DO WE NEED A WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION?
Panel Session, Friday, April 23, 1999, 11-12:30 p.m., Austin East, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School
Participants of the Panel
Chair: Eugene Skolnikoff, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Panelists:
Ronald Mitchell, Professor, University of Oregon
Oran Young, Professor, Dartmouth University
Kilaparti Ramakrishna, The Woods Hole Research Center
Sherri W. Goodman, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security)
Proceedings
Professor Eugene Skolnikoff opened the proceedings by identifying four areas that the panel would address. (i) Should there be a WEO? (ii) Is UNEP enough and, if not, why doesn't UNEP fulfill its objectives? (iii) Despite arguments in favor of a world environmental organization, would it work? Is it feasible to create such a body today? (iv) Are there steps other than those available under the existing system that might be, or ought to be, taken? Aside from creating a new WEO, what alternative steps are possible under the existing system?
I. Individual Presentations At this point, the panelists made individual presentations.
A. Professor Young First, Professor Oran Young addressed generally the possible functions of a world environmental organization. He said that the simple way to look at the question of whether a world environmental organization is needed is to start from the premise that form should follow function. He then asked, what are the functions that need to be performed? Do we need a WEO to handle these functions?
Professor Young then outlined five possible functions of a world environmental organization.
1. Administration First, a world environmental organization might be needed to administer a comprehensive regime for the environment. Professor Young alluded in this regard to GATT (which offers a comprehensive regime for trade), UNCTAD, and other international treaties that contemplate comprehensive regimes that need an institution to act as administrator. He noted that there are environmental issues that can be dealt with effectively only at the international level – i.e., e.g., transboundary air pollution, hazardous waste, climate change. A world environmental organization could administrate a comprehensive regime to deal with all of these problems. He doubted, however, that such a comprehensive regime would be created any time soon.
2. Overarching Service Provider Second, a world environmental organization might provide common services for a cluster of environmental regimes. Professor Young noted that international environmental regimes require secretariat services, scientific advice, funding, dispute settlement procedures, and implementation review. He suggested that there might be a need for a super-organization because the current structures may not be adequate.
Professor Young added, however, that he was skeptical about this potential justification for a world environmental organization. He noted that there is already in existence considerable organizational capital existing today, and questioned whether the world is ready for an overarching environmental organization to service existing regimes. He suggested that, in order to justify a new world environmental organization, it must be established that the existing organizations are failing, inadequate, or incomplete in some significant way.
3. Regime Reformation Third, a world environmental organization might provide a mechanism for formation or reformation of international environmental legal regimes. He anticipated that reformation would deal with process issues, such as the creation of international environmental law. He commented, however, that there is a general sense that existing organizations like UNEP are fairly well structured to deal with these types of functions. In short, he concluded, there is no clear organizational deficit here that would justify the creation of a world environmental organization.
4. Handling Institutional Interplay Fourth, a world environmental organization might deal with interactions between the environment and other regimes, such as trade arrangements. He offered as an alternative the WTO's Committee on Trade and the Environment ("CTE"). Professor Young commented that he was skeptical that a world environmental organization could function as envisioned since there are so many distinct environmental regimes. Professor Young suggested that, even if a new Committee on Environment and Trade were created to counterbalance the WTO's CTE, it is doubtful it would have a credible or strong voice. He also questioned whether institutional interplay is not already under the mandate of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development ("CSD"), which has both overview and assessment functions though it lacks speed and the capacity to render binding recommendations.
5. Identifying and Addressing Gaps and Overlaps Fifth, a world environmental organization might identify gaps and holes in existing coverage of international environmental problems, as well as tensions between existing organizations that might lead to inefficiencies. He noted again, however, that the CSD already exists under the auspices of the United Nations, and questioned whether we could do better by creating a freestanding world environmental organization.
* * *
Professor Young said the bottom line is that there are a number of important functions in international environmental governance that need to be addressed. He added that there already is a fair amount of organizational capital in existence, including UNEP. UNEP, Professor Young said, is doing about a "B-minus" job at the present time. He added, however, that it is not clear that, if one were to roll all these groups and organizations into a comprehensive organization, the report card grade would improve as a consequence of the comprehensiveness. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to develop an altogether new approach.
