Parties to an MEA often designate one or more focal points responsible for the MEA. There are two types of focal points: political focal points and technical focal points. The political focal point is usually responsible for the international processes, such as negotiating MEAs and participating in the Conferences of the Parties. Most States designate their Ministry of Foreign Affairs or a similar body as the political focal point.
The technical focal point often bears the responsibility for implementing the MEA at the national level. Most States designate as their technical focal point the Chief Officer of the nation’s Environment Agency or Ministry (i.e. the Administrator, Director General or Honourable Minister of the Federal Environment Protection Agency, or Ministry of Environment). Other government management and scientific authorities or agencies may also serve as focal points for specific purposes under particular agreements.
In some instances, the political and technical focal points are combined, and the (single) national focal point is appointed by the Government to participate in and facilitate the implementation of specific MEA-related activities at the national level. For some treaties, the national focal point is in charge of implementing the State’s MEA obligations and is charged with maintaining contact with the MEA Secretariat, attending treaty-related meetings and other administrative tasks. However, in the case of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, each State appoints a national focal point to its Scientific and Technical Review Panel. In this case, the Focal Point’s duties are a bit different. These duties are highlighted in the case study overleaf. In the case of CITES, there is a Management Authority authorized to communicate with other parties and the Secretariat, as well as a Scientific Authority designated to advise the Management Authority. Thus, a national focal point can have different meanings and duties depending on the MEA.
The respective MEA Secretariats often have produced guidance regarding the terms of reference for the duties that are expected of the focal points. These generic terms of reference can be particularly useful when two (or more) focal points are envisioned for a single MEA. While States may adapt the generic terms of reference to their specific needs, capacity, and circumstances, the MEA-generated terms of reference can be a good starting point.
One of the challenges of having separate focal points is maintaining the necessary level of communication between the political and technical focal points. This is essential so that the political focal point does not make commitments that the technical focal point cannot implement, and so that the political focal point can most effectively address national implementation challenges in the relevant international forums such as the Conference of the Parties.
At the same time, depending on the MEA and the particular State, it can be important to maintain two separate and independent focal points: one with technical expertise that has the capacity and mandate to offer the necessary scientific and technical advice, and a political focal point that has the mandate and skills to promote implementation of the agreement within the nation’s specific political, social, and cultural contexts. Combining the focal points into a single person or entity can create difficulties if the single focal point does not have both the necessary technical expertise and political sensitivity.