T-1345 Informal Environment Ministeral Meeting

Appendix I

Rio + 10 – From the Perspective of the Developing World
By
Cletus A. Avoka,
Minister for Environment, Science and Technology, Ghana

Introduction

The Rio Earth Summit provided the global community with the opportunity to discuss how best to integrate environmental concerns into the usual social and economic aspects of development. The result of this Earth Summit was Agenda 21 – a programme of action for sustainable development worldwide, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statements of Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests.

Associated with Agenda 21 were various programmes of action to be undertaken by countries and the global community. Provision was made with respect to the financial resources needed to implement these programmes, which activities were to involve all stakeholders in the countries – public, private and civil society.

The Rio Earth Summit also came out with two critical global conventions, dealing with Biological Diversity and Climate Change. We were unfortunate not to have had the convention dealing with Drought and Desertification, a critical developing country issue, available for signature in Rio.

To the developing world, Agenda 21 was seen as the dream that we had wished for – a blueprint to address our development problems, especially those associated with poverty. We thus left Rio full of expectations and hope that we will be having the financial and technological resources available to us to attain the economic status expected for our countries.

Rio + 5

In 1997, the United Nations General Assembly held a Special Session to review the Implementation of Agenda 21 after five years of implementation. The outcome of the Special Session may be summarised as follows:

(i) there was no need to renegotiate Agenda 21 since its basic tenets were still deemed relevant;

(ii) global overseas development assistance had declined from 0.35% in 1992 to 0.27% instead of increasing as had been expected; and

(iii) technology transfer to developing countries had not happened since most such technologies were said to be in the "private sector domain".

On the positive side, the Special Session, came out with a multi – year programme of action for the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) for the period 1998 – 2002 and also considered proposals for streamlining the work of the CSD to make it more proactive. Though poverty was deemed to be an overriding issue for the consideration of the CSD over this period, the concept has not been given the due attention that it deserves since 1997.

With all frankness, I wish to state that these yearly meetings of the CSD have failed the global community despite the efforts of the Chairs for the 1998 and 1999 Sessions of the Commission to provide a new dimension and approach to the work of the Commission. There still seems to be more talk than action. Members quibble over words rather than on pragmatic and constructive ways of achieving the goals we set ourselves in 1992.

The Road to Rio + 10

I am happy to note the discussions, which have been initiated globally towards ensuring that we improve upon our performance with respect to the meeting on the implementation of Agenda 21 scheduled for the year 2002. At the Informal Meeting of Ministers of Environment in Ghana last year, we passionately discussed the issue and made what, I consider, very positive comments not only on the preparatory process but also on some of the issues that will need to be addressed by Rio + 10.

The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) also discussed the Rio + 10 Summit at its meeting held in April this year.

The 8 th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development also discussed and made some positive recommendations on the Rio + 10 Summit.

The First Global Ministerial Environment Forum also came out with its Malmo Declaration which highlighted on the Rio + 10 Summit.

In all the discussions on the Rio + 10 process and possible outcome, the following may be said to be some of the critical elements:

(i) Rio + 10 should not be taken as a "business as usual" activity. It should have achievable objectives which aim at addressing the challenges of sustainable development in the twenty-first century;

(ii) There should not be any need to renegotiate Agenda 21;

(iii) Commitments made by the international community must be backed by action;

(iv) There is the need for mobilisation of resources – both domestic and international – to make it possible for commitments to be achieved;

(v) The poverty – environmental degradation vicious cycle has to be broken to promote sustainable development;

(vi) Environmental issues should be taken into account in the broad context of national governance;

(vii) The environmental perspective has to be taken into account in the design and assessment of macro–economic policy–making as well as practices of government and multilateral lending and credit institutions;

(viii) Rio + 10 should be held as a Summit level event, preferably in a developing country;

(ix) The process leading to Rio + 10 should entail preparations at the local, national and regional levels; and

(x) Most importantly from the point of view of developing countries, a trust fund be established with voluntary contributions from national and international donors.

Expectations from Rio + 10

Ghana, like most developing countries, expect that apart from Rio + 10 providing an opportunity for countries and institutions (including Convention secretariats) reporting on the extent to which they have implemented Agenda 21, agree with the Malmo Declaration that Rio + 10 should "provide a further opportunity for the international community to take action to implement its commitments and to strengthen international co-operation urgently required to address the challenges of sustainable development in the twenty – first century".

The success of Rio + 10 will depend, among other things, on the following.

(i) accurate, relevant and timely information based on the appropriate scientific knowledge. This information should be packaged in such as a way as to be available to all those involved in decision–making;

(ii) strong political support by governments backed not only by words but also by the resources to achieve the necessary objectives; (iii) availability of the necessary capacity - human and institutional- especially in developing countries to help them in the implementation of programmes;

(iv) well-articulated and agreed upon objectives, with the necessary resources to ensure implementation within specific timeframes; and

(v) strong commitment by all stakeholders at both national and international levels to the tenets of Agenda 21.

Specific issues which we would wish to be addressed during Rio + 10 include:

a) desertification;

b) climate change;

c) freshwater management;

d)poverty and the environment; and

e) trade and the environment.

Land Degradation

Ghana sees land degradation as a major problem since it has serious socio economic implications to the country. Apart from leading to loss of productive land for agricultural purposes land degradation also leads to desertification.

The major causes of land degradation as you already are aware include:

(i) unsustainable agricultural practices, especially among peasant farmers who use the slash and burn method of farming;

(ii) unsustainable forestry practices;

(iii) bush/wild fires; and

(iv) surface mining.

The result of these activities is that about 30% of Ghana’ s land area is now prone to desertification. The situation may not be different in most developing countries.

