2005 Berlin Conference On The Human Dimensions Of Global .

2005 BERLIN CONFERENCE—Programme8PANEL SESSIONS14:00-15.30PANEL 1.A—UNEP AND THE ORGANISATION OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTALGOVERNANCEChair and Discussant: Frank Biermann, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlandsand Global Governance ProjectRoom: HSBAUER, STEFFENFreie Universität Berlin, Germany, and Global Governance ProjectSteering Clear of Crisis? A Case Study of Leadership and OrganisationalChange in the United Nations Environment ProgrammeWhen governments prepared for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was lauded for having achievedmuch with little means. The years following the Rio Summit, however, saw a decreasing environmental concern among governments accompanied by a dramatic slumpin the reputation of the UNEP which, five years on, led the Secretary General to installa Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements to consider whether and howthe programme was worth saving. Since then, the UNEP has recovered considerablywell and reaffirmed its position as the United Nations focal point for environmentalgovernance. Moreover, governments are now seen to strengthen the UNEP with someopenly promoting its status being upgraded to that of a specialised agency. This paper investigates the causes of this remarkable turnaround, looking at the UNEP as asingle case study before and after the implementation of the recommendations ofthe Task Force. It is argued that both the crisis and recovery of the organisation areinextricably linked to the performance of its administrative apparatus, i.e. its secretariat and the international civil servants who work for it. The case thus substantiatestheoretical assumptions that ascribe actor status to international bureaucracies inworld politics. While structural and contextual factors provide alternative explanationsfor organisational change that are also discussed, the empirical evidence indicatesthat it is the leadership and staff of international bureaucracies that significantly shapethe ways and dynamics of organisational change and, ultimately, how it affects theappreciation of the organisation by governments.ANDRESEN, STEINAR/ROSENDAL, KRISTINUniversity of Oslo and The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, NorwayThe UN Environment Programme: Achievements and ChallengesThis paper builds on findings from the research programme: ‘The potential for increasing the effectiveness of the UN in global environmental governance’, based at theFridtjof Nansen Institute in Norway. Both analysts and policy makers disagree on theperformance or effectiveness of UNEP, although the critical remarks probably tend tooutweigh the praise given to this UN body. We do not attempt to conduct an evaluation of the comprehensive work programme of UNEP but zoom in primarily on its performance in relation to relevant multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Ourtentative conclusions are quite nuanced. In terms of agenda setting and regimecreation the score of UNEP is very high, in terms of governing and co-ordination ofrelevant MEAs the picture is mixed, but more on the negative side. In terms of theemerging role of UNEO in implementation the picture is bound to be more inconclusive, but there are some promising signs. In explaining this pattern we zoom in on twomain explanatory perspectives, the 1) interest and power based perspective and the2) institutional perspective. 1) the willingness and ability of state members to give UNEPthe potential to perform these functions and the 2) ability of UNEP as an institution in its

2005 BERLIN CONFERENCE—Programme9own right to perform these functions. In the concluding section we discuss room forimprovements on part of UNEP and see this in light of the broader discussion of globalenvironmental governance.IVANOVA, MARIACollege of William and Mary, United States of AmericaMoving Forward by Looking Back: Assessing UNEP as Anchor Institution for theGlobal EnvironmentMany have called for strengthening the global environmental governance system bytransforming the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) into a more powerfulglobal environmental organisation. Institutional reform, however, must ultimately berooted in an understanding of where UNEP has succeeded, where it has failed, whythat has been the case, and what the leverage points are to encourage better effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Yet, the debate on global environmental governancereform has artificially divided the academic community into ‘friends’ and ‘foes’ ofUNEP rather than opening analytical avenues for constructive critique and refinementof theoretical assumptions. In this paper, I examine how UNEP has performed as the‘anchor institution’ for the global environment. Anchor institutions are the primary,though not the only, international organisations in certain global issue areas and typically perform three core functions: 1) overseeing monitoring, assessment, and reporting on the state of the issue in their purview; 2) setting an agenda for action and advancing standards, policies, and guidelines; and 3) developing institutional capacityto address existing and emerging problems. These institutions define the problems,develop new policy ideas and programmes, manage crises, and set priorities forshared activities that would not exist otherwise. I identify a set of core factors thatimpact UNEP’s effectiveness and need to be considered seriously both in the theoretical and practical context of organisational reform. Five key questions frame theanalysis: Why was UNEP established? Why was it given the form, function, governance,financing, and location it has? How has UNEP performed? How have these core structural factors influenced its effectiveness? What are the theoretical and policy implications? The analysis in this paper draws on extensive empirical research performed bythe author and a group of 26 graduate students from the Yale School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies.14:00-15.30PANEL 1.B—ORGANISATIONAL INFLUENCE THROUGH INFORMATIONChair and Discussant: Klaus Jacob, Freie Universität Berlin, GermanyRoom: VR 1BUSCH, PER-OLOFFreie Universität Berlin, Germany, and Global Governance ProjectThe OECD Environment Directorate: The Art of PersuasionRecent scholarship has questioned the adequacy of the existing organisationalframework for global environmental governance. Little research, however, has yetbeen directed to the questions what the actual effects of international environmentalorganisations are and how international organisations achieve these effects. The paper explores these questions by analysing and explaining the influences of the OECDEnvironment Directorate on national and international environmental governance. Itdirects the attention to the organisation’s bureaucracy as administrative apparatusthat manages and influences the activities of the collectivity of member states andacts in the international arena to pursue a policy. The framework of the paper, whichis part of the MANUS research programme of the Global Governance Project, distinguishes three dimensions of influence: cognitive, normative and executive. Bureaucracies can act as ‘knowledge-brokers’, as ‘negotiation-facilitators’, and as ‘capacitybuilders’. The variables which may explain possible influences are integrated intothree clusters: the external problem structure; the polity set by the bureaucracies’principals within which the bureaucrats need to function; and the activities and procedures that the staff of the bureaucracies develops and implements within the con-