B. Professor Mitchell Next, Professor Ronald Mitchell spoke about creative ways to work with the WTO. To begin, Professor Mitchell noted that arguments in favor of a world environmental organization are largely normative – addressing the questions what 'should be' and why. Referring in particular to the work of Professor Daniel Esty, Professor Mitchell commented that such normative arguments are quite common in legal argument but often are not coupled with more analytic approaches to the issues. In this regard, he commended Professor Abram Chayes for adopting both a normative and analytic approach.
Professor Mitchell noted that a world environmental organization is often justified as a response to two alleged problems with the current international environmental structure. First, international environmental policy is currently alleged to involve a piecemeal approach that leads to gaps and overlaps, redundancies and inefficiencies. He acknowledged that a world environmental organization might address this problem insofar as it might induce combinations of functions, generating synergies. Second, international environmental policy is alleged to lack a unified environmental voice, such as that in the trade area. As a result, there is no priority setting as regards international environmental action.
Professor Mitchell noted that the standard argument contends that these problems arise from the lack of one unifying international environmental organization. He said that this argument is persuasive insofar as it identifies problems, but is far less compelling as far as identifying the source of these problems or prescribing a remedy. Professor Mitchell said he agreed with Professor Young that the real source of problems in the current approach to international environmental regulation is not the absence of institutional capacity. Rather, he asserted, the problem is an absence of 'will' to address international environmental concerns and issues, a problem that cannot be solved simply by making institutional changes.
Professor Mitchell first considered the problem of priority-setting and developing a unified voice for the environment. He suggested analyzing the problem by first assuming that the will exists to redress international environmental issues. In that case, Professor Mitchell suggested that solutions could readily be devised by revising the WTO rules and placing responsibility for environmental issues within the WTO itself. Otherwise, he said, environmental issues would be marginalized. He said that rules could be drafted to elucidate when a state can and cannot promulgate laws and rules that regulate the environment. Professor Mitchell said there is some will among the more powerful states, so something like this could potentially be implemented. He identified integration of environmental problems into the economic realm as one possible benefit of such an approach.
Professor Mitchell then suggested adopting an alternative assumption that the will to act in respect of environmental issues is not there – and, he commented, it probably is not, at least at a high enough level. Even in this case, he suggested, the WTO rules might be of use. He noted in particular that Elizabeth DeSombre, a professor of political science at Colby College, had suggested ways to use existing WTO rules in different ways to achieve environmentally-friendly goals. He described a scenario under which, if the United States stopped constructing logging roads as a subsidy to the logging industry, it could rely on Article XVI of the WTO rules to impose tariffs on countries that continue to do so. While noting that the idea has not yet been thought completely through, he commended the general notion of using the existing WTO rules in this way. Generally, he urged thinking in new and creative ways regarding how to use the WTO rules to protect the environment. He also suggested using labeling rules such as ISO-14000 to incorporate and promote environmental concerns without running afoul of rules prohibiting protectionist trade barriers. In short, he concluded, we must think creatively.
Next, Professor Mitchell turned to the other possible function of a world environmental organization – to identify gaps and overlaps, to build credibility and identify ways to fill in gaps. He noted that we certainly know that existing organizations behave like all bureaucracies in that they assert dominance over an area or 'turf' in any way that they can. He suggested that one way to deal with this problem is to identify specific gaps and overlaps, and to find synergies and help other organizations solve the problems without adding to the tiers of hierarchy that we already have.
C. Dr. Ramakrishna Dr. Kilaparti Ramakrishna began by asserting that the conclusion he had reached is that the crucial issue is not for or against the creation of a new world environmental organization. He elucidated that a host of questions can always be put to anyone who supports a specific new world environmental organization. He said that the panelists agreed that, before making a recommendation in favor of, or against, creating a new organization, one first has to ask (i) what the new organization would do, and (ii) whether existing organizations have worked to achieve those goals. He noted that Professor Young had enumerated the various existing organizations.
Dr. Ramakrishna then identified three criteria for evaluating international agreements and organizations: (i) efficiency – that is, economic efficiency; (ii) effectiveness, to reach a particular object set with the willingness of the parties; and (iii) the equitable nature of the organization. Dr. Ramakrishna noted that the third criterion was very important to him, but also that all three criteria had similar degrees of import.
Dr. Ramakrishna then turned to the question of whether the current system is satisfactory. He noted that Kofi Anan, the United Nations Secretary General, had asked UNEP to look at this issue and give recommendations. Those recommendations, he continued, which were presented to the General Assembly last summer, were to give UNEP more power and money. They did not address problems with UNEP or how to reform that organization.
