|
Panel 5: Strengthening the Implementation
of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Moderator: Donald Kaniaru, Kenya
Donald Kaniaru opened the panel by noting how critical MEA
implementation is, given how many environmental agreements have
been adopted in the last 30 years. UNEP's recently developed guidelines
on MEA implementation are an important tool in this process. The
key is to convince legislatures, NGOs, and funding agencies of the
importance of MEA implementation. Following Johannesburg, it is
time to shift our focus away from creating new legislation and instead
toward how best to implement what has already been adopted.
Rosalind Reeve observed that biodiversity conservation efforts
under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol
have shifted from a focus on policy development to a focus on implementation,
so as to place an emphasis on achieving significant reduction of
biodiversity loss. She explained the implementation tools, reporting
requirements, and compliance mechanisms under the CBD and the Protocol.
She then compared the strengths and weaknesses of CITES and of the
CBD.
Elizabeth Mrema
explained the structure and purpose of the Lusaka Agreement: to
eliminate illegal trade in wild fauna and flora, and to set up a
permanent Task Force for that purpose. She noted that one focus
of the Task Force is to create a network with other CITES-related
officials worldwide, but also that on-the-ground work is a critical
aspect of the program, since Task Force agents are authorized in
Lukasa to go into the field to conduct operations and make arrests.
She emphasized that a key issue is to strengthen the link between
the Task Force and prosecutors to increase the likelihood of successful
convictions. She also stressed that the Task Force must look beyond
convictions and instead go to the root causes of poaching, to try
to prevent harm to wildlife from occurring in the first place.
Gilbert
Bankobeza noted that better information about successful
implementation techniques, including how data is generated and collected
under other MEAs, would help facilitate implementation under new
MEAs, and that this information-gathering process would be easier
if there were better cooperation among convention secretariats.
He recommended that countries compare how implementation occurs
across the various MEAs that they have signed and then foster inter-ministerial
cooperation at the national level to assure successful implementation.
He also articulated the lessons that other MEAs can learn from the
implementation of the Montreal Protocol, including the Protocol's
compliance incentives (e.g., financial mechanisms for capacity building
and technology transfer) that were critical for achieving such broad
participation. He noted that the Kyoto Protocol utilizes some of
the same implementation tools.
Sibusiso Gamede
stressed that synergies among the three conventions related to hazardous
chemicals -Basel, PIC, and POPs - are possible at the international,
national, regional, and local levels. He explained the administrative,
financial, communication, management, and programmatic benefits
of coordination among the three conventions and the various levels
of government, while acknowledging the obstacles that exist to greater
cooperation and synergies (e.g., lack of awareness, funding, and
skills). He suggested that synergies can be created at the international
level, and that INECE can make significant contributions to this
effort, through (1) the development of international capacity in
facilitating synergies, (2) improved guidance and training material,
and (3) improved regional mechanisms for joint implementation.
Iwona Rummel-Bulska
emphasized that the most critical problem in developing compliance
and enforcement programs for MEAs is the lack of financial resources.
She stressed that countries need financial assistance and access
to low-cost technologies that can be quickly and easily adopted
by businesses in developing countries. She noted that a significant
reason for the Montreal Protocol's effectiveness is its access to
the GEF. Also, the Montreal Protocol focused on a developed country
issue, allowing for easier funding and implementation than would
be the case with an issue like climate change that has a more direct
impact on developing countries. She observed that environmental
MEAs, unlike treaty regimes addressing nuclear facilities or weapons,
lack on-site monitoring or verification. She suggested that collaboration
with other organizations (like customs agencies) and exploration
of corporate liability and compensation may be helpful in advancing
implementation of MEAs.
Following discussion and questions from the audience, Donald
Kaniaru closed the session by noting that there is still much
to be done to improve coordination and synergies among the MEAs,
that more MEAs need access to the GEF to be effective, and that
lessons learned from implementing earlier conventions need to be
taken into account in designing implementation programs for newer
conventions.
Presentations:
|
