Maria Ivanova

UNEP in Global Environmental Governance: Design, Leadership, Location

As debates on reform of global environmental governance intensify, the future of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has come into acute political focus. Many argue that the organization has faltered in its role as the UNs leading agency for the environment. In this article, I use historical institutional analysis in combination with current international relations and management theory to explain UNEPs creation and evolution. Having described how the creators of UNEP envisioned the nascent organization, I analyze its subsequent performance, identifying the key factors that have shaped its record. I argue that the original vision for UNEP was ambitious but fundamentally pragmatic, and that the organizations mixed performance over the years can be explained by analysis of three factors: its design, leadership, and location. Thus, this article clarifies the record on UNEPs intended function, and lays the foundation for a systematic methodology for evaluating international organizations.

The Contested Legacy of Rio + 20

The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20 generated a wide range of mostly negative reactions. Even before the conference, there was widespread doubt about the possibility of success. As soon as the conference closed, analysts highlighted its failures and criticized the outcome document, The Future We Want. While it does not present a grand transformative vision, the outcome document does reaffirm past political commitments and addresses the multiple dimensions of sustainable development and the linkages among them. Indeed, Rio+20 had subtle, yet significant impacts. Three main areas stand out: reform of international institutions, sustainable development goals, and participation as principle and practice. The global decisions in these domains and the unprecedented local engagement provide critical junctures likely to shape global environmental governance for the next two decades.

Power in participatory processes: reflections from multi-stakeholder workshops in the Horn of Africa

The sustainability science literature views the participation of local stakeholders as a necessary element for both conducting transdisciplinary research and implementing sustainable development projects. However, there is very little critical reflection on how power dynamics between researchers and local stakeholders affect the success of participatory processes. This article draws on the critical tradition of political science and sociology to examine how power dynamics are inherent to, and should always be a concern during, participatory processes. This also applies for sustainability science research and the implementation of sustainable development projects, especially in developing contexts such as those of Africa. While local participation enhances the voices of local stakeholders, power dynamics between them and the researchers driving these processes can dampen local voices or elide critical pieces of information. Using evidence from participatory workshops in Djibouti and Kenya, we demonstrate that these power dynamics can unintentionally exclude critical knowledge and perspectives from the formal proceedings of participatory workshops, despite an express focus on stakeholder inclusion and participatory methods. Using Steven Lukes’ tripartite conception of power, we elicit how the workshop structure and the actions of researchers as the designers and facilitators of the workshop may have prevented the emergence of this critical information. The central argument is that reflecting on power will help researchers and practitioners identify the power dynamics inherent in the participatory processes so they can work to overcome them. Such self-reflection can strengthen sustainability science and practice in African and other contexts.

Good COP, Bad COP: Climate Reality after Paris

The twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris was a good COP in contrast to COP15 in Copenhagen, which will remain in history as the low point in climate policy. COP21 demonstrated unprecedented global collaboration when divisions were deep and stakes were high and resulted in the Paris Agreement, the first legally binding document to articulate a clear global temperature goal and a commitment to reach global net-zero emissions after 2050. The agreement is also universal, with developed and developing countries alike expected to act. This article outlines key outcomes and explains what led to the shift from a bad to a good COP. It also examines the threats and opportunities as the world moves from making commitments to implementing them and draws parallels to the global agenda-setting process on sustainable development that is also unfolding in the United Nations at the same time.

The International Chemicals Regime: Protecting Health and the Environment

Abstract For decades, the system of global environmental governance has been concerned with hazardous chemicals and pollutants and their management and effects on health and the environment. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the international regulatory system for chemicals and waste and the mechanisms through which it regulates the production, use, and trade of chemical substances worldwide. We explain the origins of this system and its functions and examine its applications at the national level. Although chemicals regulation at the international level spans a number of specific treaties, from nuclear power to long-range transboundary air pollution, we cover in detail four issues that directly impact, and are informed by, green chemistry: persistent organic pollutants, hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, and mercury. We conclude this chapter with a discussion of the ways in which the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deal with chemicals and their impacts on health and the environment.

Book Review: Conca, Ken. 2015. An Unfinished Foundation: The United Nations and Global Environmental Governance. New York: Oxford University Press

That global environmental problems require global solutions is now an accepted maxim within much of the global environmental politics literature. To this end, the United Nations is an important actor, arena, and tool. As Ken Conca points out in An Unfinished Foundation, however, the UN’s approach to resolving global environmental problems has been inadequate because the organization has not used the full potential of its mission and mandate. The UN’s “grand strategy for global environmental governance,” Conca contends, “consists, essentially, of better law between nations and better development within them” (p. 6). What is missing is the integration of the other two elements of the UN Charter— namely, the UN’s mandate to promote peace and protect human rights. The central argument is that the United Nations would only be able to effectively address global environmental problems if it used its full, four-part mission. Most investigations of global environmental governance have focused on the environmental problems, the actors engaged in their production and resolution, and the institutions created to govern collective behavior. The actors commonly discussed include nation-states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations. The focus on institutions ranges from sets of rules, norms, and decision-making procedures, to international treaties and organizations. In this context, the United Nations is often mentioned but rarely analyzed in depth, even in relation to the environmental work that it performs. This book is the first to connect the evolution of global environmental governance to the mission of the United Nations in its entirety and to explain the history, interconnections, and significance of the UN’s work across its mandate to the global environmental and sustainability agenda. Moreover, the book does so seamlessly, effortlessly, and compellingly. Structured around an analysis of the four core missions of the United Nations—law, development, human rights, and peace—with each developed in one chapter, the book seeks to explain the current state of affairs and illustrate the consequences of basing UN environmental work on only two of the four pillars of the UN charter. In the final chapter, Conca offers specific suggestions for reform that would improve environmental governance. To this end, Unfinished Foundation walks the reader through a structured narrative about the reasons behind the choices to base the UN’s environmental work in law and

Dessler, Andrew E., and Edward A. Parson. 2006. The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Climate change has generated unparalleled debate around the world and left many confused. Are apocalyptic events such as droughts, oooding, and species extinction really imminent or just Hollywood action? Are the economic and social costs of mitigation and adaptation going to bankrupt the world economy or save it? Or is it even reasonable to think that we could do anything to prevent climatic changes and save our species if nature has already dealt the cards? In this context, Dessler and Parson set out to guide us through the various claims in the climate change debate sifting through the evidence, examining the facts, and dissecting the science and the policy process before outlining the available policy options. They provide perhaps the most comprehensive and comprehensible analysis of the debates around climate change. The book is likely to become a foundational text for students, scholars, policy-makers, and citizens seeking clarity on this topic. The authors are an atmospheric scientist and a law professor with extensive public policy experience, who effectively tackle the rough-and-tumble intersection of science and policy that has led to confusion and inaction. The culture of science, the authors argue, is one of conservatism, with every statement couched in carefully constructed caveats. The pace of science is generally slow, with conclusions on important problems taking decades to reach. Since science focuses on the new, the controversial, and the interesting, disagreements appear rampant because there is regular discussion. Politics, on the other hand, is entirely different. It demands hard and immediate answers to the problems of the day. With persuasion more important than rational facts, scientiac credibility is essentially irrelevant in policy, leaving the door open for misuse of science. The result is an unhappy marriage, with scientists feeling that their contributions have no impact, and policy-makers frustrated by the lack of deanitive answers from scientists. After a short introductory chapter to climate change, Chapter 2 begins by deaning positive and normative statements. Positive claims (“The Earth is warming”) are the domain of science, and the book explains how the scientiac community determines whether to accept a positive claim or not. Normative