The UN Convention to Combat Drought and Desertification is seen as providing a basis through which countries like Ghana can address the problems related to land degradation. Of course, other measures need to be put in place to support the implementation of the Convention.

Essentially, we see one critical factor as mitigating against programmes to address land degradation and this is poverty. There is the need to break the poverty – environment vicious cycle, especially through programmes which involve the rural poor.

Policies also need to be put in place to promote sustainable agricultural and forestry practices. Awareness creation programmes on the negative impacts of various activities on the land are also deemed very important to address the issue of land degradation.

We hope that the global community will assist us in addressing the problem of poverty as we in the developing countries endeavour to put in place the necessary measures to improve upon our agricultural, forestry and other practices to make them sustainable.

Water

Water is the key to life. In most countries apart from being the source of drinking water, water is used for agricultural purposes as well as electricity generation. Over the past few years, there has been global concern not only on the availability of water to serve man’ s needs but also on the quality. Many countries of the world are currently classified to be under water stress. Ghana, for instance, will come under this category by the year 2025 if appropriate measures are not taken to address issues related to water.

The major problems leading to the present situation include:

(a) removal of tree cover around water bodies;

(b) pollution from mining, agricultural and manufacturing activities; and

(c) impoundment of water bodies for agricultural and other issues.

Transboundary water bodies are seen as a major source of concern. This is because of the diverse uses to which the different countries put their water resources, which could have negative impacts on those countries downstream of the water bodies.

As called for in Chapter 18 of Agenda 21, there is the need for countries to develop integrated programmes for the management of water resources. Where such water resources are shared, it is important that a common programme is developed with the active involvement of all the countries communities, especially women, should be considered as critical stakeholders in the development and management of such programmes.

Ghana, in collaboration with Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’ Ivoire, Mali and Togo, who share the Volta basin are currently developing a programme for the integrated management of the Volta river. This is a river of great economic importance to the country since it provides the country with its main source of electricity generation. This project is to be undertaken with the support of the GEF. The experiences to be gained should help in the management of other water bodies, which are essentially national in nature.

There have been a number of global meetings to address the concerns associated with freshwater management. Various countries have experiences which should be shared to help in ensuring that as we move to the year 2025, the number of countries which may be described as being under water stress is zero. The necessary financial resources will need to be available from such bodies as the GEF in these efforts. Of course, the issue of poverty cannot be left out in this process.

Sustainable consumption and production patterns

The need for programmes to address sustainable consumption and production patterns is critical for the attainment of global sustainable development objectives. Essentially this calls for a change in the way resources are used. There is the need for greater efficiency in the use of resources and hence a minimisation of the waste generated through these activities. Changing our consumption and production patterns encompass all sectors of the economy, but most especially in the areas of energy and transportation.

As has been discussed in many fora, poverty and environmental degradation are closely interrelated. While poverty results in certain kinds of environmental stress, the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries, which is a matter of grave concern, aggravating poverty and imbalances.

Measures to be undertaken at the international level for the protection and enhancement of the environment must take into full account the current imbalances in the global patterns of consumption and production. Special attention should be paid to the demand for natural resources generated by unsustainable consumption and to the efficient use of those resources consistent with the goal of minimizing depletion and reducing pollution. Changing consumption patterns will require a multi-pronged strategy focusing on demand, meeting the basic needs of the poor, and reducing wastage in the use of both renewable and non-renewable resources in the production process.

Action is needed to meet the following broad objectives:

(a) To promote patterns of consumption and production that reduce environmental stress and will meet the basic needs of humanity;

1. To develop a better understanding of the role of consumption and how to bring about more sustainable consumption patterns.

In this regard it is important that the global community undertake the following specific activities:

(a) Adopting an international approach to achieving sustainable consumption patterns, taking due cognisance of the Principle of "Common but differentiated responsibilities";

(b) Developing a reliable data and information base to help in taking decisions on consumption and production patterns;

(c) Developing new concepts of sustainable economic growth and prosperity;

(d) Developing national policies and strategies to encourage changes in unsustainable consumption patterns;

(e) Encouraging greater efficiency in the use of energy and resources;

(f) Minimizing the generation of wastes, through the promotion of the 4Rs – Recover, Recycle, Reuse and Reduce;

(g) Assisting individuals and households to make environmentally sound purchasing decisions;

(h) Exercising leadership through government purchasing;

(i) Moving towards environmentally sound pricing; and

(j) Reinforcing values that support sustainable consumption.

The successful implementation of a programme for the global community to move away from its current unsustainable consumption and production patterns calls for the adoption of values that encourage sustainable consumption patterns and lifestyles. It requires the combined efforts of Governments, consumers and producers. Particular attention should be paid to the significant role played especially by women as consumers and the potential impacts of their combined purchasing power on the economy.

Conclusion

Ghana, like the global community, still sees the Rio Earth Summit as having ushered into the world a process, which cannot and should not be stopped. There have definitely been problems on the part of both the developing and developed countries towards meeting their commitments towards ensuring that we build a world, which we can comfortably leave to our children and grandchildren. This is something that all of us gathered here today have in common, that is, to save this one and only earth that we have.

I am very hopeful that with the common but differentiated responsibilities that we have towards the management of the environment we will consider ourselves as partners in the process. We need to create consensus on how to address the global sustainable development problems.

We should not go into Rio + 10 with fixed ideas on what we expect to have. We should be flexible enough and continue to show our strong commitment to sustainable development. This is the only road to success.

Appendix II

Bergen Informal Ministerial Meeting
15 - 17 September 2000

International Environmental Institutions: Where from Here?

Discussion Paper
Prepared by Canada

Introduction

The 21 st century will be a century of increasing globalization. This process, entailing economic and social integration as well as the transformation of international relations and institutions, represents a new phase in the ordering of global affairs. A central challenge is ensuring that globalization can become a positive force for all the world’ s people and that its benefits are more evenly distributed.

