Summary: EU Speaking Points - Environmental Reform (New York, 19 April 2006)
Informals of the General Assembly on Environmental Reform; Statement by Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union.
Introduction
1. On behalf of the EU, let me congratulate Amb. Berruga and Amb. Maurer on their appointment as co-chairmen for the discussions on environmental reform.
We would also like to thank the UNSG for the background paper providing us with an extensive analysis of the institutional framework for the United Nations system's environmental activities.
2. During the UN summit in September 2005, our Heads of State and Government have recognised the need for more efficient environmental activities in the UN system and mandated us to explore the possibility of a more coherent institutional framework to address this need, including a more integrated structure. The EU is committed to this undertaking as part of the UN reform efforts, recognising in particular that it will complement the ongoing work on system-wide coherence.
3. We believe that this debate is of the highest importance, for two main reasons:
a) The global environment is deteriorating at a rapid pace, threatening not only the ecosystems and the natural resources of all our countries, but also the whole process of development in the most vulnerable part of the world.
b) The UN has a key role to play to address these challenges. The EU considers that current institutions, practices and procedures are not satisfactory. The system has created valuable instruments, norms and institutions, such as UNEP. However, new challenges have emerged from the rapid deterioration of the environment, and these instruments and institutions will no longer be sufficient. The current system is not delivering effectively and efficiently for the benefit of the global environment
and the peoples, in particular in developing countries.
4. It is for these reasons, that the EU supports the option of transforming UNEP into a specialized agency for the environment, with a revised and strengthened mandate and supported by stable, adequate and predictable financial contributions - which would be in a better position to allow the UN to address the challenges mentioned and to assist developing countries.
5. The EU welcomes this first exchange of views today and is committed to participate in the consultations in order to make them open, transparent and inclusive. We believe that it is of common interest for everyone to present its own view both on the process and on the substance.
6. At this early stage, we do not think that it is time for negotiations. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the current situation, gaps and needs in more detail. We first need to listen to and understand each other, in order to eventually reach a consensus in due time on the best way to address the needs identified.
Diagnosis of challenges
7. Before talking about structural changes we first have to focus on the analysis of the problems. The international community has long accepted that environmental problems, because they are regional or global in extent or because they affect the common international realm, require extensive cooperation among nations and action by international organizations in the common interest. This explains the creation of the more than 500 regional and international environmental treaties.
8. The system of international environmental governance has created valuable instruments, norms and institutions. It seems however, that the very evolution of the system has created new challenges, and that the need for swift action has led the system to outgrow itself. International environmental governance today is characterized by fragmentation, duplication and sometimes incoherence leading to inefficiency and a deficit in leadership and participation. Especially developing countries face a
lack of resources and capacity to always take part effectively in international environmental meetings, which could affect the legitimacy and effective implementation of decisions taken at such meetings.
9. As regards UNEP, this program was created to support a coordinated, efficient and dynamic approach for the protection and improvement of the environment. UNEP has however not evolved into the environmental pillar of the UN system that was hoped for. A proliferation of environmental norms and actors has occurred since UNEP's establishment in 1972, but mainly outside UNEP. Even though some progress has been made after the adoption of the 2002 Cartagena reform package, particularly on the Bali
Strategic Plan on Technology Support and Capacity Building a lot still needs to be done. But we, as EU, are fully committed in implementing the Cartagena agenda.
10. UNEP's activities continue to be hampered by uncertain financing. There is scope to strengthen its financial base, as well as to ensure that available funds are spent in the most efficient possible way, making use of potential synergies with other organisations and focusing on priority activities where it has comparative advantage.
11. Created in 1999, the UN Environment Management Group has not met expectations, suffering from a relatively weak mandate and status.
12. Despite substantial achievements, systems for collecting data about the environment are not being fed in in a satisfactory manner. Access to data is still hampered by the lack of shared rules to allow equitable access to this information. Structured early warning mechanisms with sufficient international visibility and the capacity to offer adequate responses have not yet been developed. Public information efforts are insufficient, and their readability and coherence for the public are in
need of improvement.
13. With regard to the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), there are issues concerning the coherence of existing international arrangements, the efficiency of actions carried out, the participation of Member States and the legitimacy of the decisions taken, which are not always effective. Some of the key questions to disuss together could be :
• How to address the problem of fragmentation while preserving the flexibility and the legal autonomy of the main conventions ?
• Are some models within the UN system offering some answers in that regard?
14. As to the last question raised by the cochairs in their letter we believe that the current system of international environmental governance is not delivering effectively and efficiently for the benefit of the global environment and consequently for sustainable development. Regularly, reports such as the Global Environmental Outlook and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment show that the environment is deteriorating at a rapid pace and developing countries, in particular LDCs and SIDS are its
first victims. Valuable ecosystem services are in jeopardy and as a result poverty is entrenched and human well-being is threatened. The degradation of the environment is a serious threat to development and to the achievement of the MDGs.
15. One pertinent problem is that specific needs of developing countries are not sufficiently taken into account. These countries are often more vulnerable to environmental degradation and less financially able to respond: developing countries have difficulties in devising national policy in the area of the environment, accessing financial resources and technology, and participating in decision making, negotiation and following up of agreements. Environmental concerns are rarely integrated in
cooperation programs. Regional and subregional structures are weak, sometimes leading to poor implementation of international commitments and feeble integration of environmental concerns in the UN framework for economic and social development at regional level.
16. The International community including the UN system needs to support the achievement of the MDGs, WSSD and WSO goals in developing countries and economies in transition. In particular, it should assist countries' efforts to implement MDG7 through the development of national environmental governance infrastructure and better integration of environmental sustainability and natural resource management into comprehensive national sustainable development strategies, including Poverty Reduction
Strategies. In this context, ownership is the key word.
17. We are also looking forward to the contribution of the High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence. Capacity building efforts on environmental issues have to go hand in hand with agreed development priorities, acknowledging the interlinkages between environment protection and poverty eradication. The work of the Panel will also be an important contribution to our deliberations.
Conclusion/Outlook
18. My contribution today forms only a tour d'horizon of issues we would like to address in depth during these consultations. The EU would like to listen to colleagues and will take their views into consideration in the process of developing our own thinking.
19. We should spend a sufficient time to understand better with you, co-chairs, how the Members States see the needs identified at the Summit, what are their priorities and interests, reflecting their specific situation.
20. We could then, after this first phase, start to look at concrete options to adress these needs, and eventually the possibility of a more coherent institutional framework, including a more integrated structure.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page