Literature Review

Your Excellency Leila Benali, President of UNEA-6 and Minister of Energy Transition and Sustainable Development of Morocco, CBD COP15 President, Your Excellency Mr Huang Runqiu, Minister of Environment, China, Cheikh Ndiaye Sylla, COP 12 President of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Ibrahim Thiaw, Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Dr. Rolph Payet, Executive Secretary, Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, Dr. David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Dr. Susan Gardner, Director, Ecosystems Division, UNEP on behalf of the Regional Seas Conventions. Colleagues and friends. Welcome to the first Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEA) Day to take place during a United Nations Environment Assembly. It is fitting that we have gathered here in Nairobi during the sixth assembly, or UNEA-6. In a fragmented and divided world, UNEA is where environmental diplomacy brings unity. The Assembly is where we deliver inclusive multilateral solutions across the full triple planetary crisis: the crisis of climate change, the crisis of biodiversity loss and land loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste. Most existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements have their genesis somehow in UNEP or UNEA’s predecessor, the Governing Council. UNEA and the resolutions and decisions it passes this week will help add impetus to the work of every global and regional deal on the environment. UNEA is here to lift you up. The unity of environmental diplomacy in Nairobi goes beyond UNEA itself. This compound last year hosted important multilateral gatherings on climate science, on biodiversity, on plastics, and on ozone and climate-warming refrigerants. The growing movement to make important decisions in Nairobi also flows very much in line with the Rio+20 outcome, the Future We Want. This outcome committed to strengthening the role of UNEP as, and here I quote, “the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system and serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment”. These are powerful words that were given by Member States to UNEP and us. As such, UNEA and UNEP offer up the platform for coherence that was sought at Rio+20. So, it is indeed inspiring to look around this room and see so many Multilateral Environmental Agreements here seeking greater coherence. Friends, I would like to say this is a family reunion, but the truth is that, over 50 years of environmental multilateralism, we have been fragmented. Scattered across the world. We have never been together. While we are obviously deeply grateful to the gracious hosts of members of the UNEP and environmental MEA family, distance in time and space does make achieving policy coherence more difficult. Then again, they also say that absence makes the heart grow fonder. It is therefore with great fondness that today we welcome all members of the environmental MEA family. Because we are still a family, regardless of where we are based. A family that, when standing together, weaves the tapestry for a future that works for everyone, everywhere, on a healthy planet. This family has grown since 1972. A year in which the World Heritage Convention was born. And the year in which UNEP was created. Shortly after, we saw the creation of the Convention on Migratory Species and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna. In quick succession thereafter followed the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and the Basel Convention – soon to be joined by the three Rio Conventions on climate, desertification and biodiversity. The arrival of the Rotterdam, Stockholm and Minamata Conventions significantly strengthened the chemicals and waste dimension. In tandem with these developments, we saw a large number of regional conventions being framed, the Regional Seas Conventions amongst them. UNEP is privileged to host and administer the secretariats of over two dozen agreements, regional conventions and scientific panels. And more multilateral agreements, frameworks and initiatives keep coming online, whether hosted by UNEP or not. Last year, for example, saw the Global Framework on Chemicals and a deal on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. And, of course, negotiations on the plastics instrument are moving closer to the finishing line. We are a big family. We are a growing family. This is, of course, a good thing. Each agreement has delivered successes. We have protected the ozone layer. Slowed the rate of climate change. Protected many species and huge areas of land and sea. Raised the profile of desertification and land degradation action. Eliminated toxic substances dangerous to human and planetary health. I thank you all for your efforts and commitment. But, Dear siblings and cousins, we know that the triple planetary crisis is still accelerating. We must do more. And we can only do more if we act as one. Because action on climate is action on biodiversity and land; because action on land is action on climate; because action on chemicals, pollution and waste is action on nature and on climate. These conventions are, without a doubt, indivisible. As indivisible as the earth’s systems are indivisible. Look, you have, I am sure, heard me compare Multilateral Environmental Agreements to threads in a tapestry, woven together to create the big picture of a stable climate, of healthy nature, of thriving lands and of a pollution-free planet. This is true. Each thread is, in and of itself, strong. But it is my view that the threads are not bound together as tightly they should be. In some places, they fret a little against each other. In others they are knotted. The result is that the big picture of our common tapestry does not stand out as sharply as it could. I invited you to this UNEA so that we may bind ourselves closer together, bring the big picture into a focus and make it a reality. And this is a standing invitation for future UNEAs. As I said earlier, time apart ignites passion anew. Because indeed, as Shakespeare writes so beautifully in Sonnet 98, “From you I have been absent in the spring”. We have been absent. Now we are together, in the Nairobi summer. Let us not just be together here, but present here. Passionate for something new and better. Let us exchange ideas and find ways to be more than the sum of our parts – as all great and close families do. So, be inspired by the nature that surrounds you here at the UNEP Headquarters. Be blessed by the rains you saw yesterday. Let the Nairobi spirit that has filled these rolling hills so many times over the past five decades swell inside you. See each other as allies and confidantes. Lift each other up. And become one family, so that we may all live together on a healthy and thriving planet that serves everyone’s needs.