Over the past half-century, in response to post-war realities, we have seen the creation of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods Institutions, the World Trade Organization and a host of other organizations whose job it has been to bring peace, security and stability to the world and to make multilateral cooperation work. Yet, as United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said in his report 1 to the Millennium Assembly, "while the post-war multilateral system made it possible for the new globalization to emerge and flourish, globalization, in turn, has progressively rendered its designs antiquated."In his report, he challenges world leaders to think about how international institutions can adapt to globalization and suggests that the status quo is no longer sufficient.

When looking at this larger global governance challenge through an environmental lens, one can recall that considerable progress has been made since 1972, when world leaders met, in Stockholm, to address environmental issues for the first time. That global conference led to the creation of environmental ministries throughout the world, established the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), stimulated the creation of a solid body of international environmental law, and led to the birth of a number of non-governmental organizations promoting environmental issues. Looking back over the period since 1972, there is clear evidence that concerted multilateral cooperation has resulted in significant progress toward safeguarding the environment for future generations. The international community should be proud of the gains it has made. There are few other areas of policy making that have achieved so much through international cooperation in so few years.

In 2002, world leaders will gather to mark several milestones: the 30 th anniversary of the UN Conference on the Human Environment and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the 15 th anniversary of the watershed report "Our Common Future", and the 10 th anniversary of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).

At the inaugural UNEP Global Ministerial Environment Forum, held in Malmö, Sweden, in May 2000, Environment Ministers reflected on the opportunities and challenges associated with 2002. One of the key messages emerging from Malmö relates to the capacity of international environmental institutions to meet the challenges of the new century. The Malmö Ministerial Declaration reflects a growing consensus that a lack of coherence and coordination among international agreements and institutions poses a major impediment to global sustainable development. The Declaration states:

"The 2002 conference should review the requirements for a greatly strengthened institutional structure for international environmental governance based on an assessment of future needs for an institutional architecture that has the capacity to effectively address wide-ranging environmental threats in a globalizing world. UNEP’ s role in this regard should be strengthened and its financial base broadened and made more predictable." (Malmö Ministerial Declaration)

International environmental governance is certain to be central to preparations for Rio +10 given its importance to effective international collaboration and the urgent need to strengthen such collaboration. The time is ripe to take stock of the world’ s environmental institutions – their impact, successes and failings – and determine if they should move in a bold new direction.

This paper provides the basis for a ministerial dialogue on strengthening international environmental institutions. It does not provide a definitive assessment of existing international institutions nor does it analyze potential options for change.

An Overview of the Global Environmental Agenda

We need effective institutions to support and guide the international community in protecting the global environment and promoting sustainable development into the 21 st century. But we must first understand the global context in which countries function and describe some of the realities of international environmental policy. Highlights include:

• Environmental problems transcend borders and, therefore, necessitate international cooperation and the establishment of international institutions.
• Transboundary pollution and global issues like climate change are threatening environmental and human health. The links between environmental degradation and poverty are evident.
• The environmental issues that must be addressed are becoming increasingly complex, such as climate change and genetically modified organisms. The cumulative effects of industrialization and resource consumption are not well understood.
• The number and range of international institutions and instruments dealing with environmental issues have grown steadily over the past quarter century. A strong base of international environmental law exists; witness such flagship agreements as the regional seas conventions, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Montreal Protocol and, most recently, the Biosafety Protocol. The focus now is on challenges to implementation. Compliance and enforcement mechanisms remain underdeveloped and unexplored, undermining the effectiveness of agreements.
• Current approaches to global environmental management and sustainability are inadequate. To date, international action has focused primarily on the transboundary movement of pollution (e.g. hazardous waste, ozone depleting substances, etc.) and sectoral issues (e.g. marine pollution, species protection, etc.). We need to move toward a coherent and integrated management framework which addresses individual challenges in the context of the global ecosystem.
• The institutional structures which govern international environmental agreements are fragmented. Agreements are often managed independently, with little coherence or coordination.
• The role of the non-governmental sector in mobilizing political and policy responses to environmental issues has been invaluable.
• Globalization presents new opportunities for development, but also increases the urgency of the environmental problems threatening human health and well-being. In response to the realities of globalization, environmental policy makers are giving greater consideration to issues like the relationship between trade, investment, development and environmental management.

There is no doubt that the environmental agenda of the 1960s and 1970s has expanded and grown in complexity. Today, it can be argued that the most crucial challenge to achieving environmental results is integration – integration of the environmental science and policy agenda itself as well as integration of this environmental perspective into the larger agendas of sustainable development and economic globalization.

Existing Institutional Machinery

The existing institutional machinery for international environmental matters consists of various elements, most notably :

• the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), created in 1972 following the UN Conference on the Human Environment. Originally conceived as a small UN secretariat to serve as "a focal point for environmental action and coordination within the UN system", UNEP has grown to be the cornerstone of the current international environmental governance system. Its mandate was most recently reviewed and renewed in 1997 in the Nairobi Declaration 2 ;
• the development and expansion of environmental programs and activities within other UN bodies, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). These programs and activities are complemented by environmental work carried out by regional commissions such as the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC);
• the establishment of autonomous UN secretariats to manage a number of multilateral environmental agreements 3 . These have been created to carry out the decisions of their respective Conferences of the Parties;
• the Global Environment Facility (GEF), created to provide new and additional financial resources to address global environmental issues in developing countries and economies in transition; and,
• the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), created in 1992, to ensure effective follow-up to the UNCED.

