This paper reviews four scholarly works examining the effectiveness of United Nations environmental institutions, including UNEP, the Commission on Sustainable Development, and the Global Environmental Facility. Drawing on Andresen, Bauer and Biermann, Biermann, and Najam, the paper traces the central debate over whether existing intergovernmental environmental organizations should be reformed or replaced by a new World Environment Organization. Key themes include the legal limitations of "soft" institutions, poor coordination among existing bodies, challenges faced by developing nations, and questions of perceived legitimacy. The paper concludes that coordination and vertical integration — rather than the creation of new institutions — offer the most promising path forward for global environmental governance.
In "The Effectiveness of UN Environmental Institutions," Steinar Andresen examines the effectiveness of "soft," or legally non-binding, United Nations environmental institutions. These institutions include the global UN conferences on development and the environment, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Although Andresen examines each of these institutions as if they operated independently, they are interconnected by virtue of falling under the general UN umbrella.
The author also examines the specific role of key actors within these institutions, including the United States, the European Union, China, and Norway. Each of these nations plays a unique role in the effectiveness and operation of these environmental institutions. Moreover, each institution has a distinct focus — for example, UNEP focuses almost exclusively on sustainable development. Andresen ultimately concludes that UN environmental institutions are largely ineffective based on their measurable outputs and impacts.
Methodologies used in the Andresen study include open-ended interviews and are thus not methodologically airtight. Global conferences are also examined within the scope of the research. Andresen found that the efficacy of UN environmental institutions has diminished over time since the 1972 Stockholm Conference. Reasons for this diminished effectiveness include the lack of national governmental commitment to implementing UN environmental standards and the impediments to implementation faced by developing nations. Corporate accountability has also proven nearly impossible to secure.
Andresen notes that the Rio Summit scored uniquely high, especially in terms of Agenda 21 — the most important "soft law" output of the summit and one directly related to sustainable development. Despite this relative high point, the broader trajectory of UN environmental institutions reflects a pattern of weakening influence and limited practical impact.
In "Does Effective International Environmental Governance Require a World Environment Organization?" Steffen Bauer and Frank Biermann present a thorough summary and analysis of the document A World Environment Organization: Solution or Threat for Effective International Environmental Governance? The focus of both the original publication and the Bauer and Biermann summary is the relative effectiveness of intergovernmental organizations on global environmental policy and measurable behavior change. Various pro-intergovernmental organizational viewpoints, and their counterarguments, are explored in turn.
The policy debate related to intergovernmental environmental agencies is more than three decades old. The debate over how — and whether — to create an intergovernmental environmental organization began in earnest when UNEP was established in response to a decision adopted at the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. During the 1980s, a more aggressive approach was adopted among European nations, particularly following the Declaration of The Hague in 1989.
Bauer and Biermann identify several areas in the debate that could be targeted for reform. One such area is the interconnectedness of local policy with the broader objectives of intergovernmental organizations. The strengths of intergovernmental bodies include their capacity to conceptualize environmental issues in terms of the global market and to address geographic concerns that transcend political borders. However, their weaknesses — chief among them a lack of practical, measurable outputs — are too significant to ignore.
"Arguments for better coordination and a new global body"
"Najam's argument for reforming existing institutions instead"
A new international environmental organization would not only be redundant; it would also serve as yet another distraction from the real issues related to environmental integrity and sustainable growth in developing nations. Cooperation among member states remains weak, Najam notes. Northern and wealthy nations must live up to their commitments, including those related to technology transfer. Centralization is unnecessary in an effective intergovernmental environmental organization — what is needed instead is a sustained commitment to coordination.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.