The harm caused by marine plastic pollution to the wider environment highlights its importance as a governance issue. The Fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted a resolution, “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument”, which represents a shift towards globalism in the governance of marine plastic pollution. This resolution focuses on the circular economy of plastics and highlights the role of corporations in contributing to a more socially responsible society, thereby increasing emphasis has been placed on the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system that integrates the two factors referred to above. This paper provides a full technical explanation of the EPR system and its implementation in entities such as the European Union, the United States, and China. The challenges faced when integrating the EPR system into international legal instruments for plastic governance were identified, including the different national perspectives, the absence of a supervisor in the public domain, the obscurity of its application, and the lack of supporting measures for the implementation of the system. Therefore, new standards and requirements in the governance of marine plastic pollution and the advantages associated with implementing the full-life-cycle obligations under the EPR system on plastic producers should be fully considered. On this basis, the positioning and implications of the EPR system should be clarified by obligation-oriented regulation and extension-based interpretation. Moreover, the extended and prolonged applicability of the system, including the original sources of marine plastic wastes and considerations of the full-life-cycle of plastics, should be achieved in pursuit of improvements and upgrades in application and complementary policies. If this can be achieved, it is hoped that the goals of protecting human health and controlling plastic pollution can be achieved, contributing to the development of an ocean-based economy and a better world.

Check against delivery Your Excellency Leila Benali, President of UNEA-6 and Minister of Energy Transition and Sustainable Development of Morocco, Ambassador of Colombia, Mr. Pedro Leon Cortes Ruiz, Deputy Permanent Representative of Portugal, Mr. Miguel Antonio Luis, Colleagues and friends. Thank you for the invitation to speak at the Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum. We at UNEP hold this well-established platform in high esteem and consider it an integral part of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). My thanks to the Major Groups Facilitating Committee and to all who worked hard to prepare inputs to the draft resolutions and decisions, which will be going in front of the sixth assembly when it begins tomorrow. I am pleased that you have organized your meeting into groupings that align with the UNEA-6 resolution clusters – which will allow you to deliver focused and relevant recommendations. Today, I am not going to talk about specific resolutions. After all, I am not here to guide you. You are here to guide us. And your guidance is incredibly important. The triple planetary crisis – the crisis of climate change, the crisis of nature and biodiversity loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste – affects every single person and group on this planet. And every single person and group on this planet has the power to affect the triple planetary crisis, positively or negatively. So, we need to hear from non-governmental organizations. From indigenous peoples. From children and youth. From women. From local authorities, scientists, business, farmers and trade unions. You all have your own lived experiences, expertise and knowledge. When Member States take your diverse ideas onboard, the policies they set and actions they take will take account for your realities. They will be more effective. But this is not a one-way street. UNEP and Members States also rely on you to take the international environmental agenda to grassroots level. When we listen to each other, when we respect each other and when each of us adjusts our actions accordingly, this is real inclusive multilateralism. So, I am pleased that the number of Major Groups and Stakeholders organizations accredited to UNEP has swelled from a few hundred to well over one thousand. Your voices are louder now than ever before. I encourage organizations here today but not yet accredited to seize the opportunity to add to this chorus by getting accredited. That way, you will have access to meaningful participation, inclusiveness and transparency in intergovernmental decision-making processes supported by UNEP. I am also pleased that this forum will shortly host an informal dialogue between Major Groups and Stakeholders and Member States to decide on new ways to cooperate after UNEA-6. I look forward to engaging in this discussion. Such initiatives, like UNEA-6 itself, are clear signs that environmental space is where we can all transcend geopolitical strife. Where we can find common ground between competing interests. Where we can be a single community that delivers climate action, nature action and pollution action – all in the interests of a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable future. UNEA-6 is an opportunity for the UN, Member States, multi-stakeholder organizations and partners to coordinate their efforts. I encourage you, the Major Groups and Stakeholders, to advocate for ambitious outcomes. To advocate for effective implementation of resolutions. And, of course, to play your part in implementing action on the ground.