Rationale for Strengthening International Environmental Institutions

International environmental institutions are staffed by committed professionals. It is through international institutions that information is shared, negotiations are conducted, norms and standards are elaborated and common action plans can be pursued. However, despite its many achievements, the existing machinery remains fragmented, often with vague mandates, inadequate resources and marginal political support. Competing for scarce funds and political commitment, existing institutions are frequently torn between competing priorities which are driven by overlapping and unfocused demands. Weak support and scattered direction have left institutions less effective than they could be, while demands on their resources continue to grow.

With the dawning of the era of globalization, many people point to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the kind of powerful, authoritative organization upon which to model international environmental institutions. However, it is important to recall that when the WTO was born, the trade agenda had been maturing for 50 years or more. Today, the WTO’ s great strength lies in the fact that it is an umbrella for international trade agreements and features compulsory and binding dispute resolution mechanisms. Even still, the WTO faces many challenges, particularly concerning the interface between the trade agenda and other areas like environment, labour and culture. To meet these challenges, the WTO is reaching out to stakeholders and making its operations more transparent. Clearly, however, environmental policy is not a core competence of the WTO. A strong and effective international environmental regime is essential to ensuring that environmental policies and considerations are integrated into the trade agenda.

Given the expanding environmental agenda and the fragmented approach to international action, the international community needs to consider whether the existing international institutional machinery can confront the challenges of the 21 st century. Building on the UN and UNEP reform efforts since 1997, should we also consider a more fundamental restructuring of existing governance mechanisms and institutions, including the creation of a centralized environmental authority?

The basic premise for charting a new course for institutional strengthening is that existing institutions do not (or will not) adequately address current and future needs. The following questions may help to determine whether the existing machinery is adequate:

Does the existing machinery have the political vitality, profile and voice in crucial debates where decisions are taken? Is its influence being felt in the climate change debate, the development of a world water vision, the forests debate, the evolution of international environmental law or at the WTO?

• Does the machinery have enough sustained political influence to be not only relevant but credible in setting the global environmental agenda? Is the machinery strong enough to counterbalance the predominance of international economic institutions and shift the policy balance in favour of sustainable development?
• Is there a venue to provide holistic strategic guidance to counter the fragmentation of the environmental debate resulting from the growing number of specialized environmental conventions and their autonomous governing bodies and secretariats?
• Who is driving the effort to make the system of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) more effective in terms of their implementation and the adequacy of targets and commitments to achieve environmental results?
• Does the machinery have the financial wherewithal to respond to environmental emergencies, natural disasters, conflicts and new and emerging trends?
• Does the machinery provide support (financial, analytical, etc.) that empowers action at the regional, national and local level?

Specific Areas of Emphasis for Institutional Strengthening

A number of critical areas require strengthening, namely, the international legal framework, the financial framework, the accountability framework and policy capacity. The question of political will and influence also needs examination. Each of these areas is discussed below.

International Legal Framework

The international community realized long ago that multilateralism was essential to protecting the environment. Today, hundreds of agreements and cooperation arrangements to address environmental problems exist. They constitute a body of international law that, in theory, governs countries’ domestic activities as well as international relations, facilitating cooperation and sound environmental management within and across borders. Yet there has been minimal effort to take stock of current MEAs and little consideration of how the "next generation" of MEAs might emerge. At least four issues concerning the effectiveness of MEAs could be examined as part of overall international institutional strengthening:

• Coherence – MEAs should be mutually supportive. A coherent international environmental agenda must be embodied in a comprehensive set of legal instruments and policy directions for environmental protection and conservation. How can we make the system of MEAs more effective in terms of their implementation and the ability of targets and commitments to achieve environmental results? Is there potential for greater synergy between key agreements through policy research and legal analysis?
• Coordination – A disproportionate amount of energy and attention is spent on political issues such as where convention secretariats and institutions are located or which piece of the institutional puzzle does what. Is there scope for eliminating duplication and promoting shared agenda setting, information sharing and common approaches which will lead to a more efficient use of time and resources? A debate on coordination issues related to conservation agreements (i.e. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat 4 , Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Migratory Species and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) is under way. Is there a need for political direction in this regard? Under whose auspices should such a debate be occurring?
• Compliance – If MEAs are to be effective and credible, countries must comply with, and implement, them. What, if any, assessment is being done to compare national action to international commitments? In the absence of enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance, are MEAs little more than moral obligations or "agreements on paper"? What efforts are needed to examine common barriers to compliance? Can these barriers be overcome? Is there interest in establishing appropriate and enforceable compliance regimes? If so, how can they be developed and under whose auspices?
• Capacity building – Many countries lack the financial and technical resources to implement the basic requirements of global conventions. Some MEAs have formal mechanisms for capacity development while others do not. Those countries who can offer assistance by sharing expertise, technologies or funding must do so. Is there a role for an international focal point to identify gaps and needs? What is the future course for international environmental capacity development? What analysis has been done to better understand the related issues of capacity development and compliance?

Financial Framework

Total resources to support the existing environmental machinery have grown since the late 1980s, particularly with the creation of the Global Environment Facility, the Multilateral Fund for the Montreal Protocol and the emergence of conventions on climate change, desertification and biological diversity. During this same period, particularly post-UNCED, the resources dedicated to UNEP (primarily through its Environment Fund) began to decline. Do governments understand the funding situation of the international environmental machinery? Is the total amount of spending adequate? How does UNEP compare with other international organizations? Is the existing voluntary funding arrangement for UNEP adequate? Are countries ready for an assessed scale of contributions for the Environment Fund? Are monies being invested in the appropriate activities? Is there value for money?

Accountability Framework

Effective management, information, finance, human resources, and communications systems are essential to organizational life. Does institutional strengthening offer opportunities in this regard? Are the appropriate governance structures in place for reporting on financial and program results? Are the existing accountability and reporting mechanisms sufficient and responsive?

