Catalyzing and publicizing new concepts is another strength. In 1983, by establishing the Brundtland Commission, the UN system helped catalyze new ways of thinking: The Commission's seminal report, Our Common Future, made "sustainable development" an important organizing concept and spurred the effort to integrate environment and development activities. IUCN was a leading voice in partnerships that produced the World Conservation Strategy, Caring for the Earth, and the Global Biodiversity Strategy, publications that helped popularize the terms "sustainable development," "ecosystem management," and "biodiversity," respectively. These are concepts that guide modern environmental policy-making. UNEP's Environmental Perspectives to the Year 2000 and Beyond was a driving force behind the convening of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Rio Earth Summit.

Convening governments and setting guidelines or standards are special strengths of the international environmental governance system. This occurs on every scale-from small, technical workshops to international summits, and from procedural standards to "soft law" performance guidelines. In 1998, for example, World Bank President James Wolfensohn convened logging industry leaders to promote a shift to sustainable forestry. The World Bank also worked with IUCN and UNEP to convene the World Commission on Dams in an effort to develop international consensus on guidelines for decisions on building large dams (Dubash et al. 2001:1). The UN summits have not only focused international attention on environmental issues and brought government leaders and many other actors together, but also generated the political momentum needed to forge international treaties.

The World Bank Group has established requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and other environmental "safeguard" policies and guidelines. These apply only to operations financed, cofinanced, or guaranteed by its constituent organizations, but often serve as de facto global standards, at least for developing and transition economies. Many of the largest and riskiest development projects include World Bank participation, for example, and some private financiers adopt the Bank's procedures and guidelines to reduce risk even in privately financed projects. Voluntary or "soft law" guidelines are increasingly seen as means of generating consensus and action more rapidly than the time required to negotiate binding agreements.

Many developing countries have lacked the capacity to address environmental issues effectively. Here, development agencies such as UNDP and the World Bank have played major roles-by helping countries build the technical skills, legal instruments, and staff to manage pollution or natural resources more effectively. UNDP, for example, plays a direct role in environmental governance through its country offices, 90 percent of which have assisted governments with designing institutions and implementing policies to promote both poverty reduction and environmental goals (UNDP 2001:2). In Cambodia, for instance, UNDP worked with the government to develop a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, which was launched in July 2002 (UNDP 2003a).

UNDP also provides financial support, technical assistance, and training to intergovernmental organizations, research institutes, and nongovernmental organizations. For example, in the Nile River basin, UNDP has worked with 10 riparian countries, donors, and other international organizations to develop a legal and institutional framework for jointly managing the Nile's resources (NBI 2001).

In recent years, UNDP has become a pragmatic complement to UNEP's global environmental treaty-making efforts, and has helped countries take practical measures to implement global accords. For example, through its Montreal Protocol Unit, UNDP has provided 85 developing countries with technology, technical assistance, and training to help phase out ozone-depleting substances (UNDP 2003b). And in Europe's Danube River Basin, UNDP facilitated a partnership among 15 countries, regional commissions, the World Bank, NGOs, and other UN organizations to restore the badly degraded Black Sea ecosystem (ICPDR 2003).

These are tangible achievements. The symphony has clearly made meaningful music. But the present system of international environmental governance is not without serious difficulties.

Weaknesses and challenges

One set of weaknesses stems from the virtual impossibility of coordinating such a complex set of actors to act in synchrony all the time. The results, according to a recent review of international environmental governance convened by UNEP, are gaps in international policy, fragmentation of effort, and sometimes competing or incoherent decision-making structures (UNEP 2001a:19). International policy has all too often focused on sectoral approaches: For example, separate approaches to land degradation, forest policies, and water management, often by different agencies, even though the three areas are intimately related (clearing of forests is a major contributor to erosion, flooding, and water quality problems). Ecosystem approaches, like those reflected in the Convention on Biological Diversity, overlap with sectoral approaches and, in some areas, with those focused on species, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

UNEP, in theory the lead agency for policy coordination, in practice has a mandate that overlaps with those of a dozen other UN agencies. It has neither real authority to set the agenda nor resources to play a major role across the full range of environmental issues. Consultation and coordination efforts are on the increase, but in practice, each international organization tends to make its decisions independently, guided by the wishes of the national governments that are most influential on its council or governing board. The result, all too often, is fragmentation and inconsistency. As the UNEP-convened review concluded, the absence of coordination "seriously undermines the formulation of a strategic approach" (UNEP 2001a:20).

In many ways, these international problems mirror patterns at the national level. There, too, sectoral approaches dominate, and mechanisms for cooperation and coordination among different government agencies are often ineffective. Environmental ministries often have smaller budgets and weaker political voices than, for example, those that directly manage productive natural resources such as agriculture or determine economic policy-in developing and developed countries alike. And since it is predominately environment ministers who sit on UNEP's Governing Council, agriculture or forest ministers who have the greatest influence on FAO, and economic or finance ministers who talk to the World Bank, it is not surprising that policy gaps at the national level are repeated or reflected in the international system: In effect, it is fragmentation by design.

