Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Norway in UN environmental policies: ambitions and influence

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

Abstract

This is a study of Norway’s ambitions for influencing UN environmental policies and then on the scope for impact. On the whole, it is clear that Norway has not been particularly successful in its general efforts at strengthening UNEP. These proposals have failed, due mainly to opposition from key states. Norway is after all a minor player in global governance issues, even in those pertaining to the environment. Norway has been more successful in efforts that indirectly strengthen UNEP, by supporting UNEP in initiating new MEAs. We found three main factors that help to explain why Norway has a relatively high level of influence at the international environmental arena compared to its size. First, there is a relatively straightforward domestic decision-making process with little conflict. Second, Norwegian officials and NGOs possess considerable expertise in these issues, adding to the intellectual leadership role of Norway in pushing for new principles and international legislation through UNEP. Third, Norway is sometimes able to join forces in environmental alliances with other like-minded countries. This would seem to carry the widest scope for increasing impact.

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. See also Andresen and Rosendal (forthcoming 2007).

  2. The US and the EU rankings may not be directly comparable, as ‘trust’ may have stronger connotations than mere ‘favourable opinion’.

  3. Gro Harlem Brundtland was Norwegian Environmental Minister at the time, then Prime Minister, and subsequently head of the World Health Organisation (1998–2003).

  4. Interview with Idunn Eidheim, head executive for the Johannesburg Summit, 2 September 2002.

  5. Interview with two senior civil servants at MFA 15 October 2002, MoE 27 September 2002, and MFA 25 September 2002.

  6. Interview with Chinese policymakers, November 2004.

  7. Interview, MoE 6 July 2005.

  8. “The MFA is more concerned with questions of organisation (in the larger UN framework) than with problem-solving for the environment.” Interview, MoE, 6 July 2005.

  9. Interview at MFA, 17 February 2006.

  10. Interview, FORUM, 25 November 2005.

  11. Interview at FORUM, 25 September 2002 and at MFA, 25 September 2002.

  12. Interview at MFA, 17 February 2006.

  13. Interview, FORUM, 25 November 2005.

  14. Interview, MoE, 6 July 2005.

  15. Thanks to external reviewer for highlighting this point.

  16. Interview at MFA, 17 February 2006.

  17. This is also apparent in Norwegian development cooperation, which has been repeatedly criticised for its grave shortcomings in environmental quality and implementation (WWF 2005; Rosendal 2004).

  18. Interview at MFA, 17 February 2006.

  19. UNEP receives merely 8%, which amounts to about US$7.5 million. However, it is pointed out that even 8% represents a considerable sum—US$7.5 million—and with its present capacity UNEP would be able to absorb no more than about twice that sum. Interview, MoE, 6 July 2005.

  20. The MoE provides NOK 15 million directly to UNEP, there is support to UNEP’s regional offices of about 10 million, and in addition general funding, at around NOK 35 million. With the new framework agreement of 2005/2006, this latter share has risen to NOK 55 million, adding up to about US$11million altogether.

  21. http://www.unep.org/rmu/en/Financing_of_UNEP/Environment_Fund/index.asp

  22. Ivar Baste is head of the Scientific Assessment Branch Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA), UNEP.

  23. Interview at MFA, 17 February 2006.

  24. Interview with Norwegian ambassador to Chile, Mona Elisabeth Brøther, November 2002.

  25. “In this process it is important that not only the ‘name’ is changed, important to also change the content of UNEP. The general Council must give UNEP a new mandate—i.e., a strong and applicable mandate. This implies that UNEP must be strengthened financially.” MoE 6 July 2005. See also, Ministry of Foreign Affairs website with news on the report of the UN reform panel. Retrieved November 10, 2006 from http://www.dep.no/ud/

  26. Interestingly, Norwegian respondents claimed that China supported this view, but when we interviewed Chinese decision-makers in January 2006, they did not confirm this, saying any decision has yet to be taken.

  27. Interviews with central actors in several of UNEP’s divisions, Nairobi, November 2004.

  28. Klaus Töpfer was Executive Director of UNEP from 1998 to 2006, when Achim Steiner replaced him.

  29. Interview with two senior civil servants at MFA, 17 February 2006.

  30. Interview at FORUM, 25 November 2005.

  31. Interview at MoE, 27 September 2002.

  32. Interview at MFA, 17 February 2006. Reiterated MoE: “They know us and do not go directly against us. This is reciprocal; we are not very critical of UNEP either."

