International Environmental Governance

I am delighted to be here on behalf of the Government of the United States and as a representative of President Bush to join all of you to engage in this important work intended to improve international environmental governance and to contribute meaningfully to the preparatory process of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

The United States would like particularly to add our congratulations to Dr. Toepfer on his reelection as Executive Director of UNEP. We certainly look forward to working closely with you, and we thank you for your leadership and for your excellent observations, which you shared with us this afternoon.

The United States is especially glad to see that the broad and important issue of "Governance" -- that is, the manner in which a society takes decisions and assumes international obligations in furtherance of sustainable development -- is taking center stage in the discussions and meetings leading up to WSSD.

Of course, there are many component parts of the governance issue. For example, the United States has focused on the importance of strengthening and democratizing national governance and of ensuring that, over the next decade, all countries develop the capacity to take the measures necessary to keep us on a path to sustainable development that will provide an economically and socially secure, environmentally sound, and healthy future for our populations and our planet.

Another important element of governance and our focus here today is how we can work together to improve international environmental governance. That is why the United States was a supporter of the UNEP Governing Council Decision 21/21 that launched this work and why we are so grateful to Environment Minister Anderson of Canada for his strong and imaginative leadership of the Open-Ended Group and the many excellent ideas advanced this afternoon by Chairperson Redman.

Perhaps we have a more positive outlook than some, but, as we look at current international environmental governance, we do not see a system that is broken or unworkable. Rather, given the range of environmental challenges, the number and varying situations of countries involved, and the differing ways in which particular problems must be addressed, we think the system has been remarkably resilient and self-correcting. In our view, a number of the excellent papers prepared by the Secretariat demonstrate that various environmental agreements have often spontaneously coordinated with each other when cross-cutting issues have arisen. In this light we found ourselves agreeing with many of the observations made by the representative of Iran on behalf of the G-77/China.

Having said that, of course, there is always room for considerable improvement in important -- if not necessarily dramatic -- ways, along some of the lines suggested by the representative of Belgium on behalf of the EU, especially with regard to improving science-based decision making. We see a system that can be greatly rationalized and made more user-friendly, particularly for developing countries, whose very limited resources are currently being stretched to the limit and beyond.

In this regard, the United States has a number of what we feel are positive and concrete suggestions for consensus-based recommendations that might flow from this meeting. These suggestions are being circulated, and we look forward to their review by our colleagues.

First, we need to have some greater clarity about the role and operation of the Governing Council/GMEF and support improving its functioning and effectiveness in areas over which UNEP has jurisdiction.

For example, in order to increase its relevance and usefulness, the Governing Council/GMEF, working wholly within its present mandate and authority, could (1) engage in more structured dialogues on threats to the global environment, (2) examine environmental trends and emerging threats, and (3) engage in a periodic stock-taking of international efforts to address those threats. In addition, the Governing Council/GMEF could engage in priority setting that may be considered by other institutions.

Second, we all recognize that UNEP’s funding issues and constraints are real, and therefore we ought to continue our discussion of a range of options to resolve these.

Third, we also recognize that, clearly, there are many areas where MEA effectiveness and therefore the effectiveness of the IEG system as a whole can be improved.

For example, the international calendar is often a blizzard of ministerials, COP meetings, and meetings of other subsidiary bodies as well as ad hoc gatherings. Environment ministers in developing countries have complained that sometimes it seems that no one is ever at home in the ministry, and I can tell you it has to be a problem when that is also true in a country like mine, given the resources that we have.

In addition, Conferences of the Parties to MEAs could consider moving their annual meetings to a biennial schedule. COPs need to think hard about the effectiveness and resource efficiency of additional subsidiary institutions that are set up and how often these groups ought to meet. Meetings might be made shorter and less frequent and should take place in the same locations. Materials for these meetings should be provided with adequate lead time. And, of course, new technologies should be used that permit us to cut down on physical travel.

We might also look at improving coordination among MEAs in certain ways. For example, capacity building projects managed by secretariats of a number of different, trade-related MEAs could be coordinated to more efficiently provide resources to governments that need help with their customs operations.

We should examine how scarce MEA resources could be better utilized by taking advantage of administrative and geographic "clustering". New secretariats, in deciding where to locate, should consider economies of scale and other resource-sharing opportunities. Locating as many future secretariats as possible in the same UN headquarters city could lead to a better use of resources. Locating all negotiations for a particular treaty at a single or permanent location and grouping related COP meetings together could reduce the inefficiencies associated with large-scale travel, both by MEA secretariats and by delegations.

Finally, we think there is great merit in working together with developing countries to provide them, to the extent possible, with the technical cooperation and assistance they will need to fully implement the MEAs they intend to ratify before these agreements enter into force. MEAs that enter into force but that are not widely implemented by their parties tend to undermine the effectiveness of the entire MEA structure. We must all work to strengthen that structure.

The United States looks forward to participating constructively with you as we finish this work at meetings in New York and Cartagena. Working to ensure that the international environmental governance system works efficiently and effectively to achieve global environmental objectives is a very important aspect of the larger issue of governance that needs to be taken up at WSSD.

This is my first appearance at an international meeting as part of my new assignment in the U.S. Government. On behalf of President Bush and Secretary Powell, I am honored to join all of you and look forward to getting to know each of you better and to working with all of you as we commit ourselves to achieve a more sustainable future for the world over. Thank you.