M van Schalkwyk: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Global
Ministerial Environment Forum

19 February 2009

President
Executive Director
Distinguished colleagues

We have gathered here for a ministerial plenary discussion under the
thematic question: “International Environmental Governance: help or
hindrance?”

I would, with respect, venture to say that this is the wrong question. We
should rather be asking ourselves whether the debate on strengthening the
international architecture for environmental governance and sustainable
development, which started some nine years ago, has been a help or a
hindrance.

As we start preparing for 2010 and 2012, I think it is time to reflect
honestly on where we are with the debate that started in Malmo in 2000, that
grabbed our imagination in Cartagena and at the world summit, and that still
continues in New York and Nairobi today.

Before I share some of my reflections with you, let me share with you what
my officials advised me when I considered the invitation to make remarks during
this discussion. They said to me, Mr Minister, it will just be a repeat of the
last nine years of debate on Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) reform. Nothing
will come of it. Everyone will simply restate entrenched national positions,
nothing too controversial, lots of code language, basically what they have been
saying for nine years. It will be “political theatre” Minister.

Well, I decided to prove my officials wrong. And I must add that, I am
delighted that many Ministers did the same during their frank and constructive
interventions over the past three days. This was definitely not “political
theatre”. I will therefore also use the opportunity to share with you some
personal reflections on where we are and where I believe we could be
heading.

In taking stock, I believe that it is not only the system that is
fragmented, but also the debate on fixing the system. This debate has been
afloat without a compass on a sea of uncertainty marked by competing agendas
for far too long. The impasse has been characterised by limited agreement on
how to implement what has already been agreed not least in Cartagena, a
widening trust gap, and the lack of a higher level shared vision for the next
decade. It has been marked by different interpretations and expectations of
what should constitute a global environmental governance regime, the balance
between normative and operational work, United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)’s role and mandate in this context and widely divergent options for
institutional reform (that is: the UNEP versus United Nations Environmental
Organisation (UNEO) debate).

When I look back on the last decade of IEG and IEG reform, I have very mixed
feelings. On the one hand I feel a strong sense of achievement and I will
elaborate on this in a moment. But on the other hand I also feel a strong sense
of frustration with the lack of fundamental reform, or even incremental
progress, in some of our important areas of work. Most importantly, I feel
greatly disillusioned by the lack of implementation of what we have already
agreed, dating back to 2002 under the Cartagena package for global reform as
well as under the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity
Building. These are all issues of critical importance to developing
countries.

And as we meet here as Ministers, we also have to acknowledge limited
progress on the intention to use the Global Ministerial Environmental Forum to
provide concrete policy guidance and to identify priorities at a political
level.

Yet, I am convinced that most of us are united in our desire to place
environmental challenges at the centre of political and economic decision
making processes, not least where it has bearing on the evolving global
financial architecture. We are committed to putting in place economic, social
and environmental conditions that will ensure the survival, prosperity and
security of future generations. I am also convinced that we share a common
conviction that this is not only about the environment per se, but about
humanity and livelihoods in decades to come.

I do not want to paint too grim a picture. We should also acknowledge that
we have achieved much globally and at the country level. There are some 500
multilateral environmental agreements, a proliferation of funds and entities
and a variety of agencies dealing with the environment. We have also, to
varying degrees, managed to integrate the environment in other areas of work of
our respective governments and public awareness has been raised to
unprecedented levels. And we have created new policy and scientific capacities,
with international environmental law on the compliance side developing
rapidly.

At a country level the international regime has helped to deliver some
concrete gains, and we can probably all find many examples. But on reflection I
think many of these achievements at the country level are still ad hoc. At a
global level our work remains fragmented, our institutions overloaded, and the
scale of action does not reflect the urgency indicated by science. From a
developing country perspective, the implementation deficit, that is the
widening resource gap between commitments and actions, is most concerning.

I also believe that, besides burgeoning fragmentation and duplication in an
overburdened system, the absence of a strong international political base for
IEG has contributed to our inability to fully and effectively integrate the
environmental pillar of sustainable development into the wider macro-economic
environment.