Dr. Ramakrishna continued that some governments also had looked at the question. Germany, he said, had considered the issue and had tried to articulate the view that a world environmental organization might be advisable at the 1997 G-7 Summit. The Denver Communiqué, however, made no mention of a world environmental organization. Germany, Dr. Ramakrishna explained, maintained that that was not a failure because Germany hadn't lobbied the other countries in respect of that issue. He continued that Germany had raised the issue at other meetings, and observed that interest in the idea might be growing and coalescing.
Dr. Ramakrishna observed that, in the United Kingdom, Crispin McHale, chairman of a six-member body on sustainable development (although not in an official of the British government) had recommended the creation of a world environmental organization. Dr. Ramakrishna said that, in reaching this conclusion, that body had thought of two of Dr. Ramakrishna's three criteria for evaluating international organizations.
This year, said Dr. Ramakrishna, the G-8 had moved closer to the issue, although not in any explicit declaration. He also mentioned the Commission on Global Environment's Environmental Council, which had considered the issue.
All this, he then noted, was outside the trade arena, yet, especially since 1995, environmental agreements have had trade implications. Thus, he concluded, the treatment of trade by the WTO is critical. He noted that the WTO's Committee on Trade and Environment consisted of approximately 70 attendees at its first meeting; 150 people were in attendance at last year's meeting, while this year there would be close to 900 people. He also observed that the head of the WTO had called for the creation of a world environmental organization.
UNEP, Dr. Ramakrishna continued, responded to these suggestions that it was a good idea. Their spin, however, was that the world environmental organization already existed – in the form of UNEP, with all the financing and power that it needs.
Returning to the first criterion he had identified, Dr. Ramakrishna observed that the key goals when UNEP was created were (i) dealing with lesser developed countries and (ii) the protection of the global environment. This didn't gel with developing countries, said Dr. Ramakrishna, until earlier this decade when the Bruntland Commission published "Our Common Future", which tried to mix environmental issues with the developing country issue. This resulted in the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development, whence arose the Committee on Sustainable Development and the Interagency Committee on Sustainable Development. However, continued Dr. Ramakrishna, this notion has lost its driving force within UNEP.
Dr. Ramakrishna said that international environmental agreements made in 1992 created Secretariats worldwide, with varying levels of efficiency. Consolidation of these activities is important, he said. Some, he continued, assert that this can be achieved simply by moving UNEP's headquarters from Nairobi to somewhere in Europe. Dr. Ramakrishna said that, were this stated openly, such a notion would fail, since developing countries would object on principle.
Dr. Ramakrishna said the real issue was the increased role of institutions in environmental regulation. He said that, although some had said that all the international environmental treaties address important issues, the treaties should be examined to see whether they meet the three criteria that he (Dr. Ramakrishna) had laid out. None of the treaties, he asserted, takes these three criteria as the key to success.
Dr. Ramakrishna noted that UNEP, the World Bank, and NASA had conducted a study on the linkage issue, and concluded that a world environmental organization was called for. Dr. Ramakrishna concluded that it won't happen tomorrow, but it might over the next 10 to 15 years. The point, he said, was that people were now thinking of the idea consciously.
D. Sherri Goodman Sherri Goodman began her presentation by describing her responsibilities as the chief environmental and safety officer for the United States Department of Defense. She explained that her responsibilities range from cleaning up military bases, to protecting species, to helping the Chinese and Russians to integrate the environment into their military activities. She oversees a $5 billion budget, just a little less than the budget of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. That budget is used to deal with 'brown' issues – i.e., e.g., cleaning up military Superfund sites – as well as 'green' issues – i.e., e.g., protecting the environment at military sites and facilities.
She suggested that, in considering the question of the possible role of a world environmental organization, it was advisable to consider what goals the United States government is trying to advance. Noting that United States environmental standards are among the best in the world, she suggested that we want to influence properly other governments to take action on climate change, marine pollution, and other environmental issues in line with our understandings and strategies.
At the moment, she continued, we can use ambassadors to influence other governments. But, she cautioned, we ought not forget that military generals also can fill this role. She observed that General Clark is the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and that the most visible United States presence in Latin America is the commander of the United States military forces in the region.
Undersecretary Goodman then outlined three points she wanted to discuss: first, that regional approaches to environmental problems are reasonable; second, that science-based institutions are important; and third, that the advent of the global and information ages are changing rapidly what we'd want international institutions to do and achieve.