2005 BERLIN CONFERENCE—Programme10straints of problem structure and polity framework. The analysis shows that the Environment Directorate has been able to make an independent contribution to environmental governance and has been particular successful in shaping public andscientific discourses (cognitive dimension) as well as strengthening international cooperation (normative dimension). Its influence is largely based on the production anddistribution of timely high-quality knowledge. In particular, the internal organisation ofthe knowledge production and the excellent educational background of the staffhelp to explain the persuasiveness of the knowledge and the resulting influence of theEnvironment Directorate.LEHTONEN, MARKKUUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, FranceOECD Peer Reviews as a Tool for Enhancing Good Environmental Policy:Diffusion, Harmonisation, and Coercion All in One?Diffusion, harmonisation, and coercion are three key mechanisms that enhance thespreading environmental policy innovations at the international level. The OECD is anorganisation that has practically no coercive power, and little capacity to promotelegal harmonisation, but a strong potential for promoting policy diffusion through‘idea-games’. Yet, the concept of ‘peer pressure’ is precisely based on the desire tocombine policy diffusion and learning with ‘soft coercion’ and accountability throughmoral persuasion, transparency, and public pressure. This paper examines the potential of the ‘peer review logic’ in combining the three mechanisms, looking moreclosely at the OECD Environmental Performance Reviews (EPRs). The EPRs influencepolicies in the reviewed countries through four main pathways. They can i) promotegovernment accountability towards its citizens by enhancing transparency and bystimulating broad public debate; ii) legitimise environmental actors and policiesthrough the support from a prestigious international organisation; iii) enhance policylearning through dialogue and exchange of ideas; and iv) stimulate long-term transformation of ‘mental models’ by ‘socialising’ the different actors to the OECD policydoctrine. The relative importance of these pathways depends not only on the reviewdesign, but also on the country-specific context, notably the different actors’ the expectations, worldviews and positions in the networks of power. The OECD peer reviewshave succeeded in avoiding some of the negative impacts associated with the morecoercive mechanisms, but the absence of innovation and more rigorous, comparative approach compromises the relevance and credibility of the reviews, especially inthe more advanced countries with a less conflict-adverse policy style. To remain relevant, the OECD needs—in developing its peer reviews—to be sensitive to the actors’expectations in the reviewed countries, and develop better-structured, innovativeanalytical frameworks, without however losing its ‘comparative advantage’ as a forum for ‘cool’ debates on ‘hot’ policy issues.TUINSTRA, WILLEMIJNWageningen University, The NetherlandsRe-establishing Credibility and Legitimacy of Scientific Assessments inDifferent Policy Arenas: The Case of U

4 2005 BERLIN CONFERENCE—Programme Fri, 2 Dec. 08:00-09:00 Registration 9:00-9:30 Welcome Addresses: John Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute, and Dieter Lenzen, Freie Universität Berlin 9:30-10:15 Frank Biermann, Chair, 2005 Berlin Conference, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam International Organisations and Global Environmental Governance 10:15-11:00 Jürgen Trittin, Member of the German .