A second set of problems concerns weak support for existing institutions and oversight mechanisms. UNEP, for example, is financed mostly by voluntary contributions from UN member states. Participation fell substantially in the late 1990s-from 73 contributors in 1998 to 56 in 2000-but has since risen again (Cheatle 2003). At the same time, contributors have increasingly earmarked their money for special projects, reducing the agency's budgetary discretion. The result has been uncertainty and a reduced ability to plan and carry out core activities. Effective budgets for many UN agencies and the World Bank have also shrunk-even though budgets for environment-related activities at UNDP and the World Bank, for example, still dwarf that at UNEP. "Competing for scarce funds and political commitment, existing institutions are frequently torn between competing priorities… There continues to be a lack of financial resources for international environmental cooperation" (UNEP 2001a:20).

A third set of problems arises from the fact that decisions that govern production, trade, and investment often pay inadequate attention to protecting the environment and human needs. In effect, most development is not yet sustainable. This will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter, but one aspect of this problem also manifests itself within agencies committed to sustainable development, such as UNDP and the World Bank. Both organizations have attempted to integrate environmental concerns into all of their development efforts-an approach known as "mainstreaming." At the World Bank, for example, the portfolio of projects directly focused on the environment is substantial, valued at some $5 billion in 2000 (UNEP 2001a:21).

But beyond these explicitly environmental projects, the World Bank has met with more limited success mainstreaming environmental considerations into its loan portfolio. According to a recent analysis of the Bank's mainstreaming performance conducted by the Bank itself, there is still considerable ambivalence about incorporating environmental considerations into its lending (Liebenthal 2002:11). This reflects a lack of incentive and clear direction to make the environment a core consideration, as well as a lack of accountability for doing so. In the report's words, "The environment has too often been viewed as a luxury that can wait rather than a central part of the Bank's development strategy" (Liebenthal 2002:23). Again, these problems in the international system reflect a similar lack of integration of environment into broader economic decision-making at national levels.

Environmental treaties: A consensus for stewardship

Environmental treaties-known as Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)-are the legal framework for international environmental governance. They are the official expression of the collective will of national governments to protect the environment and steward the Earth.

In theory, their rationale is relatively simple. Pollution across national borders and depletion of shared resources such as migratory wildlife, the stratospheric ozone layer, or the global climate threaten environmental quality and jeopardize economic prosperity and human welfare-both locally and, sometimes, regionally or globally. Controlling these harmful cross-border effects requires nations to limit their sovereignty somewhat for the common good. A nation agrees to sign a treaty because it believes the benefits of this mutual restraint-whether in the form of cutting pollution, sharing water resources, or the many other cooperative actions nations agree to in MEAs-will exceed the cost. Environmental treaties, then, depend on mutual understanding of what will be lost if nations do not cooperate, what will be gained if they do, and how much compliance will cost-in both economic and political terms (Haas and Sundgren 1993:402; Brack 2000:11; Barrett 2002:133-164).

Environmental treaties cover a vast array of international environmental issues. Some establish regimes for conserving wildlife, fish, or plant species. Others coordinate policies for preventing the spread of plant diseases like Dutch Elm disease, or of insect pests such as locusts or Mediterranean fruit flies. Many treaties, including several of the more familiar ones such as the Kyoto Protocol, require nations to curtail their emissions of air or water pollutants, or regulate their shipment and disposal of toxic wastes. Still others regulate trade in endangered species, set rules for transport on international waterways, or set formulas for sharing the water in international river basins (UNEP 2001c:3-4, 13-15; Barrett 2002:133-134). (see Table 7.2 Selected multilateral environmental agreements (MEAS0.)

International environmental agreements are not new. The first bilateral treaties on hunting and fishing were forged in the 18th century, and the first multi-country treaty focused on endangered species was signed in 1900-a treaty between the European colonial powers to conserve a number of African wildlife species (Sand 2001:3). Over 500 separate MEAs currently exist, even though many-over 300-concern regional issues such as regulation of local fisheries and have a limited set of signatories. Some 60 percent of these treaties have been signed since 1972, the year of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, which is considered the beginning of serious consideration of the environment at the international level (UNEP 2001c:3). (see Figure 7.1 Growth in numbers of parties to selected MEAs.)

The rapid growth in adoption of MEAs reflects more than just an emerging realization of the scope of environmental decline and its consequences. It also stems from the significant increase in the total number of nations after the independence movement of the 1950s and 1960s. As the number of nations-and national boundaries-has grown, the occurrence of transboundary effects has been more pronounced and the need for treaties more apparent (Barrett 2002:136). The most important MEAs cluster into five areas: biodiversity, atmosphere, land, chemicals and hazardous wastes, and marine issues.