Streamlining and Environmental Governance. Through the Lens of a Negotiator. and. A Secretariat

Transcription

1 1 Streamlining and Environmental Governance Through the Lens of a Negotiator and A Secretariat

2 2 Streamlining the System of Environmental Governance Like most issues in the UN system, the issue of streamlining and governance has developed its own vocabulary: Fragmentation Coherence Capacity Coordination

3 3 Clearly, these terms are value laden Let me be clear up front, I support the values and believe establishment of a coherent set of global environmental laws is critical but I keep seeing another side Fragmentation must not be good, but. Coherence is desirable, but. Capacity building is essential, but Coordination is desirable, but..

4 4 So to enable a robust discussion among these luminaries, I wanted to focus on the buts the Counterpoint To the idea that fragmentation is a bad thing Can it sometimes be inevitable or potentially desirable? To the concept that capacity is a developing country issue I find it to be multi-dimensional To the concept that coherence is an essential goal that is always worth seeking can seeking coherence impede agreement?

5 5 So what makes me qualified to weigh in? I am a practitioner of environmental negotiations with a unique focus 15 years of policy making/negotiating experience at the highest level Multi-disciplinary background in law, science and policy Several years managing a Secretariat in charge of arguably the most successful UN MEA

6 6 What I have learned People make a difference - Preparation is the exception to the rule (capacity) Policy making depends on fate and irrational relationships between en people (pragmatic, precautionary, Malmo) Stopping agreement is easy achieving consensus is a minor miracle Everyone must be satisfied; requires a delicate balance - - a pile of individual and group compromises take out one card, and the house can fall this can be a recipe for incoherence In this context, the perfect rarely if ever occurs, and it can be the enemy of the good

7 7 Why do these minor miracles happen? - Urgent need for concerted action identified (Data/evaluation) - Comprehendible information supports need for action (Ken brokers) rs) - Intense political support for taking action is mobilized (NGOs,, Media) - Larger countries don t t need to act, or action is so necessary they would consider a diminution of national sovereignty (politics) - A framework is developed that is thought viable by most or all (vision) - The people are in place at the moment to get buy in by all This is a difficult if not impossible package to assemble In this context, the perfect never occurs, and it can be the enemy of the good

8 8 Oh and by the way, you have to be externally coherent and address the whole???? The logical question would be Does the case for coherence and addressing the whole (diminishing fragmentation) outweigh the agreed essential need to develop consensus for action? What a practitioner feels The over riding focus is the need to reach a reasonable consensus to address the issue. This leads to taking action focused on the discrete issue at hand in any way possible, and leads to fragmented treaties that are less than fully coherent

9 9 But is it bad not to cover the whole or is it inevitable?? The breaking up of complex problems into discrete points of focus to facilitate comprehension and solution is often a predicate to success in solving problems Recognizes the limits of the mind to comprehend complex interactions Also recognizes the limits of people to come to agreement on multiple things at once

10 10 Can fragmentation be desirable?? If trying to reach consensus on too many objectives is taking too long, or is proving impossible, it may be better to reach early agreement on a fragment Benefit a culture of success, which stimulates more action Trying to do to much at one time can shut down some people and bring about paralysis and despair - failure This also recognizes human differences - Capacity to comprehend is not equal, but is critical to consensus

11 11 Coherence Striving for external coherence, a perfect outcome - may be an impediment to reaching agreement That, however does not mean that I am against coherence who could be against coherence? It is just that my experience with MEAs suggests some cautions. Luckily, it also suggests some ideas

12 12 Can anything impose coherence? There seems to be a notion that an overarching body might be able to effectuate coherence - Global Ministerial Environmental Forum - UNEP Governing Council - Secretariat heads - Environment Management Group My premise: in the absence of a new entity given supreme authority by all the worlds nations over existing legal instruments (an impossibility), only the governing bodies of the legal instruments can effectuate coherence

13 13 To consider coherence, you need coherent information It seems axiomatic then that they need the information to at least enable consideration of coherence related issues In theory this could come from fellow delegates In practice - this seldom takes place. So a first essential step on the path to coherence is the creation of a tool to enable bodies to consider the broader context in which their discussion is taking place to consider coherent action

14 14 Coherence Assessments: CAs Proposal the EMG should be tasked with: 1. Identifying meetings or nodal points where considering environmental/development context and coherence important. 2. Establishing a framework to enable relevant components of the environment/development members of the EMG to contribute to a coherence assessment The coherence assessment could be made available to the forums in the form of a meeting document or information document

15 15 Coherence Assessments Only potentially useful: will people read the document? As decisions require consensus, will new information distract delegates or serve as an excuse for a party to just say no? But without a mechanism to develop and provide the input, we have to rely on individuals who may be working in multiple areas to bring their experience to the instant forum not often a winner

16 When do we mean?? Capacity - capacity to get the documents - capacity to get best people to the meeting - capacity to understand the issues - institutional capacity to creatively address the issues - capacity to negotiate effectively - capacity to agree - capacity to reach consensus - capacity to implement what was agreed 16

17 Capacity Limited capacity is a fact in all countries. Expert rotation can either reduce or enhance group capacity and add to or detract from coherence There is limited analytical/intellectual/visionary capacity in governments around the world and climate is sucking the capacity away from other issues. In addition, the EC structure has reduced the free flow novel ideas That is one reason that NGOs and universities are so important in this area 17

18 18 Capacity building in the Montreal Protocol/ Equity Adjustments Established national ozone units in over 140 countries, paying for at least staff and communications ability Countries got support for developing legislation and regulations some projects contingent on these interventions; project funding also included training Regional networks of ozone officers established to facilitate south/south knowledge/experience transfer

19 19 Capacity building Why is this model not being followed elsewhere? - belief that national capacity should be the contribution of developing countries but this is not realistic - fear that donors would be creating more vigorous opponents of their initiatives - fear money would be wasted Montreal Protocol shows these fears not very credible, and that national champions are a predicate for national action

20 20 Can a Secretariat Help Build Capacity? Present information in an understandable manner (knowledge brokers) Present understandable information in multiple ways

21 Where should we fund capacity??? A A proposition worth considering - Two laws of water - Why do people rob banks? - Where should we build capacity? Where the decisions we want to effect are taken. Where is the money?? Where are development decisions taken??? 21

22 22 Compliance/Equity Adjustments under the Montreal Protocol All 191 parties have firm reduction obligations Developing countries have a year grace period and are given funding Protocol has a compliance regime that focuses on support rather than sanction or embarrassment 25 parties brought back into compliance 99% plus compliance with data reporting and meeting compliance obligations

23 23 Conclusions International decision making often depends less on the free exchange of lofty ideas in an open market place, and more on the peculiar ideas of, and/or relationships between people at any one time- makes agreement hard, and less than coherent Agreement is also hard because one country can block it Fragmentation or focus on a solvable part of a larger problem may be inevitable, and sometimes, even desirable a smaller action can serve as a building block for positive action

24 Conclusions Coherence is desirable, but consistent foreign policies are rare. Insistence on coherence may kill consensus on needed action; In any event, the system currently lacks the tools to enable its consideration CAs developed through the EMG and channeled to decision making bodies could enable thoughtful consideration of coherence issues Capacity is limited everywhere, and needs building everywhere; we should be open minded on where we invest and what we invest in. Funding of national champions who are in a position to promote policies to complement projects can prove incredibly cost effective 24