1. Regional Approaches to Environmental Problems Citing the Montréal Protocol, NATO, the European Union, OSCE, and the umbrella of the CSD (which is modeled on national councils on sustainable development), Undersecretary Goodman noted that regional approaches to environmental problems dominate today. Indeed, even the Montréal Protocol is devised on a regional basis.
Undersecretary Goodman noted that NATO has tried to integrate the environment into its administration and actions. It long has had a science committee and, in the last five to ten years, its armament and military committees have tried to integrate the environment into their charges. That can make a real difference, she asserted.
She continued that the United States government is no longer the only government pursuing these goals. She said that officials from Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have been trying to gain access to U.S. facilities to look at how environmental problems are addressed and to discuss environmental issues.
Turning to concrete examples, Undersecretary Goodman spoke of design of an environmentally sound ship of the 21st century that all NATO members could use. She also displayed for the audience a block that consists of converted waste from a ship that is compact and need not be dumped at sea (a "recycled block"). Sharing such technologies could achieve great strides in addressing pollution problems worldwide, she asserted.
Undersecretary Goodman observed that the United States Department of State itself is working to establish regional environmental hubs. She added that the European Union was doing the same, pointing in this regard to the OSCE, which has strong environmental decisions. She noted that the United Nation's CSD provides an umbrella organization for many different regional bodies. Last, she referenced the United States President's Council on Sustainable Development ("PSCD"), on which she serves as a member. The PSCD also includes numerous corporate chief executive officers among its membership, and seeks to achieve a consensus between industry leaders and environmentalists.
2. Scientific Organizations Undersecretary Goodman asserted that international scientific organizations were of critical importance in addressing global environmental problems. She observed that, without the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"), it is unlikely that we would have achieved the progress we have under the Kyoto Protocol. She elucidated that IPCC unites global scientists of repute to address underlying scientific problems that must undergird policy decisions.
3. Advent of the Global and Information Ages Undersecretary Goodman asserted that, with the advent of the global and information ages, industry moves faster than the government or government-funded institutions. As evidence, she pointed to the increased role of NGOs in recent years. She observed that NGOs and industry – especially international corporations – today play a role in shaping environmental policy.
A second aspect of this phenomenon identified by Undersecretary Goodman is how NGOs and industry use information. She observed that it used to be that government had a monopoly on information, and hence also on power. That, Undersecretary Goodman said, was no longer the case. She continued that, in doing her job, she relies not on classified information, but on non-classified information, much of which comes from non-government sources.
She added that such information is used in the Departments of State and Defense, which maintain a virtual information center. Governments thus have created information networks that do the work that a world environmental organization would do. She observed that the U.S. is not alone in undertaking such endeavors; as an example, Europe has established an environmental data exchange network.
* * *
At this juncture, Professor Skolnikoff said that, before he opened the floor to questions, he wanted to make one point – the degree to which the United States and other major powers have endeavored to avoid allowing existing international organizations to deal with environmental issues. He noted that new international organizations had been formed to address the problems of ozone and global warming. These examples show what major powers generally want, said Professor Skolnikoff – direct influence over these organizations. He said that the fact that the IPCC is referred to as an intergovernmental, not an international, panel typifies this and is not a minor point. He said that there is a general tendency toward bilateralism or the creation of new international organizations subject to existing state power.
II. Audience Questions At this point, the panel took questions from the floor. The first questioner asked a question of Undersecretary Goodman. Noting that it was his understanding that international environmental treaties exempt the military, the questioner asked whether the Pentagon was going to accede to the requirements of these treaties voluntarily.
Undersecretary Goodman responded that that was not in fact the case for most treaties. For example, she said, under the Montréal Protocol, the military has been a leader in compliance. Military use of chloroflorocarbons and halons has almost been eliminated, she said.
The questioner then asked Undersecretary Goodman about marine waste. Undersecretary Goodman again held up the recycled block. She said that, while the schedule for military compliance may be a bit different, military compliance – with both the governing international agreements and U.S. laws implementing those agreements – is nonetheless on the way. She noted that an aircraft carrier is like a floating city with thousands of residents, that is at sea for months.
Undersecretary Goodman observed that the Kyoto Protocol agreement on greenhouse gas emissions has two distinct possible effects on the military. First, the Department of Defense ("DOD") is in many ways akin to the civilian world. As examples, military bases are like small cities and often have their own power plants. Undersecretary Goodman asserted that this aspect of DOD is adhering to all rules in place under the Kyoto Protocol.