Governments have a role to play but are no longer the only actors in global environmental affairs. What is an appropriate role for civil society, the business community and other international actors? How can these roles be accommodated?

Policy Capacity

Recalling the realities of globalization, there is a need to systematically improve laws, agreements, policies, economic instruments, standards and institutions. Where are the knowledge gaps in international environmental policy? How can they best be filled? Is international environmental policy relevant to national policy makers?

Influence

International institutions, operating in an arena in which the primary actors are sovereign states, have the authority and influence which national governments give them. Financial resources and a sound institutional structure, while important, do not determine the effectiveness of a given institution. Is there a desire to create a single forum for dispute resolution on environmental issues? Is it reasonable to expect that strengthened environmental machinery will shift the policy balance in favour of sustainable development and counterbalance the predominance of economic institutions?

Options for Institutional Change

Varying degrees of institutional strengthening and change are possible, some much more ambitious than others. In essence, the debate concerns the relative merits of further centralized governance and decision-making through the creation of a new organization – which some have identified as a World Environment Organization (WEO) – versus a decentralized but strengthened system similar to that which currently exists. While much has been written about strengthening the existing UN system, particularly in the context of UN and UNEP reform 5 , there has been no detailed analysis and assessment of alternative options like a WEO.

Ideally, debates on form (i.e. institutional and financial matters) should follow discussions on function (i.e. mandate and authority). Questions about mandate and authority should precede any debate about institutional structures themselves.

To help shape the discussion on the strengthening of international environmental institutions, issues have been grouped into two broad categories: mandate and authorities; and institutional and financial matters.

Mandate and Authorities

• Does this institutional challenge fall under environment or sustainable development? Should we continue to look at environment as an independent sector – with an independent organizational framework – and have sustainable development be a cross-cutting issue handled by a different non-operational, monitoring, policy-setting body? Would this be a genuine strengthening of environment?
• Is international environmental governance spread across too many institutions with diffuse, conflicting or weak authorities?
• With regard to the international environmental legal framework, is there a desire to form a central body? Its function could be to strengthen the existing framework and fill in gaps with coherent and consistent international environmental agreements and broad covenants for national, corporate and individual action.
• Is one of the primary purposes of institutional strengthening to balance the overwhelming authority of well-established economic institutions like the WTO?
• Do the other UN agencies fulfill their environmental mandates? Would a more centralized approach help them?
• What is the role of the non-governmental sector?
• What is the role of science in the institutional strengthening effort?
• Would the institution engage in capacity development and local country-level projects?
• Would the institution's role be limited to international legal frameworks, standard setting and policy or would it also carry out operational programs? What would be its niche?

Institutional and Financial Matters

• How close is the existing institutional machinery to meeting governments' demands?
• Can the legal framework be made more coherent within the existing machinery?
• To what extent is UNEP fulfilling the role of global environmental authority? Could UNEP’ s capacity be enhanced without a major institutional reform?
• Is there support for elevating UNEP’ s institutional status from a programme to an organization or specialized agency? What would be the impact on other UN agencies? How would such an institution relate to the UN system? How would it be governed?
• Is there political will to create a new organization to assume responsibilities for the environment from other UN agencies (e.g. the WMO, the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and the International Hydrological Programme of UNESCO)?
• What should be the role of the Conferences of the Parties to international agreements?
• What regional presence does the global environmental machinery require?
• What would be the role of non-governmental actors in a new model?
• Would membership be universal?
• As for financial matters:
• How can contributions to international environmental institutions or processes be rationalized?
• How can UNEP mobilize the financial resources it needs to carry out an expanded set of authorities?
• Is there support for an assessed scale of contributions for UNEP?

Conclusion – Looking Ahead to 2002

Placing this topic on the agenda for the Bergen Informal Ministerial Meeting suggests that there may be a desire to explore institutional strengthening as part of the Rio +10 process. If this is the case, it could be helpful to consider the next steps needed in terms of process and substance.

From a process perspective, countries have to commit themselves to an open and transparent discussion of the issues. It would be helpful to identify an appropriate intergovernmental forum for organizing and convening the debate. Alternatively, there may be merit in avoiding a bureaucratization of the debate and instead pushing to keep it at the ministerial level. As well, every country should make a commitment to put all issues on the table if we are to move from political to practical solutions.

With regard to substance, there is some urgency to carrying out a gap analysis, determining weaknesses and needs, and proposing solutions. It might be helpful to examine the experience of other centralized governance bodies, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the International Labour Organization (ILO). With regard to international legal frameworks, further analysis is needed to determine future needs and the costs and benefits of a more coordinated approach. The issue of compliance requires further elaboration, as do financial issues, including the financial implications of various institutional options.

If international environmental governance is to be central to preparations for Rio +10, much dialogue, analysis and consensus building is required. The Bergen Ministerial marks an important first step.

1 We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21 st Century, Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, April 2000.

2 The Nairobi Declaration states that "UNEP is to be the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, that promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the UN system and that serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment."

3 Examples include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on Illegal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Wildfowl Habitat, Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

4 Also known as the Ramsar Convention.

5 Examples include Report of the UN Secretary-General on Environment and Human Settlements (UNGA/53/463) to 53 rd Session of the General Assembly on matters related to UN reform as well as Report of the UN Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements, 1998.

