World Environment Organization Research Articles

The Role of the Nation State in International Environmental Policy

In this article, the German Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety analyzes the role of the nation state in international environmental policy. With reference to the European Union, he argues that independent national environmental policy no longer exists inside the Union. Brussels now has greater influence on environmental legislation than any nation state in Europe—a development that the minister expressly welcomes. He argues that it has proven highly useful for Union members to speak with one voice at global environmental conferences and to present a united front just like one strong nation state. On the other hand, the communitarization within Europe does not prevent members from becoming front-runners in environmental policy. The minister further calls for changes at the global level to ensure that global environmental institutions and environmental law are given much greater weight. The historic task of nation states today is to introduce global environmental legislation that is more powerful than any nation state or any transnational corporation. The German government therefore strongly favors transforming UNEP into a world environment organization that can stand up to the WTO, the FAO and transnational corporations.

An Internalisation‐based World Environmental Organisation

We evaluate the possibilities for a new World Environmental Organisation (WEO), with our discussion motivated both by recent calls for such an organisation in light of WTO trade and environment conflicts and the relative absence of internalisation of global externalities. We propose an organisation building upon the idea of facilitating Coasian deal on the global environment. We motivate the establishment of such an organisation by itemising the ways in which global environmental deals are presently restrained by various impediments, including free riding, property right ambiguities, and mechanisms for authentification and verification. We indicate how such a WEO might help in each of these areas, stressing the differences from the WTO which is a much narrower bargaining framework.

Reviewing Proposals for a World Environmental Organisation

Since the Earth Summit in Rio 1992, several calls have been made for a world environmental organisation (WEO), and only during the last year, in the run‐up to Rio+10, five more have been added. In total, we have found 17 proposals for a WEO. We review, compare, and briefly discuss rationales, models, tasks, organisational set‐up, relations to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and organisations such as UNEP and the WTO, as well as the role of principles, compliance and the interest of developing countries. We conclude that a majority of proposers is in favour of an autonomous coordinating agency, that is, a medium level of integration. Frequently the WTO is mentioned as a precursor agency on which a WEO should be based. We question the effectiveness of a ‘WTO for the environment’ and suggest that other models ought to be considered.

Advancing the debate on a world environment organization

With the beginning of the new millennium, the longstanding need for reform of the United Nations system has gained new momentum. Efficiency gains and better coordination are desirable, though not sufficient to bring about improvement in international relations. There is need, therefore, to look for institutional innovations that would upgrade the pressing tasks of environmental and development policy in the eyes of national governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations, improve the institutional setting for the negotiation and implementation of new agreements and action programs, and strengthen the action capacity of the developing countries on these matters. The present article points to and elaborates on the need for a “World Environment and Development Organization” within the United Nations system, and outlines the shape it might be given.

The Emerging Debate on the Need for a World Environment Organization: A Commentary

The debate on institutional reform of international environmental policy-making has gained momentum. This article discusses whether the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) should be replaced with a stronger world environment organization. First, it outlines different models of a world environment organization. It argues that the best option for the next decade would be to upgrade UNEP to a full-fledged international organization while maintaining the current system of decentralized, issue-specific international environmental regimes. In the long run, however, a world environment organization should lead to a closer integration and coordination of the myriad environmental treaties in the same manner in which the World Trade Organization has integrated the major trade agreements. Second, the article comments on the writings of both advocates and opponents of a world environment organization, with a focus on the contributions to this inaugural issue of Global Environmental Politics.

New Environmental Architectures and the Search for Effectiveness

The starting point for a discussion of reform of the global environmental machinery has to be an inquiry into the causes of ineffectiveness of current arrangements. This article argues first that many of the criticisms made of the existing architecture are misplaced while ignoring other key faults. Second, argues that the means of operationalizing an alternative World Environment Organization (WEO) are problematic and may exacerbate existing problems, particularly for developing countries. The article focuses here more on the notion that a WEO should pursue the internalization of environmental externalities. It argues that while this goal is worth pursuing, proposals for a deal-brokering body are unlikely to make much progress in delivering it because of misplaced assumptions about both the existing political order and about the ability of a WEO to remedy current weaknesses.

What Could a World Environmental Organization Do?

This article evaluates the case for a new World Environmental Organization. It suggests that the main purpose of such an institution could be to accomplish the internalization of global environmental externalities which, for a variety of reasons, has not been achieved to any significant degree in recent decades. This stands in contrast to recent proposals that call for a mere strengthening of existing global arrangements. The benefits of this approach, as well as some of its problems, such as ambiguous property rights, are discussed.

The Organization of the Impossible

Proposals for the creation of a World Environment Organization (WEO) are considered in light of the wide range of arrangements for environmental management at the national level. Organizational difficulties are compounded at the international level, suggesting that a WEO is neither possible nor desirable. Proposals to improve international environmental management must consider not only the weaknesses of current arrangements but also the sources of their effectiveness. Carefully designed steps to strengthen the institutions of international environmental management are desirable. Organizational proposals, other than strengthening the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), are a diversion from the pressing international environmental agenda.

The Case for a World Environment Organization

(2000). The Case for a World Environment Organization. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development: Vol. 42, No. 9, pp. 22-31.

Trade and environment linkage and a possible World Environmental Organisation

Trade and environment linkage and a possible World Environmental Organisation

Debt for Nature: A Swap Whose Time Has Gone?

Abstract This paper purports to review the performance of the Debt for Nature Swap (DNS) Programs in light of their dual objectives of lowering deforestation rates as well as the cost of debt servicing. It evaluates the performance of private and Public DNS and inquires whether such swaps have made any significant dent on the debt and deforestation problems besetting many developing countries. It also assesses the prospects for such swaps in the future. We argue that since the prospects for DNS are limited, a more conducive solution for the deforestation problem in many developing countries may lie in generalized resource transfers to these countries of the sort envisaged in recent proposals for a World Environmental Organization (WEO).

An Asian Perspective on a World Environmental Organization

Transboundary and international environmental problems are a pressing concern for the global community and call for innovative institutional design to address them. Whereas the developed countries value the international environment highly they realize that some of the solutions must originate within the geographic boundaries of developing countries, including Asian Developing Countries (ADC). The ADC, on the other hand, do not appear to have these problems high on their agendas at least at first glance. More important appear to be economic growth and domestic environmental concerns. However, it is also true that not addressing global environmental problems could hurt, in specific areas, ADC economic growth and their domestic environmental problems. But, the fundamental fact of the indivisibility of the growth and environmental agendas in the ADC has to be faced. Since the developed countries seem to consider global environmental problems as an emergent issue and since ADC will soon become major contributors to this problem, it would be necessary to have the foresight to conclude a treaty at an early date. This would mean that ADC would have to be persuaded and provided enough incentives to enter into international environmental negotiations and remain committed to this process. The paper has argued that since ADC have considerable environmental assets, these countries should probably look for linking slowing down the depletion of these assets to other areas of linkage to the developed countries. In particular, this would include international trade, transfer of technology and, perhaps, direct transfers. Since this linkage would be very wide ranging, it would be necessary to exploit any positive external effects that might flow from some treaties and avoid duplication and conflicts in others. It makes sense, therefore, to have a World Environmental Organization (WEO) to coordinate these efforts. But what version of a WEO is to be opted for is, at this point in time, an open question. Clearly a mild version of a WEO that brings all environmental treaties under one umbrella, provides technical know-how and facilitates negotiations would be innocuous enough and, therefore, acceptable. However, such a WEO would also not be very effective in controlling the problem of global externalities, assuming that this problem is of an emergent nature. Stronger versions of a WEO would not be acceptable to ADC unless issue linkage of the sort discussed here becomes a reality. Before that is achieved, given the past experience of ADC with MEA, the WEO would have to build considerable credibility as an organization that is truly interested in global environmental problems, is sensitive to the needs of the ADC

The Structuring of a World Environmental Regime, 1870–1990

In recent decades a great expansion has occurred in world environmental organization, both governmental and nongovernmental, along with an explosion of worldwide discourse and communication about environmental problems. All of this constitutes a world environmental regime. Using the term regime a little more broadly than usual, we define world environmental regime as a partially integrated collection of world-level organizations, understandings, and assumptions that specify the relationship of human society to nature. The rise of an environmental regime has accompanied greatly expanded organization and activity in many sectors of global society. Explaining the growth of the environmental regime, however, poses some problems. The interests and powers of the dominant actors in world society—nation-states and economic interests—came late to the environmental scene. Thus these forces cannot easily be used to explain the rise of world mobilization around the environment, in contrast with other sectors of global society (for example, the international economic and national security regimes).