Chair, the world around us is changing, and IEG reform must keep up with
this changing context. On the positive side I observe a new generation of green
leaders emerging in government, business and civil society. This reverberates
through the G77, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the G8, the G5 and the
African Union. There seems to be a new resolve amongst the global citizen to
act wisely and to act now. Our task as Ministers are to convert this public
will into political will, and political will into action and
implementation.

But there are also red lights; most significantly, the global financial
crisis in the face of which some waver, in stead of rising to the challenge and
the new opportunities for green growth and development.

Science tells us that the environmental threats to sustainable development
and the Millenium Development Goals are even greater than previously thought.
The challenges associated with biodiversity, desertification and climate change
are of a significantly greater magnitude than we had understood in 2010
seventeen years ago.

It is in this context of great achievement and great frustrations, of new
threats and new opportunities, that we as Environment Ministers must make a
fresh start. Maintaining the status quo for IEG is untenable.

My challenge to our collective gathered here today is that we must use the
next three years, up to 2010 and 2012, to define a new paradigm for our
cooperation. We must transform the politics of distrust, break the impasse and
build a common vision for IEG reform. Whilst building on UNEP by enhancing its
legitimacy, authority and resources, we must ask ourselves fundamental
questions on the desired future and how we can find innovative ways of
achieving it.

As we re-assess, re-view and re-think, the starting point should be
principles, objectives and priorities for IEG, with environmental financing
taking centre stage. Only once we are clear where we want to go, should we ask
the institutional questions relating to format and structure. Form must follow
function. If we start with a polarised institutional debate rather than seeking
consensus on principles and objectives, we run the risk of yet another inward
looking dialogue and potentially a weaker mandate for the environment and
sustainable development across the United Nation (UN) system.

To be in a position to use 2010 and 2012 to celebrate our political
decisions on a reinvigorated regime for environmental governance, we should set
clear milestones for the next three years.

And in particular, we should bring high-level political guidance back into
the process. The political authority should vest in governments. Ministers are
the nucleus of this Global Ministerial Environmental Forum, and we must give
UNEP the necessary political weight to take us through to 2012.

It has now been nine years since we as politicians, as Environment
Ministers, really owned this process and its outcomes. The last time that the
outcomes of these deliberations were captured in a political declaration was in
Malmo, Sweden in 2000.

It is no reflection on you, Mr President, or on your August judgement, but I
hope that this forum will be the last one where we will conclude with a summary
and not a politically agreed ministerial declaration. UNEP cannot be steered by
a governance system that gives a voice to only a few. The political voice of
UNEP must belong to all.

Chair, I would therefore hope that this Global Ministrial Environment Forum
(GMEF) will mark a fresh start; that it will mark the re-launch of the debate
on IEG reform at a political level, to conclude before 2012; and that it will
be the beginning of an open debate on the successes and new challenges for
IEG.

The first milestone will be when we meet in a year from now, in February
2010. At that meeting we should ideally adopt a ministerial declaration on the
principles and objectives that will guide our further work in the run-up to
2010 and 2012.

Our further work, to be concluded before 2012, would be: firstly to finalise
the details on institutional reform and its relationship to UN reform, secondly
to improve coordination between Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)’s and system
wide coherence, thirdly to build local capacity and bridge the gap between
science and policy implementation, and fourthly to re-view or audit the
effectiveness of existing international funding mechanisms for environmental
activities.

In the latter respect, I believe UNEP should be requested to lead an audit
to determine how much money for the environment is flowing through the UN
system, the adequacy of funding, what it is used for and how it is aligned,
whether there are equitable distribution to participants (including the role of
Global ENVIRONMENT Facility (GEF) in environmental financing), whether there
are any obstacles or conditionalities that unnecessarily hinder access and
finally, whether we are fully exploiting the synergies and co-benefits of
environmental and development financing.

Chair, in conclusion, whether the road ahead is “ambitious incrementalism”
or “fundamental reform”, we need to make a fresh start in our discourse. The
road from Nairobi in 2009 should truly enhance the role of the GMEF and
Ministers in providing policy advice and guidance. We have a three years window
to think big and ambitious, in a way that reflects the scale of the challenge.
Together, we can inspire a new generation of thinkers, scientists, leaders in
industry, activists, women and youth to take our hands in government towards a
sustainable future.

I thank you

Issued by: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
19 February 2009
Source: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (http://www.deat.gov.za)