Appendix III

Informal Ministerial Meeting
15. – 17. September, 2000
Bergen, Norway

Elements for a sustainable energy future

Discussion paper prepared by the Federal Ministry for the Environment,Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety, Germany

1. Starting Point

1. Fossil forms of energy account for over 85% of energy supply worldwide.
2. Each year an amount of energy is burnt which required approx. 500,000 years to develop. This is a development that cannot continue, including out of consideration for future generations.
3. The majority of environmental pollution is related to energy use. Energy-related measures and policies are thus the most essential elements of environmental policy.
4. Almost 70 percent of worldwide energy is consumed by industrialised countries, while only 25 percent of the world's population live in these countries.
5. The processes of globalisation and internationalisation has set new standards and provide a new kind of impetus for action.
6. The share of renewable energies in global energy supply is still extremely low.
7. The potential for increased energy efficiency is still very high around the world. Also in the industrialised countries, potentials for reduction have by no means been exploited fully.
8. Today's energy supply is in part based on forms of energy with high risk potential, such as nuclear energy.
9. The unconstrained consumption of energy in most industrialised countries and the depletion of energy sources in certain parts of the world has lead to increasing shortages and intensify the dependency of the Western world on imports. This shortage is reflected by steadily increasing oil prices (spot price of crude oil at the beginning of 1999: $10 /barrel, in autumn 2000: $34/barrel) .
10. First signs such as increasing number of storms, drought periods and melting polar ice caps indicate the start of global climate changes.

2. Motives and possibilities for action

1. Energy-related activities are driven by three motives: protecting the environment, protecting resources and protecting the climate.
2. According to experts, on average worldwide 20 percent of the energy consumed could be saved at overall no costs (so-called "win-win options").
3. Technical approaches are the efficient and cost-effective use of energy and fuel substitutions. Potentials in both areas are enormous.
4. Technology must be supplemented by behaviour that gives due consideration to energy saving and climate protection.
5. A comprehensive strategy has to be geared towards all sectors: private households and small-scale consumption, industry, the transport and the energy sector.
6. Technical innovation brings about advances in know-how in international competition and secures jobs and economic growth.
7. Even the currently rising energy prices only partly reflect external costs.

3. Objectives

1. A sustainable and future-oriented energy supply in the medium to long term requires fundamental changes in production and consumption patterns.
2. The present trend of ever increasing resource consumption must be reversed. The long-term goal must be a 50% reduction in CO ₂ emissions in the industrialised countries by 2050.
3. The increase in energy productivity is to be doubled as compared to the current annual rate.
4. Renewable energies - and the scenarios of the crude oil industry also show this - must account for more than half of the required energy supply within the coming 50 years.
5. The best available technology is to be introduced as quickly and as widely as possible.
6. Activities in research and development are to concentrate on the further development of existing energy saving technologies and the development of new technologies.
7. The lack of internalising external effects is to be overcome in a step-by-step process.

4. Policies and Measures

1. Taxes on energy, fees, contributions and special levies can provide a profound contribution to the internalisation of external effects. An internationally co-ordinated approach is needed, in particular for commercial air traffic. The lack of tax burdens on air traffic increases demand and leads to a competitive drawback for competing modes of transport such as the railways.
2. Emissions trading can – also in conjunction with other instruments - lead to ecologically effective, economically efficient and socially acceptable restructuring of the energy supply sector and to an ambitious precautionary policy for climate protection at an international level.
3. The obstacles for the use of renewable energies must be removed step by step. Competitive disadvantages on account of market distortions need to be removed by taking suitable measures (subsidies, taxation of traditional fuels, quota regulations).
4. The high potential of an efficient and economical use of energy must be tapped as soon as possible. For this purpose, a comprehensive set of measures is needed which includes those intended to foster changes in people`s behaviour.
5. Efficient and economical use of energy is profitable in many cases even from the private sector’s point of view. The potentials with regard to the national economy as a whole are even much greater.
6. Awareness-raising within society is the basis for a sustainable and responsible use of resources and precautionary climate protection.
7. Participation of relevant stakeholders is an essential requirement for the policies and measures to be accepted by the public.
8. Capacity building, education and training on efficient energy use have to be stepped up significantly so as to remove existing information and training deficits and to exploit existing potentials efficiently.
9. Development and implementation of most modern technology requires increased research, development and demonstration activities of both government and business.

5. Conclusions

1. The energy supply of the future will place greater emphasis on renewable energies, leading to a decreased use of fossil fuels, and it will place a particular emphasis on efficient and cost-effective use of energy.
2. Use of forms of energy intrinsically linked with high risks such as nuclear energy is not acceptable.
3. When developing a sustainable energy strategy, market economic structures and mechanisms are to be used.

Appendix IV

8 ^th> Informal Ministerial Meeting Bergen,
Norway15 – 17 September 2000

List of Participants

Australia

Dr. Tony Press, Director, Department for Environment and Heritage, Antarctic Division

Canada

Ms. Norine Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Canada

Mr. Richard Ballhorn, Director General, International Environmental Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Ms. Christine Guay, Acting Director General, International Relations, Environment Canada

Ms. Christine Hogan, Director, International Policy Division, Environment Canada

China

H.E. Mr. Yuqing Wang, Vice-Minister of State Environmental Protection Administration

Mr. Jian Zhou, Director General, Department of General Office, State Environmental Protection Administration

Mr. Ruisheng Yue, Director of Division of International Organizations, Department of International Cooperation, State Environmental Protection Administration

Mr. Xiaodong Zhong, Deputy Director of Division of Bilateral Cooperation, Department of International Cooperation, State Environmental Protection Administration

Mr. Haiming Bao, Secretary to the Vice-Minister, State Environmental Protection Administration

Mr. Qinzhao Xue, First Secretary, Embassy of the People’s Republic of China

Costa Rica

H.E. Mr. Ivan Vincenti, Viceminister, Ministry of Environment and Energy

H.E. Mr. Manuel Constenla, Ambassador of Costa Rica in Norway

Denmark

H.E. Mr. Svend Auken, Minister for Environment and Energy

Mr. Søren Bukh Svenningsen, Advisor, Ministry of Environment and Energy

H.E. Mr. Torben Mailand Christensen, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Peter H. Steen, Deputy Director General, Danish Energy Agency

Ms. Annette Samuelsen, Head of Section, Ministry of Environment and Energy

Egypt

H.E. Ms. Nermine Mourad, Ambassador to Norway

Finland

Mr. Jukka Uosukainen, Director General, International Affairs Unit, Ministry of the Environment

France

H.E. Ms. Dominique Voynet, Minister of Town and Country Planning and Environment

H.E. Mr. Louis Amigues, Ambassador of France in Norway

Mrs. Laurence Tubiana, Officer on Special Duty at the Prime Minister’s Office

Mr. Jean-Paul Albertini, Officer on Special Duty at the Minister of Town and Country Planning and Environment’s Office

Mr. Marc Giacomini, Head of the International Department at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and Environment

Mr. Francois-Xavier Reymond, First Secretary, Embassy of France in Norway

Ms. Christine Lortet, Ministry of Town and Country Planning and Environment

Georgia

H.E. Ms. Nino Chkhobadze, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources Protection

Mr. Zaal Lomtadze, Head of the Department of Environmental Policy, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia

Germany

H.E. Mr. Juergen Trittin, Federal Minister, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Saftey

Dr. Andreas Gallas, Director General, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Saftey

Mr. Stephan Contius, Head of Divison, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Ghana

H.E. Mr. Cletus A. Avoka, Minister for Environment, Science and Technology

Mr. Edwin Barnes, Chief Director, Ministry for Environment, Science and Technology

Hungary

H.E. Dr. Ferenc Ligetvári , Minister for Environment

Dr. Tibor Faragó, Chief Advisor, Ministry for Environment

Iceland

H.E. Ms. Siv Fridleifsdottir, Minister for the Environment

Mr. Magnus Johannesson, Secretary General, Ministry for the Environment

Indonesia

H.E. Dr. Sonny Keraf, State Minister for the Environment

Dr. Daniel Murdiyarso, Deputy Minister for Environmental Management

Islamic Republic of Iran

H.E. Dr. Massoumeh Ebtekar, Vice-President and Head of the Department of Environment

H.E. Mr. Hossein Noghrehkar-Shirazi, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Norway

Mr. Nasser Moharramnejad, Adviser to the Head of the Department of Environment

Ms. Fariba Lahouti, Chief of the Cabinet, Department of the Environment

Mr. Seyed-Abolhassan Rezvani, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Japan

H.E. Ms. Yoriko Kawaguchi, Minister of State, Director-General of the Environment Agency

Mr. Kenji Kamigawara, Secretary to the Director-General of the Environment Agency

Ms. Kazuhiko Takemoto, Director of Global Environmental Protection Division

Mr. Kazuaki Hoshino, Senior Adviser to the Director-General

Mr. Hiroyasu Ito, First Secretary, Embassy of Japan

Kazakhstan

Mr. Kerimkul Primkulov, Director of the Management and Finance Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

Mr. Marat Ishankulov, Chairman of the International Environmental Conventions Committee of the National Environmental Center for Sustainable Development

Mexico

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, Coordinator of International Affairs, Coordination Unit of International Affairs, Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries

Netherlands

H.E. Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment

Mr. Ralph Brieskorn, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment

Nigeria

H.E. Mr. Sani Zangon Daura, Federal Minister of Environment

Mr. Yakubu Tanko, Director, Planning, Research and Statistics

Mr. Ibrahim Zayyad, Personal Assistant to the Minister

Russian Federation

H.E. Mr. Boris Yatskevich, Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation

Mr. Alexander V. Grachev, Deputy Chief of the International Cooperation Department, Ministry of Natural Resources

Samoa

H.E. Mr. Tuala Sale Tagaloa, Minister of Lands and Environment

Dr. Tu’u’u Ieti Taule’alo, Director, Department of Lands & Environment

Senegal

H.E. Mr. Lamine Ba, Minister of Environment

Ms. Fatima Dia-Toure, Director, Direction of Environment, Ministry of Environment

South Africa

H.E. Mr. Mohammed Valli Moosa, Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Dr. Crispian Olver, Director-General, Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Mr. Zaheer Fakir, Deputy Director, Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Mr. Sidima Siganga, Private Secretary to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Sweden

H.E. Mr. Kjell Larsson, Minister of the Environment

H.E. Mr. Lars-Gøran Engfeldt, Ambassador, Ministry of the Environment

H.E. Mr. Per Almqvist, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ms. Anna Dixelius, Director, Division for International Affairs

Mr. Ola Hennung, Assistant to the Minister, Ministry of Environment

Ms. Anette Thörnquist, Press Officer, Ministry of the Environment

Switzerland

H.E. Mr. Philippe Roch, State Secretary, Director, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape

H.E. Mr. Beat Nobs, Ambassador, Department for International Affairs, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscapes

Uganda

H.E. Mr. Henry Muganwa-Kajura, Minister of Water, Lands and Environment

Dr. Henry Aryamanya-Mugisha, Deputy Executive Director, Natural Environment Management Authority

Ukraine

H.E. Mr. Ivan Zayets, Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources

Dr. Yaroslav Movchan, Head of the Department of the Protection, Use and Restoration of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources

United Kingdom

H.E. Mr. Michael Meacher, Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Ms. Dinah Nichols, Director General, Environment Protection Group, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Ms. Sheila McCabe, Head, Environment Protection International, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Mr. Davinder Lail, Private Secretary to the Minister, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

United States

Mr. Mark Hambley, Special Representative to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State

Ms. Ann W. Stewart, Advisor, Policy Coordination Initiatives, Bureau of Oceans and Environmental and Scientific Affiars, Department of State

Norway

H.E. Ms. Siri Bjerke, Minister of the Environment

Ms. Sigrun Møgedal, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ms. Eldrid Nordbø, Director General, Ministry of Environment

