The principles that govern the management of the global commons and environmental challenges of common concern are generally well known. While still at times contentious in their application to policy instruments and sometimes poorly implemented in practice, these principles include sustainable development, intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, common but differentiated responsibilities, the principle of prior informed consent, and the principle that in pursing sovereignty over resources and environment and development policy, states should not cause harm to the environment of other states or of areas beyond national jurisdiction. In conjunction with this broad range of substantive environmental principles, international environmental governance also demands procedural principles to ensure that institutions can best deliver effective and just environmental outcomes. These include cooperation and reciprocity, transparency and accountability, and democratic participation. Stronger international environmental governance also requires a principle of commitment by which actors (including but not confined to states) actually meet their obligations under international environmental law.

This paper will briefly outline the origins, structure and functions of UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) and the CSD (Commission on Sustainable Development) in the context of the goals of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). The achievements of the key UN environmental institutions and programmes in opening up the system to civil society, private sector and a diversity of actors and interests should not be understated. Similarly, UNEP has had a key role in initiating, facilitating negotiations and hosting some Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA's) such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Basel Convention and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). UNEP remains the only UN Agency based in the Third World (Nairobi). UNEP has also played an important role in the Millenium Development Goals and Reports and in the training of judges around the world to develop capacity and leadership in environmental law enforcement and compliance. With these notable exceptions, UNEP has become weak in scientific and technical leadership, global policy, co-ordination (inside and outside the UN), and has few achievements in the international and national implementation of obligations and standards in Global Environmental Governance (GEG) - including enforcement, compliance and effectiveness.

The need for a UNEP was clearly recognized at the first UN Summit on the Environment in the early 1970's. Few commentators have called for the abolition of a specialized UN environmental programme or organisation, although there is considerable concern over the current and future role of the CSD. However, it was almost immediately observed, after the establishment of UNEP, that it was not given the mandate, power and resources to undertake the task of integrating environment and development within the UN system of institutions, programmes and activities. It followed that it was almost set up to fail as a leader in GEG. This paper will outline the key reasons for this inadequacy. Attention will also be focused on the way forward. This requires a careful consideration of the goals and purposes of GEG reform. The scope of ESD is formidable. It is suggested that we need a medium - term and a long - term strategy. The attempt to place environment into the long list of matters that concern development and financial agencies such as the UNDP and the Multilateral Development Banks has not led to integration or strengthening of environmental factors in ESD. Rather it has been "disintegration" - with less transparency through the rhetoric and the creation of more programmes and institutions, more complex agendas and competition for scarce resources.

System-wide reform is the great, and only, hope for ESD in the context of the UN system. This was advocated countless times since the World Commission on Sustainable Development recommendations ( Brundtland Report ) and the UN is still attempting this task. Similarly, the UN has attempted smaller reform efforts with UNEP. There was very broad consensus on the direction for UNEP reform in 1997 (the Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of UNEP Reform) but this has not been implemented along with many other proposals. It is suggested that "environment", as part of ESD, needs affirmative action and leadership if it going to be a new approach to "development" that really reflects Agenda 21. The form of the new United Nation Environment Organisation (UNEO) requires a clarification of purpose and function as well as deciding whether it depends on system - wide UN reform.

The paper makes some suggestions based on medium term reform through the development of UNEO with a clear focus on global environmental leadership, the involvement of the private sector and civil society (as reflected in the Aahus Convention ), scientific and technical expertise (focusing on synergies with core functions of UNEO, MEAs, monitoring, national capacity building, implementation and compliance strategies), environmental economics and financing (focusing on innovative financial strategies, market mechanisms, trade and environment issues). The UNEO should re-consider basic internal governance issues (eg the role and constitution of the Governing Council, mandate), should be structured and resourced to have powers beyond policy co-ordination in the UN system, the ability to attract high quality leaders, experts and other personnel and urgently resolve overlapping jurisdictions such as the CSD. None of this is likely to occur without the rationalization of funding arrangement that currently exist for UNEP (inadequate annual budgets with a heavy reliance on voluntary contributions from States), overlapping and geographically dispersed UN Agencies (relevant to new mandate of UNEO) and MEA Secretariats. The inertia around UNEP reform and GEG is the responsibility of States that have failed to take ESD seriously after the initial rush of enthusiasm for Agenda 21. The current EU Forum is a welcome indication that serious changes in GEG may be possible.

Current Challenges for International Environmental Governance

The climate of the Earth is changing. Managing this change is a collective challenge for all nations. Yet there are obstructions to concerted and shared approaches that relate to a number of issues. The scientific knowledge on which future anticipated changes are based is incomplete; indeed it may never be complete. The science-policy connection is, by and large, ad hoc and not always optimal. But we must manage the risks despite poorly known probabilities of certain outcomes against the potentially extreme magnitude of the impacts and the fact that daily, the Science progresses.

The observed and anticipated changes are not and will not be the same across the Earth. Some citizens are experiencing change right now that is detrimental to their development, whilst others, through economic capacity to adapt, or simply being at the “right” place, see themselves as yet-to-be exposed. The spectrum of different manifestations of regional change and different capacity to adapt to these changes, leads to a range of perceptions concerning the immediacy of the issue.

Energy use and its provision, is the primary cause of climate change. Yet energy underpins existing and desired economic development. All nations share different natural energy resources, are at different stages of development and have different energy systems and strategies. No two nations see the threat of emissions reduction and impacts on the future in the same way. All of humanity share aspirations of wealth, social well-being, environmental protection and intergenerational equity, yet no two persons will similarly evaluate their relative importance.

National sovereignty and competition creates national views that often conflict with the importance and priorities in the shared interests of humanity, and indeed, biological-kind. There is a need for a degree of altruism, or at least diplomacy and a degree of long-term vision that is, perhaps, beyond the limits on many of our leaders.

