The international system governing environmental agreements and institutions must be reformed so that countries can better respond to the planet's problems, says an international group of scholars.

The number of international environmental treaties and institutions has multiplied ten-fold since the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was founded in 1973, says a new report prepared by the Tokyo-based United Nations University.

This has prompted some to argue that the current system of international environmental governance is not only too complicated, it is steadily getting worse, says the 40-page report International Environmental Governance - The Question of Reform: Key Issues and Proposals.

The document was released yesterday during the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, which this week in New York opened the third preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to be held Aug.26 - Sept 4 in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The report notes that there are now more than 500 environmental treaties and agreements. But critics argue that few of these agreements contain specific targets and timetables, and most are weak on provisions for monitoring and enforcement.

The manner in which these environmental institutions have been established has, to a large extent, been ad hoc, diffused, and somewhat chaotic, says the report, written by more than 20 experts, including Laura Campbell of Environmental Law International; Dana Fisher with the Centre for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at Columbia University; Yasuko Kawashima at the Japan-based Institute for Environmental Studies; and Gary Sampson, former director of the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) committee on trade and environment.

The UNEP was opened in Nairobi, Kenya with the sole purpose of helping to centralise environmental treaties and governance. Since then, however, various treaties, organisations, and institutions have sprung up worldwide in a way that lacks coherence, says the report.

Now that there are so many other institutions that have assumed environmental responsibilities within the international arena, some argue that it may be time to revisit the debate over the creation of a new centralised organisational structure, it says.

Demanding nature

The lack of coherency in international environmental governance can be traced in part to the complexities of the issues involved and the inherently demanding nature of the international treaty making process, adds the document.

Many multilateral environmental agreements are negotiated by specialised national ministries, or functional organisations, in forums that are often completely detached from the negotiating arena of other international agreements, it says.

Most countries seem to prefer a case-by-case approach to international environmental policy making, through issue-specific treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, or the global agreement on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

But this does not mean, says the report, that lack of coherency is a permanent feature of the international governance system.

It simply means that reform must be well thought out within each specific context while keeping the broader sustainable development goals in mind, it says.

Just how to reform the current system, however, remains the million-dollar question.

A number of reform proposals will be on the table at the summit in South Africa. Some advocacy groups want to create a World Environment Organisation. They say it would reduce overlap, ensure greater coherency, and provide checks and balances to the WTO.

Such an institution would possibly include a dispute settlement process, like the WTO's, to help enforce environmental laws. Giving teeth to an international environmental institution would have several benefits, argues the UN University report.

One of the core benefits to be offered by a judicial settlement system is that it could bring a much greater level of predictability to international environmental governance by ending serious violations of international environmental law regardless of the perpetrator, it argues.

Two-class society

Without a judicial branch of international environmental law, there is a danger that a two-class society of international norms will develop based on those that can be judicially enforced, such as WTO rules, and those that cannot, the report continues.

Judicial enforcement of international environmental law would help ensure that environmental norms do not become second tier norms, it says.

But some advocacy organisations argue that environmental treaties should dominate trade rules. Friends of the Earth International, for example, is calling for the establishment of a principle that ensures multilateral environmental agreements always take precedence over trade rules.

Trade must be made subservient to sustainable development goals not vice versa, and global corporations should receive responsibilities to balance the extensive rights they currently hold, says the group's Daniel Mittler.

The report, however, says that most nations would probably not agree with creating an organisation that could challenge either global trade rules or domestic environmental conduct.

Such a system does not exist today, says the report, because states are reluctant to grant jurisdiction to courts and tribunals that would allow states and or non-state actors to challenge their environmental policies or conduct. (IPS)