Mr. Arne Walther, Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Oddmund Graham, Environment Counsellor, Norwegian Delegation to the European Union

Mr. Jens J. Guslund, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Environment

Ms. Anne Marie Skjold, Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

UNDESA

Mr. Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affiars, Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNCSD

Ms. Joanne Disano , Director, Divison for Sustainable Development

Mr. Andrey Vasilyev, Special Adviser to the Director, Division for Sustainable Development

CSD 9 Chair

Dr. Bedrich Moldan, Professor, Environment Center, Charles University, Prague

UNEP

Dr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director

Mr. Bakary Kante, Director, Division of Policy Development and Law

Mr. Adnan A. Amin, Director, UNEP New York Office

Mr. David Dunn, Executive Assistant to the Executive Director

Mr. S. Ananthakrishnan, NGO Liaison Officer, Division of Policy Development and Law

UNDP

Mr. Thomas B. Johansson, Director, Energy and Atmosphere Programme

GEF

Mr. Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

IBRD

Ms. Kristalina Georgieva, Director, Environment Department

European Commission

Mr. Fernand Thurmes, Director in Charge of General and International Affairs, Directorate-General, Environment

Mr. Julio Garcia Burgues, Head of Unit, International Affairs, Trade and Environment, Directorate-General, Environment

OECD

Ms. Joke Waller-Hunter, Director, Environment Directorate

World Resources Institute (WRI)

Mr. Jonathan Lash, President

Ms. Carol Rosen, Editor-in-Chief, World Resources Series

Mr. Rich Barnett, Outreach Director, World Resources 2000-2001

Secretariat

Ms. Idunn Eidheim, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Environment

Ms. Eva Nordvik, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Environment

Mr. Odd Høgset, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Environment

Mr. Richard Fort, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Environment

Mr. Paul Hofseth, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Environment

Mr. Brage Rønningen, Press Officer, Ministry of Environment

Ms. Ulla B. Hegg, Higher Executive Officer, Ministry of Environment

Ms. Gabrielle Østern, Higher Executive Officer, Ministry of Environment

Ms. Anne K. Hoseth, Higher Executive Officer, Ministry of Environment

Ms. Kari Watle, Executive Officer, Ministry of Environment

Rapporteur: Ms. Lilian Chatterjee, Director of Communications, Communications Department, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Dialogue Session
in connection with the 8 ^th> Informal Ministerial Meeting in Bergen
Friday 15 September 2000
with Representatives from Civil Society

UNED Forum, London (Coordinators)

Mr. Derek Osborn, Chair

Mr. Felix Dodds, Director

Ms. Danielle Morley, Project Coordinator

NGOs, Women and Indigenous Peoples

Dr. Minu Hemmati, Co-chair, UN CSD NGO Women Caucus

Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Director, Indigenous People’s Centre for Policy Research and Education (TEBTEBBA) and Convenor, Asia Indigenous Womens Network

Mr. Jan-Gustav Strandenæs, Norwegian Forum for Environment and Development

Mr. Hugo Beteta, Member of the Board, Fundacion Solar, Guatemala

Local government

Ms. Kaarin Taipale, Chair, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and General Director, Building Control Department, Helsinki, Finland

Trade union

Ms. Cecilia Brighi , Chair, Health Safety and Industry, National Confederation of Trade Unions, Italy (CISL)

Mr. Lucien Royer, International Coordinator and Chair, Health, Safety and Environment, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

Business/Industry

Mr. Olav Fjell, CEO, Statoil, Norway

Mr. Bjørn Stigson, President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Mr. Richard Holme, Chair, International Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Paul Clements-Hunt, Policy Manager, Environment and Energy Affairs, International Chamber of Commerce

Appendix V

Programme

Bergen Informal Ministerial Meeting
15-17 September 2000

Friday 15 September

1100-1200	Press Conference: Launching of the World Resources 2000-2001 Report Venue: Radisson SAS Norge Hotel
From 1215	Lunch (including Representatives from Civil Society) Venue: "Statsråden Restaurant", Radisson SAS Royal Hotel
1345-1400	Opening of Meeting
1400-1430	Presentation by Mr. Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute
1430-1600	Ministerial Dialogue Session with Representatives from Civil Society
1600-1630	Coffee Break
1630-1800	Dialogue Session with Representatives from Civil Society Resumed
1900	Departure from the Radisson SAS Royal Hotel for "Fløien Restaurant"
2000	Dinner (Including Representatives from Civil Society, WRI and Local Guests) Venue: "Fløien Restaurant" Sustainable Energy: Introduction by H.E. Mr Jürgen Trittin, Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany

Saturday 16 September

0900–1030	First Session: Rio + 10 Introduction by H.E. Mr. Cletus A. Avoka, M.P., Minister for Environment, Science and Technology, Ghana
1030-1100	Coffee Break
1100-1230	First Session Resumed
1230-1415	Lunch: Climate Issues. Presentation by H.E. Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Housing, The Netherlands Venue: "Schjøtstuene"
1430-1600	Second Session: Strengthened Institutional Structure for International Environmental Governance (Malmø Declaration, para. 24) Introduction by Ms. Norine Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Environment, Canada
1600-1630	Coffee Break
1630-1800	Second Session Resumed
2000	Dinner Hosted by the Municipality of Bergen Venue: "Håkonshallen"

Sunday 17 September

0900-1130	Third Session: Sustainable Energy
1130-1200	Coffee Break
1200-1300	Presentation of Summary of Discussions and Closing of Meeting
1300	Lunch Venue: "Statsråden Restaurant", Radisson SAS Royal Hotel
1300-1600	Optional Excursion to Troldhaugen (Concert & Picnic Lunch)