1
Statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States
By
Istvan TEPLAN
Senior Adviser to the State Secretary for the Environment
Republic of Hungary
Second Preparatory Committee
of the
2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
("Rio + 20")
Institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD)
United Nations
New York
8 March 2011
2
Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member
States.
The European Union and its Members States share the view expressed in the
Report of the Secretary General concerning the contrast between the dramatic
growth in the number of institutions in the last decades and the continuing
deterioration in the natural resource base and persistent poverty. This
contrast calls into question how much the grasp of the existing institutional
framework matches its reach.
We agree with the SG report that our efforts to strengthen the Institutional
Framework for Sustainable Development should above all focus on
strengthening an architecture that supports effective implementation and
policy-integration of sustainable development concerns at all levels. A clear
forward-looking approach is needed, building further on the commitments and
achievements of the Rio and Johannesburg Summits on Institutional
framework for sustainable development.
In this regard, the EU and its Member States have identified the following
three objectives, namely International Environmental Governance (IEG),
broader sustainable development architecture, and multi-level governance.
1. On one hand, there is growing awareness that we can only tackle the
economic, financial, environmental, climate and social challenges by
addressing the three dimensions of sustainable development in a
coordinated and integrated manner. A strengthened institutional
framework for sustainable development is thus needed. The UN needs
to perform better on the three overarching objectives as specified in the
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation – poverty eradication, managing
natural resources and changing unsustainable consumption and
production patterns.
We therefore are in favour of a better architecture for sustainable
development. The UN regional commissions should play a more
significant role in promoting sustainable development through bottomup
approach and efficient regional and country deliveries.
2. On the other hand, strengthening International Environmental
Governance is a key element and condition for improving the
Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development. The outcome of
the Consultative group of Ministers on IEG and of the very recent UNEP
26th session of the Governing Council is an excellent basis for further
work. This process has yielded substantial results with regards to
3
strengthening the environmental pillar of sustainable development by
identifying incremental improvements, system-wide improvements, and
options for broader reform.
In particular, the UNEP GC has transmitted its ideas on system-wide
improvements for six functions and its five options for broader reform to
the Prep Com 2 for further analysis and action within the broader
framework of IFSD.
The EU and its Member States strongly urge the Preparatory Committee
to take up these invitations from the UNEP GC. This includes initiating a
full analysis of the financial, structural, and legal implications and
comparative advantages of the options identified in the Nairobo-Helsinki
outcome. In so doing, the Preparatory Committee brings the process
from Nairobi back to New York, thereby contributing to a constructive
and informed discussion on the way forward.
The EU and its Member States strongly support the upgrading of UNEP
into a specialized UN Agency: “a UN agency for the environment, based
on UNEP, with a revised and strengthened mandate, supported by
stable, adequate and predictable financial contributions and operating
on an equal footing with other UN specialised agencies.
This proposal is about upgrading UNEP into a stronger organization,
better equipped for meeting growing challenges and more capable of
contributing to sustainable development, and not about adding a new
institution on top of what already exists.
Referring to one of the questions put in the attachment to the
organization of work of this PrepCom, we also think that such an agency
will help to streamline reporting mechanisms so as to reduce the
reporting burden of developing as well as developed countries of
servicing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), whilst
respecting their legal autonomy.
The EU and its Member States do not see the different proposals for
broader reform as mutually exclusive. We have already said on many
occasions that the process of strengthening of UNEP and its upgrading
into a specialized agency is part of a broader strategy for strengthening
sustainable development governance within the UN system. We remain
ready to discuss alternative reform options and invite other delegations
to come forward with more details on their proposals in view of finding
common ground and identifying commonalities with regards to social,
economic and environmental governance.
3. Finally, we need to address the different levels of governance, where
cross-sectoral consultation and coordination is often still missing. We
4
need to ensure that the framework we design promotes mutually
supportive actions at global, regional, national and sub-national levels.
Multilevel governance for sustainable development depends, at the
national level, on national sustainable development strategies (NSDS’s) in
place; such strategies also exist at sub-national levels and many local
authorities in the world, including in the EU, have developed a local Agenda
21.
The potential of each level of sustainable development governance can be
strengthened horizontally by the coordination of interdepartmental
mechanisms.
The EU and its Member States acknowledge the importance of major
groups, whose role and input should be integrated into the preparations
and outcome of the UNCSD 2012 Conference, including youth, which is still
underrepresented in many cases. The specific potential of overarching
strategies can significantly be enhanced by the work of Sustainable
Development Councils who can strengthen civil societies engagement for
sustainable development and offer valuable fora for civil society
discussions.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would like to underline that the current status
quo is not an option. We are all confronted with the consequences of our
fragmented and overlapping institutional architecture regarding sustainable
development, which is limiting our chances of responding efficiently and
effectively to today’s multiple challenges. This is why we have all embarked
on this process of strengthening the IFSD, on which we hope to make
substantial progress and achieve a concrete outcome next year in Brazil.
Thank you
