BlogsEventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches2006200720082009201020112012Media contact informationMedia updateMinisters releasesPublications
Let me first congratulate and thank you both as our co-chairs for taking on the important task of guiding this review of the institutional framework for the UN’s environmental activities. Thank you too for the introduction you have given us, outlining your approach to the review.
You have asked us to address two questions first, the major problems and challenges of the UN system in its environmental work; and second what could be envisaged as a more coherent institutional framework. Diagnosis is always easier than finder solutions, so if my comments today are more detailed on the first question, we can only promise to have further ideas later on the second question.
New Zealand is a strong supporter of calls for improvements in the UN system of environmental governance. Before we can come to a shared view of what changes should be made, we need to have an agreed assessment of what are the current weaknesses to be addressed.
Since the early 1970s more than 300 multilateral environment agreements have been signed. They have grown not only in number, but also in scope, as new evidence has revealed the extent of the damage caused to natural ecosystems by industrial development, agricultural intensification and rapid population growth as well as the anticipated impacts of climate change and climate variability.
New Zealand believes that multilateral environment agreements are appropriate in situations where the environmental issue is global or regional in nature and requires a global or regional action. But not all environmental issues call for such responses.
The way the institutional framework for global environmental governance has evolved in response to individual environmental issues has resulted in a system that is characterised as weak and fragmented. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) is nominally the focal point for multilateral environment agreements, but in practice, has limited authority and budget and therefore struggles to provide adequate support or advocacy to multilateral environment agreements.
There has been a related tendency for multilateral environment agreements to operate as ‘works in progress’, by successive refinements of their principles and protocols. On the positive side, this allows complicated negotiations to proceed to an agreement in manageable steps, and multilateral environment agreements to be informed by latest scientific evidence as it becomes available. But it can also result in “policy creep”, where multilateral environment agreements either extend beyond or fall back from their originally agreed mandates.
We understand that multilateral environment agreements generate more than 150 days of major formal negotiations per year – most of which take place in the northern hemisphere. Given the sheer numbers of multilateral environment agreements, many member countries find it difficult to send expert representatives to every meeting, and therefore run the risk of being disadvantaged by decisions made in their absence. In countries with limited resources and technical capacity to devote to environmental protection (notably the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States), the demands of participation in multilateral negotiations, coupled with compliance and onerous reporting requirements, can and does detract from domestic implementation of multilateral environment agreements and addressing nationally assessed environmental priorities.
The challenge of funding environmental protection, particularly in developing countries, has not been satisfactorily resolved. UNEP is generally agreed to be under-resourced and contributions to funds that have been created under multilateral environment agreements have not met expectations. Financial assistance for implementation of multilateral environment agreements may also be provided through UNEP, the Global Environmental Facility, donor agencies, or regional funds. There is the danger of lack of coordination amongst the range of funding mechanisms available, as well as high transaction costs falling particularly heavily on those least able to manage them – primarily the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.
A number of multilateral environment agreements attempt to facilitate transfer of technologies and knowledge from industrialised economies. In practice, however, there are few examples of successful dissemination of technology to developing countries under such mechanisms. More work may be needed to develop incentives for research and development into environmentally beneficial technologies. Methods may need to be found to balance environmental objectives with protection of intellectual property rights.
We need to ask ourselves whether multilateral environment agreements provide the best method of technology transfer and capacity building to developing countries. Other methods may be more effective. Such as donors responding to an individual country's priorities and capacity to provide locally appropriate assistance.
If I can now turn to the way we go forward with this review and how we begin to identify solutions.
Given the multiplication of multilateral environment agreements, we are confronted with a question of how ambitious or otherwise we should be. New Zealand would be more comfortable, in the first instance, with an incremental process of improvements based on the International Environmental Governance (IEG) recommendations than with an all out restructuring process.
New Zealand was an active contributor to the International Environmental Governance process that got underway in 2002. We consider that many of the recommendations have not had sufficient time to be implemented effectively. The International Environmental Governance process resulted in a package of recommendations covering universal membership, strengthening the scientific base of UNEP, an integrated plan for technology support and capacity building, strengthening the finances of UNEP, multilateral environment agreements and enhancing coordination across the UN system. We see the value in this process and acknowledge that more work is needed. This review could give it greater momentum.
Moreover, we note that processes already exist to improve cooperation, for example the ongoing work of the Joint Liaison Group that exists between the three Rio Conventions and the discussions between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions to increase efficiency of secretariat services. We note too the discussion at the UNEP Governing Council on revitalising the Environmental Management Group (EMG), an interagency body chaired by the UNEP Executive Director and set up to strengthen and facilitate cooperation amongst relevant actors in the UN system. It seems to us that more could be done to improve cooperation between the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and UNEP, particularly given the way in which UNEP work increasingly intersects, not only with the work of multilateral environment agreements, but also in terms of the wider sustainable development agenda.
In closing, we would like to comment on the expected outputs from this framework review, to be achieved by the end of UNGA60. Given the complexities of the issues under review, and the fact that it is the first time that a discussion of this scope and nature on reviewing the institutional framework for the UN’s environmental activities has taken place, we are conscious this presents a significant challenge to our co-chairs. Indeed, to us all as member states, to shape this into a manageable exercise - one which can point the way to some practical outputs. What we should be aiming for is for this review to launch an ongoing and incremental process of change. The steps over the coming months could be first for a co-chairs’ summary of our exchanges on the broad ranging issues. This summary could then be picked up by the Second Committee to discuss in more detail. This of course is only a suggestion and we shall be interested to hear other delegations’ ideas on the way forward and the kind of product we would want to see from this review.
Thank you, co-chairs.