This report provides potential criteria to address problematic, unnecessary and avoidable plastic products at the global level, supporting the objectives of the upcoming international plastics instrument as per UNEA Resolution 5/14. The report notes that over 140 countries have enacted bans or restrictions on specific plastic products, highlighting the need for global criteria to manage not just single-use plastics, but also a wider range of plastic products. It presents possible criteria for determining plastic products into three distinct classifications - problematic, unnecessary, and avoidable – each subject to specific control measures. The report's ultimate aim is to phase out these plastic products through removal, substitution and redesign. A strong science-policy interface is needed to ensure informed listing of these plastic products under the instrument.

Solar ultraviolet radiation is a contributing factor in the environmental fate of toxic chemicals and other contaminants, with consequences that may be either beneficial or detrimental for the health of humans and the environment. This Assessment Update (2023) by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) focusses on the role and significance of UV radiation and associated drivers on the breakdown of plastic waste in the environment. Plastic is a ubiquitous pollutant. UV radiation and mechanical stress drive the degradation and fragmentation of larger plastic waste into smaller micro- and nanoplastics. The Assessment Update considers the interactive effects of UV radiation and climate change on plastic durability, weathering, longevity, and ultimately the fate of plastic debris.

The dialogue was the first in a series of regional or subregional dialogues on NBSAPs organized by the Secretariat in collaboration with relevant partners further to decision 15/6 and related decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its fifteenth meeting, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Prot. [...] She recalled the support of the Centre for the implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and said that it would continue to support ASEAN member States in the revision or updating of their NBSAPs and the implementation of the Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals, including by addressing such challenges as capacity development and financing, the integration of the Protocols and th. [...] The representative of the Secretariat made a presentation on decisions of relevance to the dialogue that the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol had adopted at their latest meetings. [...] The presentations and discussions were centred around the following five topics: (a) The whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; (b) National target revision or setting; (c) The integration of the provisions of the Protocols into NBSAPs; (d) The development of a national monitoring plan; (e) Challenges and opportunities for the overall revision or updating of NBSAPs. [...] The representative of the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, also speaking on behalf of the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific of the United Nations Environment Programme, shared information on two initiatives supporting the national monitoring of the implementation of NBSAPs and the Framework, namely, the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership and the Gl.

This paper conducts a comparative study of the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in environmental governance. It seeks to understand how international organizations influence the behavior of sovereign states and assesses the efficacy of different pathways to control. Ecological issues have garnered significant attention in a globalized world with complex challenges that require international cooperation. The World Bank, as a prominent financier, provides loans and technical support to developing countries for environmental projects. Conversely, as a specialized UN agency, UNEP influences environmental governance through policy advocacy, international cooperation, technical support, and ecological data provision. Comparatively, the World Bank emphasizes project implementation and financial aid, while UNEP focuses on policy guidance, international collaboration, and data-driven decision-making. Both organizations play crucial roles in advancing environmental sustainability and international cooperation. This research highlights the complementary nature of international organizations and their ability to provide comprehensive support to nations. It recognizes their positive contributions and acknowledges challenges like improving cooperation among international organizations and addressing emerging environmental issues. Understanding how these organizations shape state behavior is vital for effective global environmental governance, promoting sustainable development, and environmental protection.