Yet, we all know that we can not let the Earth warm indefinitely. We need shared views of what is acceptable risk and how we share the consequences of both the changes that will manifest in unequal burdens and challenges of emissions reductions. We desparately need new international governance frameworks that meet these challenges.

The world is profoundly changed since UNEP came into being in 1972. Global environmental problems have expanded and accelerated and are now apparent in Global Warming, biodiversity loss (and with it, collapse of fisheries, deforestation, desertification and other related issues) and cross boundary pollution, to identify just a few of the challenges facing the international community.

The character of environmental problems has also changed:

• From being predominantly local to predominantly global.
• From a few large sources to many diffuse sources.
• From short delays in the effects of actions to long time delays.
• From low complexity to high complexity.

UNEP, has accreted a wide range of responsibilities, with its agenda disproportionately influenced by its donor countries. There is fragmentation of effort in dealing with many issues in separate 'silos', often represented by Secretariats for an increasing number of treaties such as Biodiversity, Climate Change, Desertification, Basel and so on.

There is accusation that overlap exists between UNEP and other environment effort through agencies such as the CSD and the World Bank, World Business Council on SD to name but a few.

UNEP is ill equipped to deal with this increasing complexity both organizationally and financially.

UNEP is not an equal player in the UN debate on sustainable development and can't compete with the much larger and better-resourced economic and social organizations in the UN system.

There is an unassailable argument for a re-organized, centrally located and resourced UNEO.

The challenge of doing this is formidable.

This proposal comes at a time when there is severe criticism of the performance and management of the existing organs of the UN. It seems unlikely that countries like the US and Australia will support the creation of a UNEO, until existing deficiencies are addressed. This raises the larger issue of how the existing UN framework is to be reformed, how is it to be adequately resourced to cope with growing demands for its services in environment, social, economic, peace-keeping and other core obligations?

Some important environmental issues are dealt with outside the UN framework eg. The Antarctic Treaty, and there may be resistance to the UN taking a role in these.

It would be difficult to retrofit the UNEP mechanism to bring it up to full UNO status. Would this involve bringing the various treaty instruments under its control, and with it, the reconfiguration of the various secretariats and their resources?

How is the UNEO to create a satisfactory role for the ENGO sector, which is increasingly prominent in dealing with the UN environment agenda, and whose growth and influence were unimaginable when UNEP was created?

Australia has an important role to play in resolving these difficulties. It has a long history of support for the UN and its mechanisms. It has always espoused a commitment to multi-lateralism. It is currently seen as lock-stepped with the US on most issues and may be unwilling to support a UNEO position if the Americans don't. This may change and it will be particularly interesting to see if the US moderates its negative position on the UN, its agencies and multilateralism in general after its recent Half Term Elections.

Likely to be strong support from Australian and international ENGO's, but they will be focused on the transparency, effectiveness and inclusiveness of any new organization set up to deal with the UN effort on the global environment.

An appropriate UNEO is now essential and solutions to the problems I've raised can and must be found.

The case for strengthening and streamlining international environmental governance is compelling.

The rapidly growing number of environmental meetings is becoming unmanageable. According to the Report of the UN System-wide Coherence Panel entitled "Delivering as One", there are over 600 environmental agreements. The 10 major agreements alone have nearly 500 meeting days annually. This results in incoherence, waste, more greenhouse gas emissions and low participation.

If this were the price for effectively coping with environmental challenges, we could live with it.

But, in spite of all these efforts, current international structures are far too weak to face growing environmental challenges. The United Nation Environment Programme was established in 1972, before all the major conferences on the environment took place. Its mandate and means are no longer suited to the daunting needs of today's environment.

There is a growing consensus against the status quo of international environmental governance and in favour of a strong and ambitious institutional response.

The EU believes the time has come to set up a UN specialized agency for the environment (United Nations Environment Organization), based on UNEP, to enhance coordination and streamline efforts thereby giving a voice to the environment.

Towards effective enforcement of international environmental obligations

International environmental governance has been severely hindered by the lack of resources and avenues for monitoring and enforcing compliance with commitments by states and multinational enterprises. Civil society groups could play an essential role in filling this enforcement capacity gap, but for now such groups are for the most part locked out of the formal processes of monitoring and enforcement.

From the perspective of a small- or mid-sized, national civil society group, the instruments and structures of international governance can seem intimidating and inaccessible. Bureaucratic and legal complexity as well as the cost of engaging on an international level are significant barriers, but perhaps most important is the absence of practical ways for non-state actors to pursue compliance.

The inadequacy of monitoring and compliance mechanisms is most evident in the various attempts to encourage responsible global business conduct. Initiatives such as the Global Compact, the UNEP Finance Initiative and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises have had some success as forums for the exchange of information, but they have not lifted business standards across the board. Their effectiveness has been constrained by their voluntary nature, the lack of sanctions for noncompliance, and dependency on industry resources for implementation.

Compliance with state environmental commitments has been variable as well. Despite some notable successes, a lack of follow-through continues to characterize many multilateral environmental instruments. Examples include the widespread state signatory disregard of Clause 2(e)(ii) of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the dormant potential of the sustainable consumption provisions of the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection.

Civil society groups should be viewed not only as "stakeholders" to be invited to meetings, but rather as the eyes and ears of the UN on the ground, with the capacity, knowledge and interest in securing enforcement of international environmental law if only given the opportunity to do so.

Many states have created "open standing" provisions in national environmental laws, which greatly facilitate the ability of civil society groups to act as watchdogs of government and industry. The creation of similar provisions in international environmental laws and structures would do much to improve environmental monitoring and compliance, as well as leveraging the very limited resources available to UNEP and other key institutions.