  33. Interview, FORUM, 25 November 2005.

  34. Interview at MFA, 25 September 2002.

Abbreviations

CSD:

Commission for sustainable development

EMG:

Environment management group

ESS 2005:

European social survey report

GEF:

Global environmental facility

GMEF:

Global ministerial environment forum

IEG:

Intergovernmental environmental governance

MEA:

Multilateral environmental agreement

MFA:

Ministry of foreign affairs

MoE:

Ministry of the environment

NHO:

Umbrella organisation of Norwegian industry

ODA:

Official development assistance

UNCED:

UN conference on environment and development

UNEP:

United nations environmental programme

WCSD:

World commission on sustainable development

WSSD:

World summit on sustainable development

References

  • Andresen, S., & Butenschøn, S. H. (2001). Norwegian climate policy: From pusher to laggard? International Environmental Agreements, 1(1), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, S., & Rosendal, G. 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.

  • Eriksen, K. E., & Pharo, H. (1997). Kald krig og internasjonalisering 1949–1965. (Cold war and internationalization 1949–1965). (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget) (In Norwegian).

  • Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2003). FNs konferansediplomati om miljø og utvikling. Fra normdannelse til handlingslammelse? (UN conference diplomacy on environment and development. From initiation to inaction?) Internasjonal Politikk 61(1), 3–28. (In Norwegian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S., & Fergus, M. (2005). Evaluation of the framework agreement between the Government of Norway and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Evaluation Report 4/2005. (Oslo: NORAD).

  • Holm, A. (2005). The United Nations in a new millennium. Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova, M. (2005). Can the anchor hold? Rethinking the UNEP for the 21st century. Report no 7. (New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies).

  • Kaasa, S. M. (2005). The Commission on Sustainable Development: A study of institutional design, distribution of capabilities and entrepreneurial leadership. FNI Report 5/2005. (Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansens Institute).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center for the People, the Press (2005). America’s place in the world 2005. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosendal, G. K. (2004). Biodiversity: International bungee jump—domestic bungle. In J. B. Skjærseth (Ed.), International regimes and Norway’s environmental policy: Crossfire and coherence (pp. 161–194). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Selin, H., & Linnér, B.-O. (2005). The quest for global sustainability: International efforts on linking environment and development. Working Paper No. 5. Cambridge, MA: Center for International Development at Harvard University.

  • Skjærseth, J. B. (Ed.). (2004). In International regimes and Norway’s environmental policy: Crossfire and coherence. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Wettestad, J. (2004). Air pollution: International success, domestic problems. In J. B. Skjærseth (Ed.), International regimes and Norway’s environmental policy: Crossfire and coherence. (pp. 85–111). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • White Paper No. 46. (1988–89). Environment and development. Programme for Norway’s follow-up of the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Report No. 46 to the Storting. (Oslo: Ministry of the Environment).

  • White Paper No. 25. (2002–2003). Government environmental protection policies and the environmental status of the nation. Report No. 25 to the Storting (2002–2003). (Oslo: Ministry of the Environment).

  • White Paper No. 21. (2004–2005). Government environmental protection policies and the environmental status of the nation. Report No. 21 to the Storting (2004–2005). (Oslo: Ministry of the Environment).

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Political organization. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCSD (World Commission on Sustainable Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF–Norway, Future in our hands Norway & The Development Fund. (2005). Poverty, environment and development—Intentions and realities in Norwegian environmental aid. Oslo: WWF.

  • Young, O. R. (1991). Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45(3), 281–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The project has been supported by the Norwegian Research Council (NRC project number: ES417969). Thanks to Steinar Andresen, Marc Levy and Peter Johan Schei, as well as anonymous reviewers for valuable contributions and comments during the process of preparing this article. Thanks also to the participants in panel key actors in global environmental governance, ISA 47th Conference, 2006, for helpful input and to Susan Høivik for language editing. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fridtjof Nansens Institute, P.O. Box 326, Lysaker, 1326, Norway

    G. Kristin Rosendal

Authors
  1. G. Kristin Rosendal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Kristin Rosendal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosendal, G.K. Norway in UN environmental policies: ambitions and influence. Int Environ Agreements 7, 439–455 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9050-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9050-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation