2012/1

Beleidsadviezen voor Rio+20

Ban Ki-moon en het Earth Hour-initiatief

Op weg naar een Wapenhandel Verdrag

Vredesoperaties: negen recenteontwikkelingen en aspecten

Wanneer militaire interventie onderde noemer van R2P?

De campagne voor eenVN-parlement

UNHCR en het probleemvan Staatloosheid

OPCAT in Nederland:implementatie van het

Facultatief Protocol bij hetVerdrag tegen Foltering

Het UNESCO Instituutvoor Statistiek

2 VNFORUM 2012/1

Towards Rio+20

This year will mark the 40th anniversary of thelandmark UN Conference on the Human En -vironment in Stockholm that led to the creationof the United Nations Environmental Pro gramme(UNEP); the 25th anniversary of the influentialBrundtland Report on sustainable development;as well as the 20th anniversary of the UNConference on Environment and Development(Rio de Janeiro) that resulted in Agenda 21, theRio Declaration and the three Rio Conventions –all of them have been major achievements ingovernance for sustainability. Also this year, anumber of conferences will be held that areimportant to global environmental change andsustainable development. Amongst others the18th Conference of Parties to the United NationsFramework Convention on Cli mate Change(UNFCCC COP18), the G20 Summit, and firstand foremost the United Nations Conference onSustainable Devel op ment (Rio+20). Rio+20 willbe convened 20-22 June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro,Brazil, preceded by a series of preparatory for-mal and informal meetings.

Yet, in the history of international environmentalgovernance since Stockholm 1972. There have

been plenty of conferences, action plans, road-maps, working groups and reports with less, ifany impact. Slow, ineffective, and fragmentedimplementation of the agreements is furtherhampering governance of environmental change.UNEP recently released the final report of theUN Foresight Initiative that identified the 21most urgent environmental issues to be addressedby the UN system and related programmes andagencies. One of the findings is that ‘AligningGovernance to the Challenges of Global Sus -tainability’ has been ranked as the most urgent ofthe 21 items. It is therefore essential that thisyear’s conferences do not follow the trend of lastyear when the climate change negotiationsagreed on postponing agree ment, and the Rio+20process has become known to the general publicmainly by the decision to postpone the confe-rence itself for frivolous reason.

But there is more to Rio+20 than just a few daysof intergovernmental get-together. The confe-rence will be the climax of and a catalyst forprocesses it is embedded in. These processesinvolve countless actors including businessassociations, youth movements, major grouprepresentatives, regional organisations, allian-ces of cities, various UN entities, labour unions,

Governance Research for Rio+20Ruben Zondervan*

Global environmental governance has been on the agenda of the United Nations since

the UN Conference on the Human Environment of 1972. Despite more than 900 multi-

lateral environmental treaties in force and numerous other UN conferences dedicated to

development and the environment, governance for sustainability is insufficient. The

upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) provides

an opportunity to come to governance for sustainability in the 21st century. While it

seems unlikely that governments in Rio+20 will use this opportunity, findings from

social science research to do so are available.

social and environmental non-governmentalorganisations and many other stakeholders. Thetwo themes of the Rio+20 Conference – greeneconomy in the context of sustainable develop-ment and poverty eradication, and the institutio-nal framework for sustainable development –have received ample attention by these actorsover the past year already – and will increasin-gly do so as the conference draws closer.

Global change research for Rio+20

The global scientific community has also joinedthis process towards Rio+20. For example, thefour global environmental change research pro-grammes under the International Council forScience (ICSU) – the International Human Di -mensions Programme on Global EnvironmentalChange (IHDP), the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme (IGBP), the World Cli -mate Research Programme (WCRP) and Di ver -sitas, an international programme of biodiversi-ty science – as organizers of their joint Planetunder Pressure Conference (26-29 March 2012,

London), have commissioned nine policyassessments on water security, food security,biodiversity and ecosystems, governance andinstitutions, interconnected risks and challen-ges, energy security, health, well-being, andgreen economy.1

These policy assessments aim at making concre-te science-based policy recommendations forRio+20. The assessment on governance andinstitutions focusing on the institutional frame-work for sustainable development has been com-piled, based state-of-art in social sciences by theEarth System Governance Project. This Project isthe largest research network in the area of gover-nance and global environmental change.2 Itsinternational research programme takes up thechallenge of exploring political solutions andnovel, more effective governance systems tocope with global environmental change. TheEarth System Governance Project is a ten-yearinternational and interdisciplinary project of theInternational Human Dimensions Programme onGlobal Environmental Change (IHDP) and ope-

UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Sustainable Development

VNFORUM 2012/1 3

rates under the auspices of the InternationalSocial Science Council (ISSC), the InternationalCouncil for Science (ICSU), and the UnitedNations University (UNU). It started at the VUUniversity of Amsterdam, and the AmsterdamGlobal Change Institute is one of its centralresearch hubs in the global network that in TheNetherlands also includes researchers fromWageningen University, UNES CO-IHE Delft,Utrecht University, Erasmus University, Uni ver -sity of Amsterdam, and PBL NetherlandsEnvironmental Assess ment Agency.

The Earth System Governance Project startedthe assessment of the state-of-art of the socialsciences on the institutional framework for sus-tainable development in April 2011. A group of31 leading senior social scientists in the field ofglobal environmental governance joined thischallenge. Grouped in teams, they elaborated onspecific aspects of the assessment, based ontheir expert knowledge. The diverse group ofcontributors reviewed existing literature anddrafted text elements as a basis for a consolida-ted first draft of a policy brief. The text has sub-sequently been revised several times to improvethe outcome and to ensure accessible language,closely related to urgent political processes andquestions. Consultations with diplomats andpolicy makers with key roles in the Rio+20Conference confirmed the high demand for apolicy assessment on the institutional frame-work for sustainable development and helped tosynchronize the content of the assessment withthe specific questions of policy makers to socialsciences. What followed was a very interactiveprocess which triggered interesting debatesamong the authors and the larger research com-munity.

Policy Recommendations forRio+20

This process resulted in a short, to-the-pointPolicy Brief, titled ‘Transforming Governanceand Institutions for a Planet under Pressure:Revitalizing the Institutional Framework for

Global Sustainability’, with key policy-relevantmessages. The core findings of the assessmentcan be summarized in ten policy recommenda-tions:

1. Strengthen international environmental trea - ties: Governments must engage in structu-ral reforms in how international environ-mental negotiations are conducted and trea -ties designed. Present and future treatiesmust rely more on systems of qualifiedmajority voting in specified areas.

2. Manage conflicts among multilateral agree-ments: International economic institutionsmust advance transitions to a sustainableeconomy, including by multilaterally har-monized systems that allow for discrimina-ting between products on the basis of pro-duction processes, based on multilateralagreement. Global trade and investmentregimes must be embedded in a normativecontext of social, developmental, and envi-ronmental values.

3. Fill regulatory gaps in international sustai-nability governance: New or strengthenedinternational regulatory frameworks areneeded in several areas, including on emer-ging technologies, water, food, and energy.

4. Upgrade UNEP: Governments need to en -gage in negotiations for the up-grading ofUNEP to a specialized UN agency, alongthe lines of the World Health Organizationor the International Labour Organization.

5. Better integrate sustainable developmentpolicies within the UN system: Govern -ments need to support overall integrativemechanisms within the UN system that bet-ter align the social, economic and environ-mental pillars of sustainable development.

6. Strengthen national governance: New poli-cy instruments are a promising comple-ment to regulation if carefully designed.But they are not panaceas.

7. Streamline and strengthen public-privategovernance networks and partnerships:The CSD and other bodies need a strongermandate and better methodologies for the

4 VNFORUM 2012/1

verification and monitoring of partnerships.Despite the growing role of non-state ac -tors, there is still a strong need for effectiveand decisive governmental action.

8. Strengthen accountability and legitimacy:Novel accountability mechanisms are need-ed, including mandatory disclosure of ac -ces sible, comprehensible and comparabledata about government and corporate sus-tainability performance. Stronger consulta-tive rights for civil society representativesin intergovernmental institutions should beintroduced.

9. Address equity concerns within and amongcountries: Equity concerns must be at theheart of the institutional framework for sus-tainable development. High consumptionlevels in industrialized countries and insome parts of the emerging economiesrequire special and urgent action. Financialtransfers from richer to poorer countries areinevitable, either through direct supportpayments for mitigation and adaptationprogrammes or through international mar-ket mechanisms, for example global emis-sions markets.

10. Prepare global governance for a warmerworld: Global adaptation programmes needto become a core concern of the UN systemand governments.

Beyond incremental reform

The issues and political dynamics in the 21stcentury are different from those in 1945 whenthe United Nations and their institutions werefounded. Today’s problems are characterized bytemporal, spatial, and sectoral interdependen-cies, complexity, as well as uncertainty. Whileincremental changes have enabled certain pro-gress towards sustainability, the current systemgoverning sustainable development is no longersufficient given the number, impact, interdepen-dence and complexity of problems associatedwith global change. Governance for sustainabi-lity requires transformative reforms with clearvision.

The policy recommendations in the policy briefare based on the tremendous progress in under-standing the variables that influence the creati-on and effectiveness of and compliance withinternational environmental governance madeby social sciences. These findings indicate thatit could be possible to come to better environ-mental regimes sooner. However, such improve-ments although absolutely necessary, wouldmainly be incremental – just like most changesin governance for sustainability since the 1972Stockholm Conference. More transformativechange is required. With this constraint in mind,the Earth System Governance Project, in colla-boration with the International EnvironmentalGovernance Architecture Research Group, theInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES) and the United Nations UniversityInstitute for Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) or -ganised the Hakone Vision Factory in Sep tem -ber 2011. Using a World Café dialogue format,this workshop addressed the key issues requiredfor such a fundamental transformation of inter-national environmental governance in the 21stcentury. The objective of the participants, thatincluded leading scholars in the field as well aspolicy makers and official negotiators forRio+20, was to articulate a blue print for a localto global governance system to achieve sustai-nable development. The resulting document, the‘Hakone Vision for Governance of Sustain -ability in the 21st Century’ goes beyond incre-mental reform options. It provides a scientificvision for an institutional framework for sustai-nable development and earth system governan-ce. The Hakone Vision calls for a charter mo -ment – the beginning of a reform process lea-ding to transformative change of sustainabilitygovernance.

Since rigorous research on a Council for Sus -tainable Development and on the concept ofSustainable Development Goals is still lackingthese ideas, that are proposed by many actors inthe preparatory process for Rio+20 and are inthe official negotiation text, could not be inclu-ded in the recommendations of the policy brief

VNFORUM 2012/1 5

because that one is entirely based on findings ofexisting research. However, drawing on the col-lective knowledge at the Hakone Vision Factory,it seems that proposals for a Sustainable Devel -opment Council and for Sustainable Devel op -ment Goals deserve more serious considerationin politics and in research.

Initiative on InternationalEnvironmental Governance andthe Institutional Framework forSustainable Development

The Policy Brief and the Hakone Vision havebeen submitted to the secretariat of the Rio+20Conference for inclusion in the compilation textthat has been presented to the UN member sta-tes and other stakeholders for their commentsand further guidance at the second Inter ses sio -nal Meeting in December 2011. This compila-tion document subsequently served as basis forthe preparation of a zero-draft of the Rio+20outcome document that has been released in

January 2012 and constitutes the basis for theofficial intergovernmental negotiations in pre-paration of the high level conference in June2012.

Many other interesting ideas have been submit-ted to the conference secretariat by other actorsas well, including ideas like an ombudspersonfor future generations, regional conventions ontransparency, and global panels and assess-ments on sustainability. Many of these propos-als are lacking rigorous scientific assessment;hence they pose interesting new challenges forresearch. The Earth System Governance Projectwill therefore continue its efforts to providescientific input in the Rio+20 preparatory pro-cess with an initiative that already provided theorganisational and communication frameworkfor the policy assessment and the HakoneVision.

The aim of this initiative on International En -vironmental Governance in general and the

World Café harvest at HakonePhoto: Karina Mullen / © Natural Vision Facilitation

6 VNFORUM 2012/1

Institutional Framework for Sustainable Devel -opment towards Rio+20 (www.ieg.earthsystemgovernance.org) is to provide researchers onearth system governance, and the broader globalchange research community, with a comprehen-sive overview on the state of research onInternational Environmental Governance. Theinitiative will also foster new lines of relevantresearch. For example, Prof. Frank Biermann ofthe VU University of Amsterdam, who chairsthe Scientific Steering Committee of the EarthSystem Governance Project, has recently deve-loped a concept for four reform options3 for theUN system that would advance global decision-making by addressing major shortcomings inthe current system, i.e. lack of integration ofeconomic and environmental policies in the UNsystem; institutional fragmentation and weak -ness of the environmental pillar of sustainabledevelopment; lack of high-level regulatorycompetence and oversight regarding areas bey-ond national jurisdiction; and insufficient inte-gration of scientific insights into political deci-sion-making. The reforms proposed in this con-cept would together create an Earth Alliance inthe UN system, consisting of a high-level UNSustainable Development Council, a World En -vironment Organization, a UN TrusteeshipCouncil for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction,and an UN Global Environmental AssessmentCommission.

Obviously, the initiative on International En -vironmental Governance and the InstitutionalFramework for Sustainable Development is alsodesigned to in the end provide decision makerswith a better understanding but also guidancefor improvements in international environmen-tal governance towards an institutional frame-work that enables sustainable development. Tothis end, the Project will synthesize contributi-ons from the research community in a variety ofways, including briefs, presentations, and directadvice to decision makers in the process leadingto the Rio+20 Conference. One example is thediscussion event organised by the National Plat -form Rio+20 (NPRio+20) and the Netherlands

Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) atthe Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs inDecember 2011.

In addition, the initiative will support the nume-rous leading earth system governance resear-chers who are currently serving as appointedmembers on the UNEP Major Group andStakeholders Advisory Group on InternationalEnvironmental Governance, UNEP’s fifth Glo -bal Environmental Outlook, as advisors to localand national governments or are part of the offi-cial delegations to Rio+20, and as experts on theHigh-Level Expert Panel in the United NationsEnvironment Programme new Foresight Pro -cess initiative. This is an important part ofstrengthening the science-policy interface.

The UNEP report on this UN ForesightInitiative that identified the 21 most urgent envi-ronmental issues to be addressed by the UN sys-tem considered governance to be the mosturgent item for the years to come, and ranked‘reconnecting science and policy’ as third mostimportant out of 21 identified emerging issues.The report calls for a new look at the way sci-ence is organised and how the science-policyinterface can be improved. This is what the ini-tiative aims to contribute to.

A need for Earth SystemGovernance

In the light of the unprecedented speed andmagnitude of global environmental change, asindicated by numerous science assessments,there is a clear urgency to come to a global,effective architecture for governance of sustai-nability that can adapt to changing circumstan-ces, that involves civil society, that is accounta-ble and legitimate beyond the nation state andthat is fair for everyone. Or in short: to come toearth system governance.

The need for earth system governance has alrea-dy been stressed early on in the preparatory process leading to Rio+20. In May 2011, the

VNFORUM 2012/1 7

8 VNFORUM 2012/1

3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sus -tain ability, organised in Stockholm with the par-ticipation and support of HM King Carl XVIGustaf of Sweden, concluded with a memoran-dum signed by 20 key Nobel Laureates thatcalls for ‘strengthening of earth system gover-nance’ as ‘priority for coherent global action’.This memorandum was handed over to the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability appointedby the UN Secretary General and has stronglyinfluenced their report ‘Resilient People, Re si -lient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing’.

As said, there is more to Rio+20 than just a fewdays of intergovernmental get-together. While itremains to be seen whether governments atRio+20 can live up to the expectations, the vari-ous processes, not least those on the interface of

governance research and policy, have createdknowledge, recommendations, visions, andmomentum to make 2012 a year of worthy choi-ces – at Rio+20 and beyond. But a dauntingchallenge for research and policy remains.

* Ruben Zondervan is executive director of the EarthSystem Governance Project.

Noten

1 The policy briefs for a planet under pressure are availableat www.planetunderpressure2012.net/policybriefs.asp

2 www.earthsystemgovernance.org3 Biermann, Frank. 2012. Greening the United Nations

Charter. World Politics in the Anthropocene. EarthSystem Governance Working Paper, No.21. (www.earthsystemgovernance.org/publication/biermann-frank-greening-united-nations-charter)

Hoge Raad: VN niet vervolgdvoor Srebrenica

Op vrijdag 13 april 2012 bepaalde de Hoge Raad

dat de Stichting Moeders van Srebrenica de VN

niet voor de rechter kan dagen. De Hoge Raad

vindt dat de VN ‘de meest verregaande vorm van

immuniteit’ geniet en om die reden niet vervolgd

kan worden. De Moeders van Srebrenica vinden

dat de VN en Nederland hun verplichtingen niet

zijn nagekomen om de val van de moslimenclave

te voorkomen. In de zomer van 1995 viel Sre bre -

nica in handen van het Bosnisch-Servische leger,

waarna tussen de 7.000 en 8.000 moslimmannen

en -jongens om het leven werden gebracht, onder

wie veel familieleden van de moeders. Het doel

van de stichting was een uitspraak van de rechter

dat de VN en Nederland onrechtmatig hebben

gehandeld, alsmede schadevergoeding. Met dit

arrest kunne de VN nooit aan rechterlijke controle

worden onderworpen, aldus De Moeders; ‘daar-

mee wordt de VN absolute macht toebedeeld’.

Als dit het oordeel blijft, worden volgens De Moe -

ders de mensenrechten ondergeschikt ge maakt

aan die macht. ‘Dat is politiek, menselijk en juri-

disch onaanvaardbaar’, zo stelden ze in een reactie.

De Moeders van Srebrenica stappen nu naar het

Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens in

Straatsburg om de zaak aldaar voor te leggen.

Bron: De Telegraaf, 13 april 2012

VN betalen voor verdedigingMladic

Tien maanden na de arrestatie van Ratko Mladic

is nog steeds onduidelijk of de voormalige Bos -

nisch-Servische legerleider genoeg geld heeft om

zijn verdediging zelf te bekostigen. De Verenigde

Naties gaan daarom de komende maanden door

met het betalen van de advocaten van Mladic, ter-

wijl de griffie van het Joegoslavië-Tribunaal de

moeizame zoektocht naar ‘verborgen vermogen’

voortzet. De chef van de griffie van het tribunaal

besloot hiertoe op vrijdag 16 maart 2012.

Bron: Trouw, 16 maart 2012

enten • Signalementen • Signalementen • Signa