Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effectiveness of UN environmental institutions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a study of the effectiveness of key UN institutions focussing on environment and sustainable development: the global conferences on development and the environment, the CSD and UNEP, primarily its co-ordinating functions. According to the indicators used to measure effectiveness here, it is concluded that the overall effectiveness of these institutions is quite low. This particularly applies to the CSD. UNEP has been quite effective in creating new institutions but has been less effective in co-ordinating them. As to the global conferences, their significance has been reduced over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The GEF is different, in having considerable funding resources available for implementation in various issue-areas. However, the GEF will not be dealt with here.

  2. From the comments of one reviewer.

  3. The G-77 was originally included, but unfortunately we did not get the article.

  4. In addition it is probably fair to say that the GEF was created as an indirect result of the Rio Summit.

  5. See also Gulbrandsen 2003; Wettestad 1999.

  6. For a detailed account of the significance of the Stockholm Conference, see Linnér and Sellin 2005; and Ivanova in this issue.

  7. It was due to the Stockholm Conference that the International Whaling Commission in 1974 got its Secretary, after some 25 years of existence (Andresen 1999).

  8. In fact this trend had been broken already at the ‘Rio plus 5’ in 1997, which proved to be a big disappointment (Elliott 2005).

  9. Initially there was quite some media attention, but mostly on the lack of progress made at the Summit (Seyfang 2003).

  10. New targets and timetables were agreed on basic sanitation, chemicals, fisheries and biological diversity.

  11. The organisers announced that more than 60,000 participants were expected to participate while, as noted, the actual number was not much more than a third of that figure. Some still maintain that this Summit was the largest meeting ever convened (see Wapner 2003), but this is not correct.

  12. This observation is based on my own participation in Johannesburg and on interviews with observers who had also been in Rio. However, others have a different and more positive evaluation of the atmosphere; see for example, Wapner (2003) and Seyfang (2003).

  13. This evaluation is based partly on research done by Kaasa (2005, 2007) within this project.

  14. For an elaboration of the rather complex organisational structure, see Bigg and Dodds 1997 and Wagner 2005.

  15. 1992–1997 figures from Yamin 1998. 1998–2002 figures from Kaasa 2005.

  16. Interviews, Skåre 2005 and Mabhongo 2005.

  17. Chasek 2000, p. 384; Yamin 1998, p. 56; Zhu and Morita-Lou 2005 [interview].

  18. Eidheim and Hofseth 2005 [interview]; Yamin 1998/99, p. 56.

  19. Chasek 2000; Eidheim and Hofseth 2004 [interview].

  20. Eidheim and Hofseth 2005; Mabhongo 2005 [interviews].

  21. Chasek 2005 [interview].

  22. We have not conducted any systematic study of this period.

  23. Najam et al. 2006; United Nations November 2006. The latter report also discusses human rights.

  24. For an account of the detailed mandate of UNEP, see Ivanova 2005.

  25. For varied and stimulating discussions of strong and weak points of UNEP, see for example Biermann and Bauer 2005; Najam et al. 2006; Ivanova 2005.

  26. For a discussion on the role of secretariats more generally as well their role in specific regimes, see Bauer 2006; Andresen and Skjærseth 1999.

  27. Interview, the Climate Secretariat, Bonn, October 23 2003.

  28. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/partners-websites.asp. We will not go into their specific functions here, nor have we looked systematically at CMS or WHC.

  29. For a detailed overview, see Rosendal and Andresen 2003.

  30. Interview Climate Secretariat Bonn, October 2003 and the Geneva office, September 2004.

  31. Interview with Ramsar official, September 2004.

  32. Interview at CITES Secretariat, Geneva, September 2003.

  33. Interview at CBD Secretariat, Montreal, March 2004.

  34. Interview Climate Secretariat, October 2003.

  35. Interview with Ramsar official, September 2004.

  36. For example, CITES was able to bring about the improved management of shared sturgeon species, which was something UNEP had tried to do for many years. Interview at CITES Secretariat, Geneva, September 2003.

  37. Interview with representative of the Stockholm Convention, Geneva September 2004.

  38. Interview, the Climate Secretariat, Bonn, October 2003.

Abbreviations

CBD:

Convention on Biological Diversity

CITES:

Convention on Trade in Endangered Species

CMS:

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

COP:

Conference of the Parties

CSD:

Commission for Sustainable Development

EMG:

Environmental Management Group

FAO:

Food and Agricultural Organisation

G-77:

Group of 77 and China

GEF:

Global Environmental Facility

GMEF:

Global Ministerial Environment Forum

IFF:

Intergovernmental Forum on Forests

IPF:

Intergovernmental Panel on Forests

IUCN:

The World Conservation Union

LRTAP:

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

MEA:

Multilateral Environmental Agreements

NGO:

Non Governmental Organisation

UNCED:

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNCHE:

UN Conference on the Human Environment

UNEP:

United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNON:

UN Office in Nairobi

WCSD:

World Commission on Sustainable Development

WEO:

World Environmental Organisation

WHC:

The World Heritage Convention

WTO:

World Trade Organisation

WSSD:

World Summit on Sustainable Development

References

  • Agrawala, S. (1998). Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climatic Change, 39(4), 621–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andonova, L. B., & Levy, M. A. (2003). Franchising global governance: Making sense of the Johannesburg Type II partnerships. In O. S. Stokke & Ø. B. Thommesen (Eds.), Yearbook of international cooperation on environment and development 2003/2004 (pp. 19–32). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, S. (1999). The international whaling regime: Order at the turn of the century? In D. Vidas & W. Østreng (Eds.), Order for the oceans at the turn of the century (pp. 215–231). Kluwer Law International.

  • Andresen, S. (2001). Global environmental governance: UN fragmentation and co-ordination. In O. S. Stokke & Ø. B. Thommesen (Eds.), Yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development 2001/2002 (pp. 19–25). London: Earthscan, for the Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, S., & Rosendal, K. (forthcoming). The role of the United Nations environmental programme in the co-ordination of multilateral environmental agreements. In F. Biermann, B. Siebenhuener, & A. Schreyogg (Eds.), International organisations in global environmental governance (pp. 119–136). Oxford: Routledge.

  • Andresen, S., & Skjærseth, J. B. (1999). Can international environmental secretariats promote effective co-operation? Paper presented at the United Nations University Conference on Synergies and Co-ordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements, Tokyo.

  • Bauer, S. (2006). Does bureaucracy really matter? The authority of intergovernmental treaty secretariats in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, T. (1995). The effect of international environmental institutions: How we might learn more. International Organisations, 49(2), 351–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., & Bauer, S. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of intergovernmental organisations in international environmental politics. Global Environmental Change, 14, 189–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., & Bauer, S. (Eds.) (2005). A world environmental organisation: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Bigg, T. (2004). The world summit on sustainable development: Was it worthwhile? In T. Bigg (Ed.), Survival for a small planet (pp. 3–23). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigg, T., & Dodds, F. (1997). The UN commission on sustainable development. In F. Dodd (Ed.), The way forward beyond Agenda 21 (pp. 15–36). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buenker, M. A. (2002). Progress at Bali––but not enough for Johannesburg! Environmental Policy and Law, 32(3–4), 140–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen, J. (2004). EC environmental law and multilateral environmental agreements for Europe. UNITAR paper on the EU environmental acquis.

  • Charnovitz, S. (2005). Towards a world environmental organization: Reflections upon a vital debate. In F. Biermann & S. Bauer (Eds.), A world environmental organisation: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance (pp. 87–117). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chasek, P. (2000). The UN commission on sustainable development: The first five years. In P. Chasek (Ed.), The global environment in the twenty-first century: Prospects for international cooperation (pp. 378–398). New York: United Nations University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, F., Chambers, B., & Kanie, N. (2002). International environmental governance: The question of reform: Key issues and proposals. Tokyo: United Nations University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downie, D. L., & Levy, M. (2000). The UN environmental programme at a turning point: Options for change. In P. Chasek (Ed.), The global environment in the twenty-first century: Prospects for international cooperation (pp. 355–378). New York: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENB (Earth Negotiation Bulletin) (2007). Summary of the intergovernmental preparatory meeting for the fifteenth session of the commission on sustainable development, 5(243, March).

  • Elliott, L. (2005). The United Nations’ record on environmental governance: An assessment. In F. Biermann & S. Bauer (Eds.), A world environmental organisation: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance (pp. 27–57). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D., & Ivanova, M. (2002). Revitalizing global environmental governance: A function-driven approach. In D. Esty & M. Ivanova (Eds.), Global environmental governance: Options and opportunities. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forests & Environmental Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, M., Koch, M., Munson, A., Sullivan, F., & Thomson, K. (1993). The ‘Earth Summit’ agreements: A guide and assessment. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, L. (2003). UN conference diplomacy on environment and development: From norm-creation to lack of action? Internasjonal Politikk, 61(1), 3–28 (In Norwegian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, L., & Humphreys, D. (2006). International initiatives to address tropical timber logging and trade. FNI Report 4/2006. Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

  • Heggelund, G., & Backer, E. B. (2007). China and UN environmental policy: Institutional growth, learning and implementation. International Environmental Agreements, this issue.

  • Hyvarinen, J., & Brack, D. (2000). Global environmental institutions: Analysis and options for change. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova, M. (2005). Can the anchor hold? Rethinking the United Nations Environment Programme for the 21st century. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova, M. (2007). Designing the United Nations environmental programme: A story of compromise and confrontation. International Environmental Agreements, this issue.

  • Jacob, T. (2002). Reflections on Johannesburg: The larger context. Memo, DuPont.

  • Kaasa, S. (2005). The commission on sustainable development: A study of institutional design, distribution of capabilities and entrepreneurial leadership. FNI Report 5/2005. Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

  • Kaasa, S. (2007). The UN commission on sustainable development: Which mechanisms explains its accomplishments? Global Environmental Politics, 7(3), forthcoming.

  • Levy M., Young, O. R., & Zurn, M. (1995). The study of international regimes. European Journal of International Relations, Oxford University Press 1(3), 267–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnér, B.-O., & Sellin, H. (2005). The road to Rio: Early efforts on environment and development. In A. C. Kallhauge, G. Sjøstedt, & E. Corell (Eds.), Global challenges furthering the multilateral process for sustainable development (pp. 58–74). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mee, L. (2005). The role of UNEP and UNDP in multilateral environmental agreements. International Environmental Agreements, 5(3), 227–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, F. (2003). Burning the bridge to the 21st century: The end of the era of integrated conferences? Environment and Security Report, 9, 6−12.

  • Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (Eds.) (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Najam, A. (2003). The case against a new international environmental organization. Global Governance, 9(3), 367–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Najam, A. (2005). Developing countries and global environmental governance: From contestation to participation and engagement. International Environmental Agreements, 5(3), 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najam, A., Papa, M., & Taiyab, N. (2006) Global environmental governance: A reform agenda. IISD - International Institute for Sustainable Development.

  • Najam, A., Poling, J., Yamagishi, N., Straub, D., Sarno, J., Ritter, S., & Kim, E. (2002). From Rio to Johannesburg: Progress and prospects. Environment, 44(7), 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthur, S. (2002). Clustering of multilateral environmental agreements: Potentials and limitations. International Environmental Agreements, 2, 317–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosendal, G. K. (2007). Norway in UN environmental policies: Ambitions and influence. International Environmental Agreements, this issue.

  • Rosendal, G. K., & Andresen, S. (2003). UNEP’s role in enhancing problem-solving capacity in multilateral environmental agreements: Coordination and assistance in the biodiversity conservation cluster. FNI Report 10/2003. Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

  • Rutherford, P. (2003). Talking the talk: Business discourse at the world summit on sustainable development. Environmental Politics, 12(2), 145–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfang, G. (2003). Environmental mega-conferences––from Stockholm to Johannesburg and beyond. Global Environmental Change, 13, 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speth, J. G. (2003). Perspectives on the Johannesburg summit. Environment, 45(1), 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Töpfer, K. (2002). From Rio to earth summit. Foreword. In F. Dodds (Ed.), Earth Summit 2002: A new deal. London: Earthscan.

  • United Nations (2006). Delivering as one report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel. New York: United Nations.

  • Upton, S. (2004). The international framework for action: Is the CSD the best we can do? In T. Bigg (Ed.), Survival for a small planet (pp. 85–101). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, D. (1999). The market of international environmental protection services and the perils of coordination. Background paper presented at the United Nations University Conference on Synergies and Co-ordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements, Tokyo.

  • Wagner, L. (2005). A commission will lead them: The UN commission on sustainable development and UNCED follow-up. In A. C. Kallhauge, G. Sjøstedt, & E. Corell (Eds.), Global challenges furthering the multilateral process for sustainable development (pp. 103–123). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wapner, P. (2003). World summit on sustainable development: Toward a post-Jo’burg environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 3(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wettestad, J. (1999). Designing effective international regimes: The key conditions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamin, F. (1998). The CSD reporting process: A quiet step forward for sustainable development. In H. O. Bergesen, G. Parmann, & Ø. B. Thommessen (Eds.), Yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development 1998/1999 (pp. 42–62). London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. (2007). Designing environmental governance systems––The diagnostic method. IHDP Update, 1, 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), P.O. Box 326, Lysaker, 1326, Norway

    Steinar Andresen

Authors
  1. Steinar Andresen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steinar Andresen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andresen, S. The effectiveness of UN environmental institutions. Int Environ Agreements 7, 317–336 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9048-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9048-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation