Negotiation
Recommendation (A):
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) perform a vital role during the negotiation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). We would like to see opportunities being made available to them to extend that role and to have a greater influence on those who are negotiating the detailed provisions of agreements. Where appropriate, this could include more involvement in Government delegations, especially where this enhances the competence of the UK to negotiate. We also urge the UK Government to continue to support the involvement of NGOs in international environmental negotiations. This could include the UK Government holding formal briefings with NGOs before, during and after negotiations (paragraph 17).
1. The Government agrees with the Committee's assessment of the important and varied contributions that NGOs can make to the negotiation and development of MEAs. Often NGOs have been at the forefront of conceptual development in the field of international environmental protection; we give serious consideration to all of the ideas which NGOs present to us. The Government consults with NGOs before negotiations and when formulating its objectives, we maintain contact during negotiations, and NGOs play a key role in pressing all Governments to monitor and implement agreements. We will continue to involve NGOs in the development of MEAs to which the UK is a party, and in our preparations for the negotiation of future MEAs. It is important to recognise that business interests also come under the heading of NGOs in this context.
2. An example of current NGO involvement is in respect of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where stakeholder consultations are held regularly in order to allow input by the wide range of interested parties outside Government. We have also included non-Governmental experts in delegations to some CBD meetings, for example from the Natural History Museum and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. As Chair of the CITES Standing Committee, the UK has been active in ensuring that NGOs have an opportunity to present their views to participants at CITES meetings and Conferences.
3. There are, however, difficulties for both sides if NGOs are included formally in UK delegations negotiating legally binding texts. Under these circumstances NGOs are bound by the same disciplines as Government representatives. Inevitably, NGOs find this requirement restrictive; some NGOs would prefer to stay outside the UK delegation and retain their freedom of action, for example in relation to access to the media. The Government considers it better for all parties, therefore, if NGOs are accredited to attend meetings in their own right. This approach is now increasingly accepted within the UN. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development has pioneered ways of involving the spectrum of civil society in its meeting. The UK has strongly supported this approach.
Recommendation (B):
Recently there has been an increasing tendency for Ministers to get more directly involved in negotiations: The Deputy Prime Minister's role in the Kyoto negotiations is perhaps the most well-known example. We welcome this: we believe that it can significantly increase the political impetus which witnesses have told us is essential if they are to be implemented to the fullest possible extent. We urge UK Government Ministers to continue the trend of personal involvement in the negotiation of MEAs (paragraph 18).
4. The Government agrees that the direct involvement of Ministers can have a significant beneficial impact in moving negotiations forward. It is important, however, that Ministerial involvement in MEA negotiations is not indiscriminate, but rather targeted to achieve optimum impact (as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol). There are far too many negotiations for Ministers to be involved in all of them. In many cases, including preparatory meetings and technical working groups, official level involvement is more appropriate. Where there is clear value to be gained from direct Ministerial involvement, the Government will ensure that this is given a high priority. For example, both the Deputy Prime Minister and Michael Meacher attended the recent COP5 meeting in Bonn the most senior delegation there. In addition, as Chair of the CITES Standing Committee, the UK is pursuing the possibility of a Ministerial/High Level Symposium at the next CITES Conference in Nairobi in April 2000.
Recommendation (C):
It is very important that Parliament be kept fully informed of Government contributions to international environmental negotiations, so that, where necessary, they can be scrutinised. We therefore invite the Procedure Committee to look into the matter, with a view to making recommendations about how proper Parliamentary scrutiny can be assured. In the meantime, we expect the Government to inform us of its position before and after each set of negotiations on the subject, or pass on the information which it has received to other Committees to which it may be of interest (paragraph 21).
5. The Government is keen to encourage further Parliamentary interest in the negotiation of MEAs and other issues related to international environmental protection. We welcome the Committee's invitation to the Procedure Committee to look into the matter. A number of mechanisms exist already which allow for Parliamentary involvement in MEA negotiations. The Ponsonby Rule requires that every treaty signed by the UK subject to ratification should be laid before Parliament for twenty-one sitting days. This existing arrangement gives Parliament an opportunity to discuss treaties, subject to the availability of Parliamentary time. The Government itself may initiate debate on important treaties during this period. In addition, the Government reports the outcome of significant meetings to Parliament by means of Ministerial statements. Members of Parliament often table questions on key issues before Conferences of Parties to MEAs. In future, we will arrange for Parliamentary Questions to be tabled prior to all MEA negotiations where decisions are likely to be taken to enable the Government to set out its objectives for the negotiations.
Implementation and Monitoring
Recommendation (D):
The Government must ensure that all possible action is taken in pursuit of our international environmental obligations. This will have the additional advantage that it will serve as an example to other countries, who may be less willing or able to implement such agreements than the UK, and will ensure that the UK Government is not laid open to accusations of hypocrisy when it encourages others to take action (paragraph 24).
6. The Government supports fully the principle that the UK should ensure it practices at home what it preaches abroad. That is why we only ratify agreements that we are confident we have the means and ability to implement. Overall, the UK has a very good record on implementation of MEAs such as CITES, the Montreal Protocol, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste. The UK has strengthened its record on the implementation and enforcement of CITES in recent years, for example, through the creation of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW). The Partnership helps to bring together all the relevant bodies police, Customs, prosecution agencies, the Forensic Science Service and specialist NGOs to ensure that laws governing trade in wildlife are properly observed.
7. Under the UK Presidency of the G8, G8 Environment Ministers agreed that they would work together to promote enforcement of MEAs in developing countries. This led to a UNEP workshop on enforcement in Geneva in July 1999, attended by several developing countries. In addition the DETR is sponsoring the Commonwealth Secretariat to run two workshops on enforcement, one in Botswana and one in the Caribbean.
8. With particular regard to the Convention on Biological Diversity, while the UK has a good record on implementation, progress has, nevertheless, not been as fast as we would like. Consultants have, therefore, reported on action to date in meeting the many and varied obligations of this treaty, to help us identify priorities for future action. We have also participated in a similar pilot project at the international level, with eight other countries developed and developing and the Convention Secretariat, to develop a means of assessing implementation of the Convention. The outcome of this work will help to inform Parties' decisions on requirements for the next round of national reports.
Recommendation (E):
In view of the importance of gathering information about how MEAs are being implemented, we recommend that the UK Government devote more resources to ensuring that parties are complying with their reporting obligations, where necessary by providing financial and technical assistance to countries which are having difficulties in doing so (paragraph 27).
9. The Government stands ready to provide technical assistance to Parties in complying with their reporting obligations, if it is invited to do so, although it would not be appropriate for the UK to attempt a policing role on compliance by other Parties. An assessment of whether assistance is required is a matter for Parties themselves to determine. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the main mechanism for providing financial assistance to Parties to meet their reporting requirements under the Climate Change Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The UK has been prominent in promoting the need for adequate levels of support by donors to the GEF. If shortcomings are identified in the ways in which GEF assistance is provided, our aim would be to improve the GEF's performance or levels of funding, rather than to finance bilaterally. The former approach is more likely to lead to a comprehensive and sustainable outcome.
Recommendation (F):
We share concerns about the dangers of providing too much unnecessary information about the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. The UK Government must ensure that scarce resources are targeted towards providing the information necessary for the purposes of ensuring that an agreement is being implemented; identifying those areas where more action is necessary; and sharing good practice among parties (paragraph 28).
10. The Government's view is that reporting on national implementation should be clearly focused in line with the requirements agreed by consensus by Parties to MEAs, either as part of the MEA concerned or through subsequent decisions. It would not be appropriate for the UK to select more restricted areas of focus from within those requirements once they have been agreed. The Government agrees that the danger of excessive reporting requirements should be guarded against during the process of reaching consensus, especially with respect to burdens on developing countries. The capacity of developing countries to implement reporting requirements should be borne in mind. UNEP is considering the rationalisation of MEA reporting requirements as part of its overall remit agreed by the UN on improving coordination by Conventions. UNEP ran a conference on this in Tokyo in July 1999 which made a number of recommendations for action.
Recommendation (G):
We recommend that the UK Government promote the use of independent monitoring mechanisms to supplement national reporting on the implementation of MEAs (paragraph 30).
11. The Government agrees that independent monitoring mechanisms can play a valuable supplementary role. The use of such mechanisms is best considered separately in relation to each MEA, since any monitoring system with multilateral scope must be acceptable to Parties if it to lead to effective improvements. Generally, independent monitoring mechanisms should be of an objective and primarily technical nature, separate from the pressures of negotiations between Parties. A complementary approach is to provide for appropriate, objective checks on national reporting by groups of Parties. The UK is promoting this approach within the Framework Convention on Climate Change. There is a peer review mechanism in operation under the IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste Management. The OECD's Working Party on Environmental Performance also assesses OECD countries' records on implementation of their MEA commitments as part of a more wide-ranging review of environmental performance.
12. The response to recommendation (d) explains what we are doing in relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity. We also support the work of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), which is of particular value to the implementation of our commitments under CITES and the CBD. The Government recently made a payment of £100,000 to the WCMC to enable it to continue its work. We are currently negotiating with UNEP about the future status of the WCMC.
Compliance
Recommendation (H):
We welcome the Government's stated intention to invigorate the provisions on compliance contained in key MEAs. The UK should encourage the evolution of compliance mechanisms to provide a more effective means of ensuring the protection of the global environment. They should do this both by building confidence in existing mechanisms, and by giving further thought to new methods of encouraging Parties to a convention to comply with its obligations, and of encouraging non-parties to ratify it (paragraph 42).
13. The Government agrees, and welcomes the Committee's support for its strong position in this area. We are pursuing the objectives recommended by the Committee and will continue to do so. In particular the UK is very active in the development and operation of compliance mechanisms for CITES, the Montreal Protocol, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, and the Basel, Espoo and Aarhus Conventions. The UK has contributed to the identification of new compliance methods. We believe that the success of compliance regimes is closely linked to building up confidence of Parties in the systems. This inevitably takes time. While precedents are useful as indicators, each MEA is unique and its compliance regime will need to be tailored to suit its special needs. A good current example of this individual approach is the case of the Kyoto Protocol compliance regime (currently under consideration).
14. As a comparatively long-established MEA, CITES has had the time to develop strong compliance mechanisms, of which the UK has been a key supporter. At the last meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, under UK Chairmanship, trade suspensions were recommended for three Parties (Guyana, Senegal, and Egypt) on the grounds that they had not introduced sufficient legislation to implement fully the Convention. Trade suspensions were agreed for Guyana and Senegal; Egypt was considered to have made sufficient improvements in implementation to have the threat of trade suspensions lifted. This shows that the prospect of sanctions can produce rapid improvements in compliance performance. The longest established and best known MEA compliance regime is the one developed between 1990 and 1992 for the Montreal Protocol. Its Implementation Committee has met over twenty times in the past seven years and has established itself as an effective and respected part of the Protocol process. It has recommended a number of notable decisions to the Meeting of the Parties with regard to compliance by the Russian Federation and certain other east and central European Parties.
MEAs and WTO Rules
Recommendation (I):
We urge the Government to decide quickly which option for resolving the potential conflict between MEAs and WTO rules it favours and is most likely to achieve widespread international support preferably a free-standing agreement and to set about gathering that support. Work must be done not only within the EU and with other developed countries, but also with the developing world, in order to reassure developing countries that such an agreement will not be abused as a form of 'green protectionism' (paragraph 57).
15. The UK and the EU remain firmly committed to including work on clarifying the relationship between trade measures stemming from MEAs and WTO rules in the forthcoming Round of trade negotiations, and pressed the case for its inclusion at the WTO Seattle Ministerial. The Government agrees with the Committee on the need to ensure that a clarification of the interface between MEAs and WTO rules is not open to protectionist abuse. This would clearly be against the interests of developing and developed countries. The UK and the European Commission are currently working through bilateral contacts to allay others' concerns, particularly on the potential for eco-protectionism, and to explain our approach.
16. The Government believes that decisions as to how best to achieve the clarification are a matter for negotiation in the Round, where the concerns of all countries can be properly taken into account, together with the capacities and constraints of developing countries. It would therefore be premature for the UK or the EU to decide irrevocably in favour of a particular option ahead of the negotiations. However, the Commission, in dialogue with Member States, has been developing its thinking on a range of possible options such that the EU is able to focus and guide debate as and when negotiations start. The UK has played an important role in instigating, and contributing to, this process. In particular, Member States have agreed that the EU should press for a legally binding clarification: either through an amendment to GATT Article XX or an interpretative understanding of the Article embodied in a new agreement within the WTO. The UK is in the process of considering the various options for defining an interpretative understanding and developing a view on their relative merits.
Recommendation (J):
We recommend that there be a strong presence from the DETR both at the WTO Ministerial in Seattle later this year and at any subsequent WTO negotiations, in the same way as there is always a strong DTI presence at negotiations on the climate change convention and other MEAs, to ensure that the Government's environmental policy objectives, particularly those outlined in the Sustainable Development Strategy, are pursued to their fullest possible extent (paragraph 58).
17. A wide range of Departments was represented in the UK delegation to the WTO Seattle Ministerial, including the DETR. The DETR was fully involved in the cross-Departmental preparation for the Seattle Ministerial, and played a strong role alongside other Departments at Seattle. The same approach would apply to subsequent UK coordination processes during the progress of the Round. The European Commission conducted the negotiations on behalf of the EU at Seattle.
Recommendation (K):
We propose to return to the subject of the potential conflict between MEAs and WTO rules during or following the expected forthcoming round of trade negotiations, to assess what progress has been made on the issue (paragraph 59).
18. The Government welcomes the Committee's continued interest in this important issue. The issue of clarifying the relationship between MEAs and WTO rules, and the integration of sustainability concerns in the proposed new Round of trade liberalisation negotiations, have also been considered by the Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry into a Sustainable Millennium Round.
Recommendation (L):
The UK Government must encourage and involve itself in all attempts to integrate environmental concerns into the WTO: directly in WTO negotiations; in the Committee on Trade and Environment; in the Commission on Sustainable Development; and in particular at the follow-up to Rio plus 10, which may coincide with the completion of the Millennium Round of WTO trade negotiations (paragraph 62).
19. The Government agrees with this recommendation, and we are already pursuing this agenda actively through the EU's position on trade and environment, which is at the forefront of international efforts to integrate environmental considerations into the new Round. This position is set out in the European Commission's Communication on the EU's Approach to the New Trade Round (published in June) and has since been endorsed by conclusions of the General Affairs Council. The EU has said that environmental considerations should be integrated fully into all areas of the negotiations in the Round. In addition it has identified three priorities on trade and environment for the negotiations, which are: (i) a clarification of the relationship between WTO rules and trade measures stemming from MEAs; (ii) a clarification of the relationship between WTO rules and Process and Production Method (PPM) requirements, and confirmation of the WTO compatibility of voluntary eco-labelling schemes; (iii) a discussion of the role of core environmental principles within the WTO system, especially the role of the precautionary principle. The Government strongly supports the work being done by consultants based at Manchester University, on behalf of the European Commission, to produce a Sustainability Impact Assessment of the new Round. The results of this assessment will be used to inform the EU's negotiating position in the Round. The Government welcomes all such assessments as a contribution to discussions within the WTO and in civil society.
20. A statement of the principles which the Government will use to decide further actions that may be necessary in the area of trade and the environment is included in Chapter 9 of "A better quality of life: A strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom" published in May 1999. The Government has also submitted a Memorandum to the Environmental Audit Committee's Inquiry into a Sustainable Millennium Round.
Institutions
Recommendation (M):
Further sharing of information, knowledge and expertise between existing institutions and the secretariats and Conferences of the Parties of the various conventions could vastly improve the tackling of global environmental problems. We are encouraged to see that the Minister recognises the scope for improved co-ordination between MEAs; and we recommend that the UK Government examine ways in which this might be encouraged and furthered (paragraph 67).
21. The Government agrees with the need for better coordination between MEA Secretariats and has always encouraged a coordinated approach. As mentioned above, we support strongly the role with which UNEP was tasked by the UN in February 1999 of promoting cooperation and interlinkages among MEAs, in particular linkages among the scientific and information monitoring processes that underpin the system of MEAs. UNEP's Executive Director is working with the MEA Secretariats to identify areas of common interest and opportunities for synergies.
22. Government is participating actively in efforts to improve coordination between the Convention on Biological Diversity and related MEAs, including by strengthening liaison between lead officials in the UK Government, and by exploring the scope for synergies, for example in relation to reporting. We have encouraged and supported the development of Memoranda of Understanding between the GEF and the CBD, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on Desertification.
Recommendation (N):
We recommend that the UK Government explore ways to rationalise the existing network of secretariats and Conferences of Parties, with a view to improving the efficiency of the use of the scarce resources which are available for global environmental protection (paragraph 68).
23. The Government strongly supports efforts towards the rationalisation of the network of MEA Secretariats to produce benefits in terms of economies of scale, more efficient use of resources, and avoidance of needless duplications and overlapping of activity. UNEP has a key role, as defined in Chapter 38 of Agenda 21 in encouraging synergies and best working practices among MEA Secretariats. It should be recognised, however, that there are limits to the kind and degree of rationalisation that can be effected, because each MEA and each Secretariat is legally independent of the others. Any changes to an MEA could only be made through a consensus decision by the Parties.
Recommendation (O):
We agree wholeheartedly with the views of both Mr Burke and Mr Gummer on the resources which must be made available to UNEP. We welcome the Minister's recognition of the fact that "the funding", if it is to be really effective, does need to be on a different dimension, a different scale." We now expect the UK Government to take a lead in persuading other leading industrial nations that if UNEP is to be effective, it must be properly supported financially. This may include increasing the UK's own contribution (paragraph 77).
24. The Government welcomes the Committee's support for enhanced funding for UNEP. It should be recognised, however, that the UK's current contribution of £4.5m per annum to UNEP's Environment Fund already makes us UNEP's second largest single donor after the USA. The Government looks to other countries to increase their level of support to something approaching the level of the UK's contribution. The Government supports the aim of Klaus Tφpfer, Executive Director of UNEP, to widen UNEP's donor base. This was agreed by UNEP's Governing Council in February 1999. We have also pressed for better financial management by UNEP and have offered to provide assistance to this end. Better financial management and greater transparency is needed if Governments are to be persuaded to provide increased funds. A unilateral increase in funding by the UK would run the risk that other countries would duck out of their funding responsibilities.
Recommendation (P):
We agreed that siting UNEP in Nairobi is an important demonstration of commitment to the developing world. However, if the organisation's effectiveness is not to be compromised by the difficulties associated with its location, more aid such as that offered by the UK Government to set up a satellite communication system may be needed. UNEP's influence would also be significantly increased if it were to use regional and specialist offices to extend its reach into those centres where real decisions are taken, Geneva and New York (paragraph 80).
25. The Government endorses the Committee's conclusion that UNEP's location in Nairobi is a political necessity; this is recognised in a recent UN General Assembly resolution. The Government also welcomes the recognition that the development of the Mercure Satellite system, for which the UK was a key donor, has been an important step in increasing UNEP's capacity for global communication and information dissemination both crucial aspects of UNEP's role. The Government agrees that UNEP should find ways to enhance the usefulness of its extensive network of regional centres (including, in particular, its regional offices in Geneva and New York). The Government welcomes the decision by the General Assembly to move forward on the establishment of an Environmental Management Group in the UN, which should strengthen UNEP's influence.
Recommendation (Q):
For the long term, the establishment of UNEP as a specialised agency of the UN should be seriously considered, as part of a concerted effort on the part of countries such as the G8 to back their words about the role which they want UNEP to play with firm action to strengthen the organisation. Only if such action is taken does it have the potential to become the 'World Environment Organisation' with real power which is needed to co-ordinate efforts to protect the global environment and encourage sustainable development (paragraph 81).
26. The Government is always willing to consider ideas which would deliver real improvements in UNEP's performance. Radical change in UN institutions is, however, difficult to achieve, given the need to reach consensus. In the short term the Government is concentrating its efforts on improving UNEP's efficiency and effectiveness, management and work programme. The 1997 Nairobi Declaration, approved by the 19th Governing Council, gives UNEP a mandate broad enough to deliver most of the activities which a World Environment Organisation would undertake.
Recommendation (R):
We welcome the recognition by major international financial institutions such as the World Bank that the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements is central to the needs of their client countries. The UK Government, as a major stakeholder in such institutions, must encourage them to extend their support for MEAs, which are a vital element of the sustainable development agenda (paragraph 83).
27. The Government agrees with this recommendation. We will continue to work through a number of channels to promote the role of multilateral financial institutions in assisting the implementation of MEAs in developing countries, including through our position on the World Bank's Executive Board, policy discussions with the Bank, and in-country contacts.
Recommendation (S):
In the long term, we can see no reason why the role which is currently played by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in financing the costs of addressing global environment problems should not at some future point be taken on by a revamped UNEP, working in collaboration with the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Indeed, if UNEP is truly to be the "leading global environmental authority" this is precisely the sort of task which it should be undertaking (paragraph 86).
28. The Government does not see any need to change the current arrangements for the role of the GEF, although we are keen to make the GEF more effective and responsive to developing country concerns. The GEF has consistently improved its performance since 1991; we will continue to press for further improvement. We understand the desire to enhance the standing of UNEP and improve its funding base, and these are objectives which we generally support. We believe, however, that effectiveness should be the main criterion for deciding what the GEF's institutional arrangements should be. We are not convinced that simply transferring the GEF's overall financial responsibility to UNEP would, in itself, improve performance associated with GEF funding. UNEP already has an important role as one of the three implementing agencies of the GEF, focusing on the provision of scientific and technical advice to developing countries on global environmental issues.
Developing Countries
Recommendation (T):
We welcome the aid which has been given by the UK, other developed nations and UNEP for the purposes of overcoming the difficulties faced by developing countries in attending negotiations. It is essential that all those who wish to participate are given the fullest chance to do so if developing countries are to have confidence in MEAs and in the developed world's motives for being involved with those agreements (paragraph 90).
29. The Government agrees. We are very concerned to ensure that developing countries are able to attend, and have the capacity to engage actively, in negotiations. We will continue with our efforts in this area, such as the UK's long term additional voluntary contributions to CITES delegate assistance schemes, support for the Global Tiger Forum (hosted by developing countries), and the financial support we have given to African Range State meetings to discuss elephant conservation.
Recommendation (U):
The need for adequate means of ensuring that countries honour the commitments which they enter into under MEAs should apply equally to commitments to provide the necessary transfer of technology and financial resources as it does to steps which have been taken directly to protect the environment. We recommend that the UK and other Governments develop more imaginative means of ensuring that such transfer takes place (paragraph 95).
30. The Government fully recognises the important role of technology in addressing environmental problems and the need to foster a framework of policies at national and international levels, for example effective protection of intellectual property rights, that encourages the development and widespread diffusion and application of cleaner technologies, especially in developing countries. It is important, however, to keep in mind that, as the Committee notes, most technology, and particularly its practical application, is a matter for the private sector, where ownership lies. The appropriate role for governments is, therefore, to promote and facilitate rather than provide technology transfer. Commitments in MEAs such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change are expressed accordingly. To this end the United Kingdom continues to undertake a range of activity, including capacity building under development programmes, to foster conditions that will encourage effective technology cooperation with developing countries, as well as encouraging the investment by business in developing countries which is, typically, an important avenue for technology transfer.
31. In particular the Government recently further extended the Technology Partnership Initiative (TPI), which was launched following the Rio conference in 1992 with the objectives of improving information flows and fostering partnerships between the UK environmental industry and business and other contacts in developing countries. The Government will also continue to participate actively in the development of innovative ideas for mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism with the potential for encouraging effective technology flows to developing countries.
32. However, implementation of MEAs in developing countries does not depend solely on the provision of finance or technology transfer. If implementation is to be effective and sustained, the objectives of the MEA concerned must be built into the development plans of those countries. This requires acknowledgement by the country concerned that the implementation of the MEA is a priority. Part of DFID's approach is to help developing countries to understand the implications of MEAs for their development plans and to integrate MEA objectives in them. National strategies for sustainable development are an excellent approach for doing so. If developing countries themselves treat MEAs as a priority, donors will respond with increased contributions.
33. Although new money for the Rio commitments has been provided in the form of the GEF, and private investment has increased significantly, overall flows of ODA have fallen since Rio. The UK is one of only a few countries where flows are increasing. We are trying to encourage other donor partners to increase aid budgets. We welcome the fact that the Committee notes that some progress has been made in the area of financing for MEAs. We will work hard to make the Clean Development Mechanism effective.
The UK's Contribution
Recommendation (V):
We recommend that greater efforts be made to ensure that implementation of MEAs is a concern right across Government, particularly in the Department for Trade and Industry. We also recommend that the Department for Trade and Industry take further steps to examine ways in which environmental regulation, including that proceeding from the provisions of multilateral environmental agreements, can be used to make British businesses more competitive in the world market (paragraph 101).
34. The Government endorses fully the Committee's view that inter-Departmental coordination is an essential condition for the successful implementation of MEAs. We believe that the UK has a good record in this area. The close cooperation between Departments before and during MEA negotiations continues through to the implementation phase where business action, and thus DTI engagement, is of particular importance. The synergies between improvements in environmental and economic performance of business, encapsulated in the concept of eco-efficiency, as well as the complementarity between sustainable development and competitiveness objectives, are well recognised and actively promoted by the DTI. For example, the DTI and the DETR jointly support the Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. The principle underlying the Programme is that good environmental practice is good business practice; there is an increasing acceptance of this principle among UK businesses overseas as well as in the UK. The mission of the Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU) is to promote a successful UK environmental industry in world markets which are growing rapidly through the influence of factors such as environmental regulation, including the contribution of MEAs in the international context.
35. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Global Citizenship Unit (GCU) exists to assist UK firms in addressing their wider responsibilities in fields such as the environment, human rights, and labour standards, whilst operating in third countries. In the specific area of the environment, the GCU is working to encourage firms to acknowledge and respond to environmental concerns with or without the added impetus of legislation. The GCU aims to help forward-thinking UK firms to put the theory of environmentally and socially responsible business into practice in third countries. In pursuing its objectives, the GCU works closely with DFID's Business Partnership Unit, British Trade International, the DTI and other government departments, as well as non-governmental experts.
Recommendation (W):
We recommend that the co-operation between senior members of the Government departments concerned with MEAs be extended to others involved with the details of the negotiation and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. Such co-operation will assist and complement the greater collaboration between the Secretariats and Conferences of the Parties which we discussed the need for earlier (paragraph 102).
36. Detailed coordination between Departments is carried out day-to-day by staff at all levels with responsibility for MEA policy or operational matters. This is complemented by frequent meetings between senior members of Government Departments. We place significant emphasis on the sharing of best practice and dissemination of information. We are constantly looking for ways to improve coordination both between and within Departments. For example, an informal inter-departmental working group on the relationship between WTO rules and MEA trade measures was set up in spring 1999, and there are regular interdepartmental meetings to discuss climate change policy.
Conclusion
Recommendation (X):
New agreements should be negotiated where it is both feasible and necessary. The draft agreement on persistent organic pollutants is one example of where this is the case, as is the draft Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Witnesses also suggested that both international fisheries and forests, currently inadequately protected, should be the subjects of future multilateral agreements. The emphasis, however, must be on strengthening the current regime of international environmental protection and ensuring that the provisions of existing MEAs are fully implemented (paragraph 105).
37. The Government agrees that, in the current phase of development of MEAs, when many are still in the process of bedding-down, our main focus should be on strengthening the current regime of MEAs through promoting better implementation, monitoring and enforcement.
38. The Government also agrees that new MEAs should be negotiated where it is both feasible and necessary. The Government firmly supports the development of a biosafety protocol which will be the first protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The protocol will complement the UNEP International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology, providing a strong international environmental protection framework covering the use, release and transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms.
