Grouping of climate conventions towards a holistic approach

Analysts from different parts of the world have been monitoring very closely the impact of climate variability and the need for international governance of environmental challenges. Stacey Azores has used her participatory experience in UN climate negotiations and reflected on the various dimensions pertaining to transitioning from isolated treaties to a web of multilateral agreements that aim to foster sustainable development.

In this context attention has been drawn to early efforts, such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment which laid foundational principles emphasising the importance of environmental protection within a broader development agenda (UN, 1972). The subsequent 1992 Rio Earth Summit stands out also as the most significant UN gathering dedicated to global environmental governance. This landmark meeting culminated in the adoption of several key agreements, including Agenda 21 - a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development - along with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Forest Principles, which established guiding principles for responsible forest management.

I still recall as participant in the Rio Earth Summit Meeting and as a Member of the Drafting Committee on behalf of the Members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) how the Summit also laid the groundwork for two major international treaties-- the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Additionally, the Summit also initiated the negotiation process for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Collectively, these agreements and processes reflected a holistic approach to interconnected environmental challenges - biodiversity loss, climate change, and land degradation - aligning scientific insights with emerging political priorities. It is now being recalled that these three Conventions and other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) had provided critical platforms for international cooperation. However, their sector-specific mandates have also resulted in fragmented governance.

This fragmentation, characterised by overlapping mandates, divergent institutional arrangements, and separate financial mechanisms, poses significant challenges in the contemporary scene to achieving holistic solutions to interconnected environmental crises.

It is now believed by most analysts that the discussion of UN Reform around UN80 will hopefully open the doors of opportunity for significant reforms. This has become important after the UNEP identified the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution (including chemicals and waste) as areas where we need to focus if we are to strengthen the environmental pillar of sustainable development.

It may be recalled that the international community began to address serious concerns over climate change almost fifty years ago, beginning with the 1979 World Climate Conference organised by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was subsequently established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to assess scientific knowledge on climate change. These creations aimed to provide policymakers with comprehensive, objective, and policy-relevant information on climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation, fostering international cooperation to address global warming.

This was followed by the 1990 Second World Climate Conference in Geneva, hosted jointly by UNEP and WMO, which emphasised the interconnectedness of environmental and climate issues. It reviewed the World Climate Programme (WCP), which had been established in 1979, and recommended the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), both of which were agreed in 1992. This laid the groundwork for a global climate treaty and a robust climate observation network.

Environmentalist analysts have since underscored that these conferences underlined the importance of a coordinated global response. This has eventually led to the decision that the negotiations for a comprehensive climate framework needs to be conducted through a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) decision, rather than under the auspices of UNEP alone, as was common with other environmental treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This, in turn, resulted in the establishment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, which has since evolved through successive negotiations. Five years later, the Kyoto Protocol (1997) set binding emission reduction targets for developed countries, while the Paris Agreement (2015) introduced a more inclusive approach based on voluntary 'nationally determined contributions' (NDCs) involving all nations.

It needs to be noted that the UNFCCC's governance includes the Conference of the Parties (COP), subsidiary bodies, and financial mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which supports climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. In fact, over time, the focus appears to have shifted increasingly toward climate resilience, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage, acknowledging the differing capacities and responsibilities of countries, especially following the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015.

It still needs to be noted that despite the existence of different denotations there are significant interconnections and synergies between climate change and ozone protection, especially given their common reliance on scientific assessments and policy frameworks. Such a scenario has persuaded UNEP to identify the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution (chemicals and waste) as a vision to strengthen the environmental pillar of sustainable development.

It has also been underlined that the next step should be to look at clustering the climate Conventions, followed logically by the biodiversity Conventions. These Conventions share a similarity in their supporting subsidiary bodies and increasing inclusivity for regional organisations and scientific panels. However, these are often limited to 'execution' mechanisms for formal coordination. Analysts have also underlined that dispersion has resulted in operational inefficiencies, duplicative efforts, and missed opportunities over many years. Despite the overarching concerns about planetary health, their implementation mechanisms have often created stumbling blocks when it comes to implementation actions. On the other hand, it is clear that grouping offers the chance to facilitate greater integration among these interconnected challenges, leading to a more effective regime.

One connotation needs to be referred to in this matrix. We must not overlook the fact that financial support is channeled through various mechanisms, including the Global Environment Facility and Green Climate Fund (GCF). While these mechanisms have increased overall funding levels, there remains significant fragmentation in financing multi-dimensional enterprises. Despite increased commitments to mobilise financing for climate change and atmospheric protection, substantial funding gaps persist, particularly in developing countries where ozone depletion and climate vulnerabilities are most severe. It has been consequently noted by climatologists that climate adaptation projects financed by the GCF may not be fully incorporating ozone layer protection measures, and this is limiting the potential for integrated benefits and comprehensive approaches.

It appears to be clear now that absence of coordinated funding streams complicates the implementation of integrated strategies, such as those that combine climate resilience with ozone layer recovery efforts, requiring investments across multiple sectors and conventions. Addressing policy challenges within UNEP, particularly through the lens of the triple planetary boundaries - the climate change, biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows - requires a more integrated and holistic approach.

Unfortunately, in the current scenario, sectoral priorities often dominate negotiations, resulting in trade-offs that hinder sustainable development. Such a scenario, as visible in parts of South and South East Asia is resulting in Infrastructure projects aligned with climate policies sometimes being at odds with biodiversity conservation and resource usage boundaries. This situation is underscoring the urgent need for inclusive planning frameworks that account for these interrelated limits.

Such a scenario is bringing up discussion as to whether there is need to make more serious efforts to reestablish the Global Environment Management Forum (GEMF) as a dedicated mechanism within the United Nations Environment Assembly to address the triple planetary crisis. It is generally agreed by climatologists that such a stand would facilitate dialogue among stakeholders, promote coordination of actions across sectors, and help build consensus on policies that respect planetary boundaries.

Such an integrated mechanism would then, more likely than not, have the possibility to improve policy coherence, resolve conflicts, and ensure that climate, biodiversity, and pollution considerations are jointly addressed in global environmental governance.

Air pollution, for example, directly affects ecosystems, human health, and climate systems. Consequently, it would reflect sagacity to create formal institutional linkages aimed at addressing shared challenges. 

Integrated policies could promote clean energy transitions that cut air pollution, lower greenhouse gases, and improve land health by reducing fossil fuel dependence. A multi-sectoral framework would also enable joint action plans, data sharing, and financing-similar to the Chemical Conventions-and ensure coordinated efforts for air quality, ecosystems, and climate resilience. Such an approach would also strengthen sustainable development by recognising the interconnectedness of pollution control, biodiversity, climate mitigation, and land restoration.

One needs to understand that taking on the interrelated nature of global environmental challenges requires a strategic shift towards greater institutional integration and coordination among existing treaties and frameworks. One must also not overlook the fact that lessons learned from successful clustering of Conventions, such as the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm agreements, have demonstrated that formalised arrangements can enhance operational efficiencies, scientific coherence, and policy alignment.

Integrating the scientific platforms under UNEP's umbrella could also foster synergies between scientific assessments and policy implementation, and this could significantly enhance more efficient responses by helping to bridge existing gaps, reduce duplication of efforts, and maximise the impact of international environmental action on a global scale.

Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.  muhammadzamir0@gmail.com