United Nations Environment Programme

environment for development

 
Division of Environmental Law and Conventions
Manual on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Alert someone to this resource Leave Feedback Home > Compliance > Preparing for Negotiations > National Level Coordination
Institutional and Ministerial Coordination at the National Level - page 1/2

Guideline

10(d)
Coordination at the national level among ministries, relevant agencies and stakeholders, as appropriate for the development of national positions;

see full text

Frequently, an MEA may touch upon many sectors: environment, trade and industry, foreign affairs, economic development, water, wildlife, and so on. In order to ensure that a State’s national position accurately accounts for the nation’s various interests, it is essential that there be national-level governmental coordination and communication in preparing for negotiations. One aspect of this coordination is to avoid having different focal points from the same State present conflicting or contradictory positions in different MEAs. Different States have pursued inter-ministerial communication and coordination in different manners.

Sometimes, one authority is the focal point for all MEA negotiations, and it plays a coordinating role with respect to the other ministries and agencies. In other States, different institutions assume the lead responsibility and try to coordinate with their sister institutions. Some States, such as Malaysia, have established a separate national steering committee that includes representatives from relevant governmental institutions and from NGOs. Others, such as Mauritius, have different coordinating committees (for each MEA) with an umbrella network to coordinate them.

No particular approach is inherently “better.” The most important factor is that there is a well-established process for consulting with the other relevant national institutions. For example, inter-Ministerial councils may look good on paper but not function effectively (if at all). In some States, the use of a single inter-departmental committee addressing a number of MEAs was effective and saved resources, but other States have had better luck with less centralised approaches.

Political will can determine whether institutional coordination will succeed or fail. For example, one Pacific Island nation adopted a coordinating unit to manage most of the MEAs. This was very successful, but when another State tried a similar framework it did not work well. What was the difference? The President in the first State was much more sympathetic to environmental issues.

A A Print this page
Search the Manual
Guidelines Search
Case Studies Search
» More Search Tools
Resources for
Guideline 10(d)
Case Studies
St. Lucia’s Conventions and Agreements Committee
Sri Lanka’s Environmental Treaties Reference Centre (ETRC)
Bolivia’s Approach to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Kazakhstan’s Approach to MEA Involvement
Ivory Coast’s Calendar of MEA Meetings
Parliamentary Involvement in MEA Negotiation in Antigua and Barbuda
Cameroon’s Process for Preparing for MEA Negotiations
Involvement of NGOs in Preparing for MEA Negotiations in The Gambia
© UNEP | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Site Map