Second, however, Undersecretary Goodman pointed out that, were the Kyoto Protocol taken literally, limitations on greenhouse gases might preclude other countries from joining the U.S. in military actions. As an example, she noted that countries that gave fuel to the U.S. that allowed the U.S. to transport troops and materials for the Gulf War might, had the Kyoto Protocol been in effect, thus have significantly affected their greenhouse gas emissions allowances. Undersecretary Goodman observed that there are some provisions in the Kyoto Protocol that ensure allies are not penalized for supporting military actions. She hastened to add that she would not call those provisions exemptions, but only a recognition that environmental concerns shouldn't frustrate national security.
The next questioner asked about DOD closures of military bases that fall on the NPL list of hazardous waste sites. Undersecretary Goodman responded that she'd tried hard for six years to change the image of DOD, so that DOD is seen as a good environmental citizen. She agreed that what the questioner described had been the case. She said that $30 billion more was needed for DOD to clean up all its waste sites, and she noted that $2 billion annually was being devoted to that end. Undersecretary Goodman added that DOD has greatly increased the involvement of local communities in the process, in an effort to build trust between citizens and environmental regulators.
The next questioner asked Professor Mitchell about the 'absence of will' model. The questioner noted that the United States and the European Union generally effected environmental control through command-and-control regulations. The questioner commented that that succeeded because these governments have to an extraordinary extent honest and skilled individuals working in their environmental departments. That was not the case in the rest of the world, he observed. In that light, he asked whether the presence or lack of will is the correct model.
Responding to the question, Professor Mitchell said he was both a pessimist and an optimist. He explained that he was a pessimist because the will is not there. He noted, however, that a differential of will may exist in countries across the globe. Professor Mitchell then explained that he was also an optimist, since he believed that, were the will there, we would respond to environmental problems completely and properly, and find the right model of environmental governance/improvement, although innovation is needed. The best strategy, he continued, was not regulation. Rather, the best strategy – although it may take longer to work – is to make everybody an environmentalist. That way, he explained, everyone becomes an inspector. His argument, then, is that, whether one wants to create a world environmental organization or give more money to UNEP, it will go nowhere unless people in fact want to use those institutions and resources to protect the environment. Innovation is great, he said. But without the will, it will just sit there. Alone, innovation is not enough, he concluded.
The next questioner asked whether, instead of creating a world environmental organization, we ought instead to give more money and power to UNEP and the WTO. Responding to the question, Dr. Ramakrishna addressed the WTO suggestion first, and the UNEP suggestion second. In respect of the WTO, he said, the argument in favor of such a delegation is that the WTO has done well with trade issues, and also with other issues incidental to trade. The problem with the idea, he said, was that there are already existing agencies in the environmental realm. What would happen to them? he asked. He observed that there was a level of comfort missing in the environmental community over this issue. He commented that one would need, for example, an ITC committee to serve as a bridge between UNCTAD and the WTO (although without strangling the WTO) to move forward.
In respect of the UNEP suggestion, Dr. Ramakrishna said that the idea had already received considerable attention from the panel. He noted that secretariats are spread out and don't deal with any central organization. He also alluded to other problems that had been identified by the panelists earlier.
A questioner then asked about a problem particular to the U.S. – junk science in the courtroom. Responding to the question, Professor Skolnikoff first acknowledged that the questioner had raised an important issue. He observed that there is always uncertainty in science, and that stakeholders make use of that uncertainty. That, in turn, encourages the development of junk science. He said that, in response, it was critical that scientists and the scientific community maintain credibility by avoiding biased analysis. Yet, many also legitimately feel it is their responsibility to be advocates in the face of pending danger. This is a serious problem when the level of uncertainty is so high.
The next questioner praised Professor Young's approach as a good one. The questioner suggested that perhaps the environment is not a global good, since it is not cohesive. Rather, it is fragmented. The real key, he suggested, is to ask whether the environment is plugged in to all the different agencies. Along these lines, he continued, it might make sense to seed from the bottom up, not from the top down.
Responding, Professor Young commented that the single most important characteristic of an international strategy for addressing environmental problems is to proceed on a problem-by-problem basis. He listed biodiversity, ozone, and endangered species as examples. He noted that that feature of the environmental agenda is both (i) a reflection of objective reality, and (ii) a function of social construction. On the second point, he elucidated that we have collectively arrived at this way of dealing with environmental issues.
