.
Even
the ever-fractious climate negotiations saw some progress recently. The latest
UN climate meeting in Bonn experienced just as many difficult moments as its
predecessors, with arguments over seemingly trivial matters, such as the
agenda. On the other hand, there was genuine progress on how to manage
adaptation funding in the future, and apparently a very positive event on
oceans and climate change on the margins of the meeting.
Speaking
of oceans, another sign of multilateralism’s resilience was evident last month
at the UN Ocean Conference in France, where 18 countries announced that they
had ratified the High Seas Treaty. The agreement, which aims to protect marine
life in international waters, now has 49 ratifications, only 11 short of the
number needed for it to enter into force.
Meanwhile,
a working group on the Montreal Protocol is meeting in Thailand this week to
continue its ongoing, long-term work on protecting the ozone layer. Early signs
indicate that the collaborative and positive spirit that has often
characterized these talks shows no signs of abating.
It
is also hoped in August that the negotiations to conclude the plastics
convention will be finalized.
Funding Fights
At
the same time, the growing geopolitical tensions of today are undeniable. This
is set to fundamentally alter the political and sustainable development
landscape, with distinct roles emerging for the US and China.
The
US is choosing to pull back or limit its global presence in certain areas,
which may open up opportunities for others, particularly China, India, Brazil,
and South Africa and other emerging economies such as Türkiye and Indonesia.
Some
prominent governments led by the United States have recently voiced skepticism
about both the UN’s effectiveness and environmental causes like climate change.
Furthermore, the UN’s funding is falling for the first time in its 80-year
history, with the US as of the end of 2024 owing $668 million.
Clustering as a Vision
What
should be the response to the daunting challenges facing the multilateral
system, from funding cuts to growing scepticism from some key actors? In the
environmental realm, clustering key conventions and bringing scientific bodies
together would be good steps, offering opportunities to strengthen
international environmental governance, while also offering potential cost
savings.
The
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is an obvious choice for such
clustering. UNEP is tasked with being: “The leading global authority on the
environment. It unites 193 Member States in an effort to find solutions to
climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste,
collectively known as the triple planetary crisis.” (UNEP, 2025)
Furthermore,
UNEP has played a long-established role in advancing both scientific and policy
linkages. It already produces the flagship UN report on the environment, the
Global Environment Outlook (GEO), with GEO-7 scheduled for release later this
year.
Currently,
however, other key science groups, such as the IPCC, IPBES, and ISP-CWP,
operate independently. These different groups should not operate in silos. Is
there a benefit to bringing the science bodies closer to UNEP – with them
playing a facilitating role?
UNEP
is the policy and normative body of the UN system, utilising its convening
power to bring together the various bodies working on environmental issues. And
yet, there is a feeling among some involved in this world that UNEP is not
fully empowered to play this role effectively.
The
UN Environment Assembly plays a valuable role, yet it convenes only once every
two years with the world facing such environmental challenges. Is it time to
reinstitute the Global Ministerial Forum in the other year?
It
could play a role as a forum for addressing the interlinkage between various
environmental treaties and offer a place for scientific bodies to inform member
states collectively about the challenges we are facing.
We
suggest strengthening UNEP as part of the broader “UN80” reform process,
launched recently by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
Currently,
there are hundreds of different multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in
force but perhaps only 20-30 core global MEAs with broad international
participation. Although many were established under UNEP, as they were
ratified, they developed their governing bodies and operated independently from
UNEP.
This
is particularly noticeable when it comes to treaties addressing the triple
planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste.
Arguably, UNEP is not at the center of any of these issues. But it should be.
Today,
we have a fragmented set of environmental conventions with overlapping work,
increased inefficiencies, and gaps, even though the issues they address are
often interconnected. This fragmentation makes it more challenging to see the
benefits that could occur from synergies and linkages between the various
conventions. It reduces the UNEP’s ability to be the global voice for the
environment, which is so sorely needed.
Arguments
for consolidating and coordinating our global policy response to environmental
challenges are not new. Klaus Toepfer, who ran UNEP from 1998-2006, was one of
the first to call for clustering the key environmental conventions. In fact, he
and his successor, Achim Steiner, made some progress on this, with a decision
to link the work and meetings of three chemicals-related treaties—the Basel,
Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions. They now operate through a common meeting
often referred to as a ‘Super COP’. So, we have a model to use learning both
the positive and negative to help clustering in the areas of climate change and
biodiversity.
As
early as 2001, a UNEP working group on governance identified the potential for
closer cooperation in areas such as capacity-building and information sharing.
In 2002, UNEP’s Governing Council specifically supported clustering measures
and pilot projects to test their effectiveness. This move aimed to facilitate
an integrated life-cycle approach to managing substances covered by these
conventions.
It
found that the “clustering approach to multilateral environmental agreements
holds some promise, and issues relating to the location of secretariats,
meeting agendas and also programmatic cooperation between such bodies and with
UNEP should be addressed.” (UNEP, 2002)
Synergies
and linkages in the field of scientific assessments also hold some potential.
UNEP could help ensure that the IPCC, IPBES, and the new ISP-CWP do not operate
in silos.
Stronger Together?
The
recent report for the UN Secretary General on reform suggested bringing the
UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under UNEP’s purview.
Currently,
the UNFCCC is a “big dog” in the environmental sphere, over which UNEP has no
administrative responsibility, as the UNFCCC originated from a General Assembly
resolution rather than a UNEP process.
A
move to bring the UNFCCC under UNEP might meet with considerable resistance and
objections. But there could well be benefits. Clustering the secretariats and
science bodies of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution
and waste, could potentially lead to:
enhanced
policy coordination
greater resource efficiency
streamlined reporting and compliance
improved stakeholder engagement
a stronger focus on cross-cutting issues
coordinated monitoring and evaluation
increased political momentum
In
short, a stronger UNEP, positioned at the heart of the treaties and the science
dealing with the triple planetary crisis, could offer both synergies and cost
savings but more important it would give a huge opportunity for a stronger
environmental voice in this increasingly insecure world.
Prof.
Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN negotiations on the
environment and sustainable development since the 1990s. Their new book, Environmental Lobbying at
the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is out now
(Routledge, 2025).
Felix Dodds is an Adjunct
Professor at the University of North Carolina’s Water Institute and has advised
stakeholders on their UN engagement for 30 years.
Chris Spence is an
environmentalist, writer, and former leader of nonprofits in New York, New
Zealand, and California. He has consulted for the UN and other international
organizations over many years.
Dodds and
Spence also co-wrote and edited Heroes of Environmental
Diplomacy in 2022.
Comments
Post a Comment