Since the 1980s, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been addressing the links between the environment and security, progressively questioning the security implications of climate change. Relying on its scientific expertise and partnerships with other international organizations (IOs) and think tanks, UNEP plays a critical role in raising awareness on climate security and in formulating potential institutional responses. Drawing on the sociology of IOs, this chapter retraces UNEP’s action in the field of climate security, especially looking at its boundary work between climate experts and policy-makers. Relying on data generated through online observation and qualitative analysis of UNEP’s publications, it sheds light on the functional and practical rationality which supports UNEP’s mandate expansion and institutional positioning in this emerging field. Based on this case, the chapter contributes to a better understanding of the role of environmental IOs in framing and responding to the security implications of climate change.

The impending biodiversity crises demands urgent, effective action. The transboundary nature of many marine species at risk makes international law a necessary tool in this endeavour. The United Nations Environment Programme and its Regional Seas Programme consists of 18 individual progammes spanning the globe and bringing together 143 countries in regional collaborations. This research project evaluates potential effectiveness of four programmes within the Regional Seas Programme relative to each other on twelve elements looking at legal and institutional structure, as well as regional implementation. The four case studies cover the North-East Atlantic, Mediterranean, East Africa, and Caribbean regions. These programmes were selected because they are geographically diverse, and they include binding legal obligations to protect marine biodiversity. In order to provide context, the discussion starts with a brief overview of the threats facing marine species, as well as scientific tools used to evaluate extinction risk. It then traces the historical development of international law related to species at risk. This overview shows that international law has a relatively long history of protecting some species, especially marine mammals. In order to position conservation of marine species within international law, a review of fisheries-related instruments, conservation and international trade in wildlife conventions, habitat protection conventions, and instruments addressing sustainable development follows. Research on the effectiveness of international environmental agreements indicates that these instruments positively contribute to the achievement of their objectives, although there is room for improvement. This overview demonstrates that marine species at risk are subject to a complex mosaic of legal frameworks outlining state obligations and commitments. The analysis of the four case studies completes this research project. The results show that all four of the reviewed programmes have the legal and institutional structures needed to protect and recover marine species at risk. However, regional implementation is lagging in particular in areas such as recovery planning and compliance review. Proposed future directions include improved transparency and accountability, integration of social, economic, and environmental concerns, and establishment of regional ocean governance networks.

The understanding of environmental education initially focused on outdoor learning experiences. However, it has evolved into a nature-centered approach that addresses broader environmental issues through comprehensive curriculum development. Initially, it pivoted around extracurricular learning environments, emphasizing teacher roles and enhancing students' knowledge through outdoor activities. As environmental concerns intensified, this education began to also emphasize nature conservation. This study examines the roles and contributions of United Nations units (UNESCO, UNEP, and UNDP) in advancing environmental education and investigates the influence of global NGOs in this domain. The primary objective is understanding the importance of the "Education for Sustainable Development" framework within environmental education and discerning the impact of NGOs on its trends. Results are expected to underline the significance of a nature-centric educational approach and the increasing role of international organizations in molding its future trajectory.

Let’s start by talking about where we are with climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions and the global average temperature are hitting new highs. Extreme weather events are occurring more often, developing faster and becoming more intense. We all know who suffers the most, and it isn’t those who caused the problem in the first place.

This paper discusses the contribution of domestic courts in jurisdictions formerly submitted to colonial domination to the renewal of jurisprudence and legal theory and the bottom-up decolonisation of public international law. In so doing, its main argument engages with the diffusion of legal norms and legal transplants through judicial dialogues within the broader debates about the tensions between constitutionalism and pluralism within the global realm.