39. The draft agreement on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) is a measure which when agreed, will augment existing international agreements, such as the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, and the POPs Protocol to the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Here too the goal is to strengthen the current regime to secure international environmental protection. In these instruments, as in other MEAs, the Government seeks to secure strong reporting provisions to ensure adequate compliance.
40. The UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks, agreed in 1995, already provides a multilateral framework for the regulation of international fisheries. It bolsters the role of regional fisheries organisations in managing fish stocks and recommends inter alia applying the precautionary approach. The Government is committed to ratifying this agreement, in combination with the EU and other Member States, at the earliest possible opportunity. The Government is also supporting efforts to improve the effectiveness of the UN's contribution to the sustainable management of global fisheries.
41. The issue of whether there should be an MEA on forests is being discussed under the aegis of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), the successor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF). The fourth and final session of the IFF will be in January-February 2000; it will present recommendations to the 8th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in April 2000. Following several years of discussion, the questions of whether there should be any permanent international arrangement relating to the sustainable management of forests, what form this should take and whether it should be legally binding, remain controversial. There is no current international consensus, but there is growing recognition that, with the current opposition of key countries, such as Brazil, USA, Australia, India, and New Zealand, agreement on a legally binding global instrument is an unlikely outcome for CSD8.
42. The UK, through the EU, has sought to bring to the fore the goal of conservation, management, and sustainable development of all types of forest. With respect to the mechanism for promoting these objectives, we have encouraged more open-minded consideration of all options. In this area, a rigid insistence on promoting a Convention to the exclusion of all other options will not produce international consensus. The next step is to build on the positive outcome of the IPF/IFF process, and to find ways to move forward to practical action at the national level. It is insufficient merely to continue the current dialogue; there needs to be consensus at least on the need to implement the Proposals for Action agreed by the IPF in 1997, as the IFF is mandated to do.
Recommendation (Y):
We note that the follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit, 'Rio plus 10', will be crucial in maintaining the momentum which has been building in this area over recent years. We want the UK to be at the forefront of efforts to ensure that it does so. The Minister of State at the Foreign Office told us that the Government is now thinking about the preparations for the next stage. As part of those preparations, the UK Government should make in response to this Report a clear statement of what it hopes to achieve, both at the 'Rio plus 10' conference and longer term, in the sphere of international environmental protection (paragraph 106).
43. The Government's aims for 'Rio plus 10' are to see concrete progress on meeting the international development targets. In particular 'Rio plus 10' should address two targets: to have sustainable development strategies in all countries by 2002, and implemented by 2005; and to reverse the current trends in the loss of global and national environmental resources by 2015.
44. Ministers and officials have had a number of discussions over the autumn with other partners to explore their views. Michael Meacher attended the North-South informal environment Ministers meeting in Ghana in September. African environment Ministers emphasised their wish that 'Rio plus 10' should have poverty and environment as a major theme. There was further discussion on ways forward on this at a UNDP meeting in New York at the end of September, where George Foulkes represented the UK. In addition, officials have sought views of EU partners, the USA, Japan and India on their interests.
45. The UK has been in the vanguard of discussion, emphasising the need for a meeting that is dynamic and ambitious enough to attract heads of Government. It should in particular reflect the interests of developing countries. Such a conference would require concentration on a few key areas where real progress can be delivered. The Deputy Prime Minister and other EU leaders have already said that one aim should be to achieve ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002. Other likely topics are freshwater, fisheries, food security and forests. Strengthening of international institutions is another candidate.
46. As far as the practical arrangements are concerned, Ministers have made clear their preference that the event should be held in a developing country, probably in Africa or Asia, so as to encourage ownership of the outcome by the developing world. Civil society should be closely involved in the preparations and the event itself. Since the vast majority of resource flows from North to South are through the private sector the Government is giving special consideration to the best ways of involving the business community.
47. There will be further international discussions on this at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in 2000. At CSD in 1999, the UK was among the leaders in pressing for the UN Secretary General to come forward with ideas for discussion. As a result a paper on modalities will be submitted to the CSD meeting in April 2000. In the meantime we are continuing to explore ideas bilaterally with a large number of partners.
Published 24 January 2000
Government Responses Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page