New UN-80 paper looking at the reform of the UN Environment Management Group

New: Paper 9 – The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) as a Case Study for EMG Reform Under the UN80 Process: Lessons Learned and Opportunities for Change (Craig Boljkovac and Felix Dodds)

The United Nations system has, over several decades, developed multiple coordination mechanisms to address the inherently cross-cutting nature of environmental and chemicals/wastes/pollution-related governance. Two of the most relevant arrangements in this regard are the Environment Management Group (EMG) and the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC). While both seek to enhance coherence across institutions, they originate from distinct legal and institutional pathways and have evolved with markedly different ways of working. 

The EMG was established by General Assembly resolution 53/242 (1999) as part of a broader effort to strengthen system-wide coherence following recommendations of the Secretary-General. 

The resolution establishing the EMG reads, in part, “Supports the proposal of the Secretary-General regarding the establishment of an environmental management group for the purpose of enhancing inter-agency coordination in the field of environment and human settlements, and requests the Secretary-General to develop, in consultation with the Member States and members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination, the mandate, terms of reference, appropriate criteria for membership and flexible, cost-effective working methods of the proposed environmental management group and to submit them to the General Assembly for consideration at its fifty-fourth session;” (UNGA, 1999).

The EMG was conceived as a coordination mechanism across the United Nations system, with a mandate to enhance inter-agency collaboration on environment and human settlements. Its authority is thus derived from a top-down intergovernmental decision, with UNEP serving as chair and secretariat provider. The EMG’s role has remained facilitative, relying on voluntary cooperation among participating entities and lacking independent normative or programmatic authority.

By contrast, the IOMC was established in 1995 through a Memorandum of Understanding among participating organizations. Its origins lie in the implementation of Agenda 21, in particular Chapter 19 on the environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals. With the endorsement by the UN General Assembly of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the Rio Summit in general in March, 1993 , relevant UN organizations and the OECD were given the clear mandate to take action, resulting in the formation of the IOMC.

This inter-agency initiative, created by technical organizations themselves to improve coordination in a defined sector, has successfully enhanced coordination and cooperation on chemicals, waste and pollution issues (the “third pillar” of the Triple Planetary Crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution and waste) to the present day. Its mandate is grounded in practical cooperation: harmonizing tools, aligning methodologies, preventing needless overlap and duplication and supporting countries in implementing chemicals-related commitments.

These differing origins—intergovernmental mandate versus inter-agency agreement—have had lasting implications for the effectiveness and operational character of each mechanism. At a time when the United Nations system is considering reforms under the “UN80” process, which for the environment is work package 27, this includes adjustments to the EMG and its recent relocation from Geneva to Nairobi, a structured comparison with the IOMC offers a useful, evidence-based case study for institutional design.

The rest of the paper can be downloaded here.

The other papers from the Stakeholder Forum on UN80 and the Environment are:

• Paper 1 – Clustering the Environmental Conventions (C. Spence and F. Dodds)
• Paper 2 – The Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, etc. (M. Stanley-Jones)
• Paper 3 – Toward Enhanced Synergies Among Biodiversity‑Related MEAs (H-M. Schally)
• Paper 4 – Clustering Climate Conventions (S. Azores)
• Paper 5 – Better use of Expertise in Navigating the Polycrisis (P. Bridgewater and R. Kim)
• Paper 6 – UN80 – Is it Time for the Re-Emergence of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (J-G. Strandenaes)
• Paper 7 – Financing the Triple Planetary Crisis of Chemicals and Waste, Biodiversity and Climate Change (Craig Boljkovac, Hugo-Maria Schally, et.al.)
• Paper 8 – Lessons Learned from the BRS Conventions Synergies Process, Which Could Be Applied to the UNEP-Administered and Extended to Selected Other Biodiversity Conventions (Craig Boljkovac, Hugo-Maria Schally, and Felix Dodds)