Professor Young observed that there have been some relative successes, and commented that this encourages the idea of not linking responses to individual environmental problems. Were we to try to put many problems in one environmental 'grab bag', there would be the risk that past successes would be washed out or undermined by the overall effort. He concluded that we are better off with limited successes on specific issues than bogged down overall.
That leaves the linkage question, Professor Young continued. He noted that CITES, hazardous waste, and climate change all have trade implications. Professor Young said that his response is to forge ahead with environmental treaties. If people complain about specific links, these concerns should be negotiated, but the answer isn't just to address trade and environment globally, he concluded.
The next questioner asked the panelists how they thought we should deal with the development issue and local environmental issues, and also what would be done with the recycled blocks that Undersecretary Goodman had discussed. Professor Young responded to the development portion of the question by noting that the concept of sustainable development should be built into these international regimes. He observed, by way of example, that sustainable development was an element of the international ozone and biodiversity agreements. But, he observed, there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution.
Turning to the local environmental issues portion of the question, Professor Young commented that those are tough issues for governments to agree on. He said he was inclined to think that subsidiarity might be relevant here, although it might not be properly formulated for the international community in that its implications for international governance are uncertain. He also observed that governments might be able to enact internal regulations with global consequences. He cited as a possible example of this the problem of endangered species. This, he said, raised the potential for deeper intrusion into sovereignty.
As to the third portion of the question – the fate of recycled blocks – Undersecretary Goodman said that the government is trying to sell the recycled blocks. She said that there the recycled blocks can be made into plastic lumber. She conceded that there was as yet no market for the recycled blocks. Still, she asserted that they offer promise for the future. She noted in this regard that Vice President Gore attended a national town meeting in Detroit where he used the recycled blocks as a symbol of commitment. She concluded that she agreed that existing institutions should integrate environmental concerns into their outlook and activities.
At this juncture, Undersecretary Goodman commented that the IPCC worked precisely because it is an intergovernmental agency, in that it preserves power at the local level. Professor Skolnikoff agreed, but noted that, if governments are unwilling to surrender that power, that becomes an issue.
A questioner then asked the panel for a scorecard of the international system on environmental issues. Professor Young responded that there was great variance. He then turned to the question of what explained the relative successes and failures. Clearly, he said, some problems are intrinsically harder to solve than others. Design elements may make the difference in some cases, he suggested. He said that the discussion that Sheila Jasanoff and Thomas Franck had during the conference's opening panel on issues of identity and common social practices also applied. Understanding these matters, he said, constituted the cutting edge of research in this field.
III. Panel Chair's Summary At this juncture, Professor Skolnikoff offered a summary of the panel. He said there were varying degrees of skepticism about creating a world environmental organization. He said the panelists view was best encapsulated as generally to address each problem with an environmental treaty, and, if specific issues arise, to deal with them as they in fact arise. He said that it was a mistake, even if it were doable, to tie environmental problems together. He noted that the environment permeates everything; it is not something that should or can be isolated and encapsulated under one structure.
That leaves the question of political will, Professor Skolnikoff continued. He observed that the WTO gets the attention of governments and has considerable clout. Neither UNEP nor any other international environmental organization has that. He observed that the WTO has the CTE. He suggested that it may be advisable to build upon the CTE instead of creating a new organization.
Professor Skolnikoff continued that one of the features of the international system was fierce turf competition within the UN. That, explained Professor Skolnikoff, is one of the reasons why there is no world environmental organization and, in particular, why the United States has avoided vesting administration of the Montréal and Kyoto Protocols in exiting organizations.
The world is changing, Professor Skolnikoff continued. The problem of the global commons versus local regulatory power is becoming more important. He suggested that intrusion into local power is now more accepted than it was a decade ago. But, he hastened to add, one should compare the current situation in the Balkans. Still, he continued, the International Atomic Energy Agency conducts examinations within many countries. While these examinations have yielded unreliable results in the cases of Iraq and North Korea, still the internal intrusions are accepted. Professor Skolnikoff noted that Undersecretary Goodman had spoken of regional projects to deal with environmental problems; this, he said, was another feature of that. He added that the United States dominates the regional approach, and is accordingly a proponent of that approach.
Professor Skolnikoff repeated that the panel's judgment was that a new world environmental organization should not be created. Instead, we would be better advised to build upon existing organizations.
Rapporteurs:
Jonathan Nash
Wendy Irvine
Camille Tragos
[Back to Chayes Colloquium Home Page]
Last Modified 3/5/02