Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. May I also extend my appreciation to all distinguished participants.
Thank you for allowing me to come this morning as you begin this short preparatory period ahead of the seventh United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) with a focus on resolutions – a key outcome of every UNEA. In this context, let me stress that it is, of course, well understood that resolutions are formulated and presented by Member States. And I am of course delighted to be here this morning as you begin the resolutions journey for UNEA-7.
Member States decided, following UNEA-6, to draw lessons learned from the process. I undertook a parallel lessons learned journey in the Fall of last year during which I had the privilege to hear the thoughts and insights from Permanent Representatives to UNEP. These elements are reflected in Part 1 of the ED’s report, issued earlier this year. One of the issues on which Permanent Representatives reflected — and indeed on which we too at UNEP have reflected — was the issue of the UNEP Technical Notes which we prepare to accompany each draft resolution for your reference and consideration, as appropriate.
These technical notes are prepared by UNEP and it is our hope that they help contextualize the setting into which the draft resolution falls. At this point, let me once again underline that the choice and content of resolutions are entirely, solely and only the prerogative of you, Member States.
One of the recommendations, as reflected amongst Permanent Representatives in last year’s lunches, was whether the Technical Notes could be better used. Does UNEP do enough to bring these notes to the attention of Member States? Do Member States consider this information would be helpful to them in their deliberations? These were some of the questions asked.
So, on this background, I encourage Member States to look at these Technical Notes. In the same breath, let me also say that I urge you to consider the comments made by many Member States in favour of fewer, better informed and more targeted resolutions. We have heard asks for an optimised resolution development process. For optimal use of the Regional Fora to discuss the resolutions. And for designation of experienced co-facilitators.
I also wish to draw your attention to the regular request in resolutions for the Executive Director to produce reports for UNEA. I ask that you consider what value these reports have to you. Let me remind you that for UNEA-7 we have resolutions requesting a total of 19 such reports. Of course, if Member States consider that a report is critical to environmental shifts and action towards enhanced sustainability, we will very happily oblige – and, as you know, we will of course oblige regardless. But you may wish to consider whether a given report will change anything on the ground. Whether it will lead to different approaches in your countries? Whether — quite frankly — producing a requested report is resources well spent. UNEP is, as you well know, in a resource scarce setting. Each report costs staff time, as well as other associated costs and in these constrained times, we should be laser focused on spending our funds where they truly make a difference. And if we can optimize the way that we spend resources, including staff hours, weeks and time, we can better serve Member States.
Over the past six sessions of UNEA you have agreed a total of 125 important resolutions and decisions, reflecting your priorities and the expanded role that you, Member States here in Nairobi, have taken on in shaping global environmental policy.
Through these past six sessions of UNEA, we have sought to strengthen our support to the resolutions process and to enhance the way in which you can engage with the resolution process more conveniently. As you know, we have the online searchable repository of all resolutions and decisions that have been adopted not only by UNEA, but also the resolutions of the Governing Council from 1972 to 2014. In this repository, you can find all decisions and resolutions reaching back to 1972.
To further enhance the multilateral experience and process, and at our request, we have organized briefings for the co-facilitators so that they can be working consistently in the various groups, and that there is clarity in their role in the facilitation process. And, per the request of the co-facilitators, you will have noted that we are offering close collaboration between the technical focal point and UNEP legal officers so that we can support both the coherence and legal soundness of the text.
We have also offered some broad principles which Member States may wish to consider as you advance these resolutions that will then be transmitted to the Open-ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR). Please allow me to highlight these principles for your reflection and consideration, as appropriate:
First, Member States have always stressed that the work we undertake must make a difference in science, policy or implementation action. We very much agree with this and want to support change on the ground for people and ecosystems. Your UNEP Secretariat can only do work that falls within the mandate that you have given to us. We therefore hope that the Technical Notes will be used by you to determine whether this resolution falls with within our mandate.
Second, we encourage Member States to ensure that resolutions are not duplicative with earlier decisions that you have taken, thus risking rendering it pointless. Or, might the issue that the resolution seeks to tackle already be handled or addressed in a resolution with another UN entity? Might the information in the report, which you seek UNEP to produce, already exist?
Third, if a resolution topic is already fully addressed in the UNEP Medium Term Strategy (MTS), then you do not require a resolution for this issue. Through the MTS you have already, in fact, instructed UNEP that this topic is a priority and that you wish for your UNEP to be working on that issue. Therefore a resolution is duplicative with already authorised work through the MTS and will risk spending unnecessary resources to fulfil that resolution – resources that should already be put to work on that topic. In this regard, I also encourage resolutions to pull in the same direction as the MTS and the Programme of Work (PoW), as well as be aligned with budgetary allocations and priorities that you will approve at UNEA.
And finally, it is our hope that you will continue to scout the horizon through your resolutions for challenges and opportunities that are coming our way for which it would be helpful to have a resolution on. Urgent issues, new issues, issues that require global attention, or issues which have been underattended to, or issues which can shape the global environmental architecture. In the same vein, I suggest that if the issue is local or national, it is hard for UNEA to take a stance on such a matter, so you may possibly choose to revisit issues with more of a regional nature. But again, as I said, these matters are clearly in your prerogative.
For all resolutions, it would be helpful if the impact is measurable and transparent, as well as clear who is accountable. Is it a domestic governance change of policy? Is it a step up from a government commitment? Is it something that UNEP must mobilize resources for? Is it a report? Where does the action lie? I am well aware that at times action will lie in several places. UNEP will need to step up, but I would also stress that in all cases governments would need to step up too.
So, therefore, the question can be asked whether there truly is domestic policy cover for that resolution? Because at times we find we have a resolution, but, domestically, cabinets, governments and ministries beyond the environment ministry may not necessarily be looking at that issue as a priority.
When resolutions are ambitious and realistic, reflecting the broadest setting of Member States’ desires, frankly, we believe it is much easier to implement because we already have 193 strong supporters. Then we can mobilize resources to move that issue forward. When that fails, we often end up with unfunded mandates that are difficult to mobilize for and difficult to implement.
We also ask that you ensure any necessary UNEP support to the implementation of UNEA resolutions will be subject to extra budgetary resources. Currently, when we add up the tentative assessed cost of the current draft resolutions we are talking about US$22 million, and that is US$22 million that we do not have.
These were my reflections on the resolutions and the Technical Notes.
With your permission, Madam Chair, I would like to step a little bit beyond the resolutions that you are covering today and just set this in the context of where the UN is finding itself right now.
UNEA will take place in the middle of a UN reform process, and I think, if you choose to seize it, Member States have an opportunity to set the course, including through your own resolutions, on the future of environmental action within the reformed UN system.
We – the UNEP Secretariat – have actively contributed to the UN reform process under the leadership of the Secretary-General, and I have been privileged to serve as one of the Development cluster co-leads for the UN80 reform package that the Secretary-General presented to the UN General Assembly.
Allow me first to reflect on our history. Eighty years ago, when the United Nations Charter was written and when the world decided to establish a new multilateral institution, it was clear that the three founding pillars of the United Nations system should be peace and security, human rights and economic development. These principles are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
This should, of course, be very well understood in the spirit of the mirror of 1945. But today, when we look at what is causing strife and complexity; when we look at what is the driver of human rights transgressions; and when we explore what is often risking economic development, we realize that much has shifted since this time.
We have learned from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and from the Sustainable Development Goals that the environmental dimensions of sustainable development, that the environmental dimensions of the peace and security agenda and that the environmental dimension of human rights, is a core context that simply cannot be ignored.
And so, when we consider that, for example, environmental degradation, droughts, natural disasters, floods, wildfires, sea level rise, are threatening peace, security, human rights and economic development, I believe that it is high time the United Nations explicitly recognizes the environment as a cross pillar of the United Nations. Because the environment undergirds development, undergirds peace and security, and undergirds human rights.
You will recall there are three work streams of the UN80 initiative that the Secretary-General laid out in April of this year.
One was efficiencies and improvements. Here I hope you can see how much work UNEP has been doing in this regard. This includes looking at process simplification and how we can become more efficient with the 17 Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs) that we host. Not to interfere with their governance, but to support them on back-office issues that we can deliver greater efficiency on.
The second area was a mandate review, and here we look forward to the deliberations of the informal ad-hoc working group at the United Nations in New York.
The third area was structural changes and programme realignments. Member States will have had the opportunity to see the Secretary-General's report that he released recently. And we at UNEP will obviously very much consider our own role within the regional reset, a discussion that UNEP Regional Directors are heavily involved in.
But we also, of course, stand very, very ready to play a leading role in what the Secretary-General calls the joint knowledge hubs, where we – UNEP – would provide a lot of the science and information on climate change, technology, and innovation. Critical minerals is also a key area and there we have been asked to co-chair work with our friends at UNCTAD.
In the report of the Secretary-General, you will also note the suggestion to tackle “dispersed environmental responsibilities across the UN system”. I urge you to closely review this section – with a focus on paragraphs 47 to 55 – because this is where the thrust of the reform – as it impacts UNEP and our mandate — lies. It is to my mind critical that the United Nations Environment Assembly forms a view on this and does not leave it to New York only to form views on these matters. After all, you Member States have enshrined environmental governance precisely to your UNEA, so I hope that this will be a priority for your work at UNEA and beyond.
There are also a few additional considerations on Workstream Stream 3 that I would like to bring to your attention.
Firstly, pertaining to the United Nations Environmental Management Group (EMG) and its scope. Here I suggest that Member States consider reflecting on broadening the scope of the EMG to also cover natural resources. You will recall that the EMG is a group that the Executive Director of UNEP has the privilege to chair. It is a group established by a General Assembly resolution in 1999 and an establishing resolution in 2000. So, it is a 25-year-old group that my predecessors have chaired, and I have the honour of chairing now.
The EMG deals with internal coordination across the UN on environmental matters. I believe that the EMG, which has about 50 UN agencies collaborating on environmental direction setting, can work more strongly and I believe that Member States may wish to broaden the scope to also include natural resources as a remit under the group.
Secondly, I believe that UNEP’s role in coordinating and servicing the EMG should be further strengthened. Member States might wish to consider options in this regard. This does not mean that UNEP “governs” the EMG. However, UNEP is THE environmental entity of the United Nations system setting the global agenda — under Member States guidance — and through the EMG we enable a system-wide direction by the entire UN on topics of critical priority.
We have, for example, coordinated a Common Approach to Biodiversity. This is a document on which we collaborated with other UN agencies for well over a year and a half so that every UN agency has an approach to biodiversity. If it is UNICEF, how will they approach biodiversity? If it is WHO, how will they approach it? Essentially, this work lets each agency approach the environmental topic through the lens of their own mandate. Similarly, the EMG has also developed a Common Approach to Pollution with a focus on plastic, which has enabled UN agencies to tackle this issue through their respective mandate lens, from UNIDO to the World Bank to FAO and so on.
We believe including natural resources is an important strengthening of the EMG to ensure UN coordination across the full spectrum of environmental dimensions that underpin sustainable development.
And thirdly, I believe that UNEP should be the default institutional location for environmental conventions. As Member States consider efficiency, effectiveness and enhanced cost reduction through better servicing, I would like to point out that UNEP is very familiar with how to support multilateral environmental processes.
We are proud to host 17 conventions where decisions are entirely those of Member States. But you need screenwriters, you need editors, you need translators, you need interpreters, you need documentation managers, you need registration systems, you need those who can issue the credit cards, you need financial management officers and all of that we – UNEP – already have.
Which is why we believe that we would be a very competent host to the BBNJ Agreement should Member States so decide. That is not about the location, I hasten to add. There are a number of offers on the table and the physical location will be a decision of Member States. But as you know, most of our conventions are in fact not in Nairobi, so irrespective of location, we can deliver the institutional hosting support needed with both efficiency and cost effectiveness, all while ensuring lessons are learnt across systems.
Beyond the “back office” support to the many conventions, I also take note of the efforts made by the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions to come together under a joint secretariat. Complicated? Yes. Working for greater efficiency and integration? Absolutely. Might Member States not want to reflect on this through the various Convention of Parties coming up? Perhaps this is also a soft conversation that Member States might want to start at UNEA.
So, I ask whether these maybe areas that Member States may choose to look at. First of all, drawing from the Secretary-General's report, where there is going to be a focus on environmental governance in the coming 12 months. Or the EMG, where clearly there is a conversation about whether it should be strengthened. Or indeed the Secretariat functions to MEAs, where clearly there are opportunities for efficiencies and effectiveness.
And with that, I close my introduction and hand it back over to you, Madam Chair. Thank you
