s u s t a i n a b l e development Insights Rio+20: Accountability and Implementation as Key Goals

Adil Najam and Miquel Muñoz A b o u t t h e au t h o r s For more than two decades the Global global effort has focused on negotiating Prof. Adil Najam was recently appointed Environmental Governance (GEG) agreements, there has been little Vice Chancellor of the system has been a story of growth, and focus on implementing the University of Management there is much progress to celebrate: agreements or holding Sciences (LUMS) in scores of new international institutions; international actors and was until recently the Director of the Frederick a proliferation of legal instruments, accountable for their global S. Pardee Center for the declarations, and financial mechanisms; commitments. One does Study of the Longer-Range growing public interest; multiple layers not wish to be harsh in this Future. He works on issues of national structures; an impressive assessment, since we are still of international diplomacy, sustainable development, and knowledge economy serviced by in the relatively early days of human well-being, with a focus multitudes of experts in governments, this global enterprise. However, on developing countries. academia and in civil society. Most as we prepare for the forthcoming 2012 importantly, perhaps, the idea of United Nations Conference on Dr. Miquel Muñoz, a Post- sustainable development is now firmly Sustainable Development Doctoral Fellow at the Frederick S. Pardee Center ensconced as the very central goal of all (known as “Rio+20”), for the Study of the Longer- environmental governance. Arguably, an accountability and Range Future, specializes environmental governance can now only implementation deficit now in renewable energy, be understood within the context of the stares us squarely in the sustainable development sustainable development imperative. face. And Rio+20 would be and . He has participated in numerous a very good moment to start international environmental Despite the fact that there is much to seriously addressing this deficit. negotiations. be justifiably proud of in this growth in the infrastructure of governance, the Stakeholders at all levels are global challenges have in fact multiplied aware of the urgency for the GEG Sustainable Development Insights is a in both number and intensity. This is system to deliver on its promise of series of short policy essays supporting the Sustainable Development partly because our understanding of implementation. However, there are Knowledge Partnership (SDKP) and the extent and nature of many of the obstacles to achieving this goal, none edited by ’s Frederick challenges has itself grown, and many more important than a widely prevalent S. Pardee Center for the Study of the of the problems have proven to be far ‘culture of unaccountability.’ For years, Longer-Range Future. The series seeks more complex and difficult to deal talk of accountability was feared by to promote a broad interdisciplinary with than we had once assumed. But it many who considered it a threat and dialogue on how to accelerate is also evident that while much of the resisted by others who saw it as a sustainable development at all levels. www.un.org/esa/dsd http://tinyurl.com/susdevkp www.bu.edu/pardee 008 a u g u s t 2 0 11 Rio+20: Accountability and Implementation and as Key Accountability Goals Rio+20: distraction from ‘real issues.’ We premise that if all countries do the Beyond shaming, there is no believe that this is no longer the ‘right thing,’ this is good not only disincentive for failing to implement. case. There is a growing realization for them, but for everyone else. This Shaming itself becomes less effective of the costs of unaccountability, approach, however, leads to the as repeated failure leads to an an evolution of norms in related classic free-rider problem. Rules- increased culture of unaccountability, governance areas, and a recognition based GEG exists — e.g. ozone and where the norm seems to be that that accountability is a key lever CITES — but, as best exemplified implementation of commitments is for implementation. Importantly, by the Kyoto Protocol, rules-based optional, rather than mandatory. In Rio+20 and its focus on the GEG has severe accountability and addition, there is a short institutional institutional challenges to sustainable compliance deficits. memory of who committed or development provide an opportunity failed to implement what, which to bring the issues of accountability The GEG system has evolved within leads to further impunity for failing and implementation to the forefront. a negotiation paradigm, rather than to implement, even for the soft an implementation mindset. The standards of naming and shaming. This paper seeks to develop a accelerated growth in the number practical agenda for institutional and intensity of GEG negotiations Towards More reform to improve implementation during the last two decades has by identifying a set of incremental resulted in an over-heated, never- Accountability: A and plausible steps in two areas: (a) ending negotiation system that Pragmatic Agenda strengthening the mechanics that can sometimes see negotiation It is impossible to undo the culture cultivate accountability, and (b) as its primary function and goal. of unaccountability with the stroke putting into place the institutional Environmental institutions have of a pen. As any large organization arrangements that nurture these morphed into — and see themselves knows, institutional cultures cannot mechanics. A first and important as — negotiation support services. As be changed overnight, and changes step, however, is to recognize a result, GEG efforts are measured require long-term dedicated top- the aforementioned ‘culture of by negotiation metrics rather than by level commitment. What is needed unaccountability.’ actual environmental improvements. is a set of ‘radically incremental’ Often, implementation stakeholders steps to begin creating an alternative have little ownership of the treaties culture of accountability that The Culture of that they inherit from the negotiators. refines, reinforces and rewards the Unaccountability Developing countries’ few resources habits of accountability within A ‘culture of unaccountability’ is are siphoned off to servicing the international system, while perhaps the most significant enabler the appetites of international discouraging unaccountability. of unaccountability and, thus, lack negotiation, at the expense of This can be done by identifying of implementation in GEG. It is domestic implementation. those elements within the GEG important to understand why the system that are doable today and culture of unaccountability has Global realities are being shaped by will begin developing a culture of become such a pervasive feature of forces beyond the nation-state, yet accountability, steering the system the GEG system. Our previous work key actors remain unrepresented in the right direction. These steps (Najam and Halle 2010) identified in the GEG system. Despite well- include enabling accountability several reasons. meaning yet token participation, mechanics and enabling institutional most non-state actors — whether civil arrangements, both of which are Global environmental governance society groups, business interests, discussed in greater detail below. is declaratory in nature, relying on or local communities — have no values-based and knowledge-based real tools to hold the international Enabling Accountability persuasion, in contrast to other system accountable for its actions (or Mechanics ‘rules-based’ areas of international inaction); nor does the international We define accountability mechanics governance. The dominant culture system have any real tools with which as those measures that cultivate is one of moral persuasion — GEG to engage with civil society. and facilitate accountability. These efforts are generally based on the include metrics and reporting,

2 sustainable development insights | 008 | august 2011 transparency, compliance, and It is important to emphasize that improved metrics and reporting capacity building. good indicators and reporting requirements cannot be slapped into cost money, both for monitoring an agreement as an afterthought, 1. Improved Metrics and and data collection, and for the but need to be conceived and Reporting Mechanics actual preparation and submission endowed with appropriate resources. Effective mandated reporting of reports. For instance, the cost Importantly, there are synergies and requirements must be defined to of preparing a single national economies to be had if reporting gauge progress against obligations and commitments, using agreed upon sets of performance indicators.

Improved metrics are required, especially metrics that measure actual progress in environmental matters, rather than effort. In physics, moving a single brick represents more work than pushing a wall for days. In a fitting analogy, for the GEG system we want to know report on implementation for metrics for different MEAs are how many environmental bricks have the UN Convention to Combat coordinated and cross-learning been moved, not how many years Desertification has been estimated is encouraged. governments spent pushing against at approximately US$56,000. Even walls. Particularly relevant are such modest estimations, if spread In addition to being appropriately metrics reflecting bottom-up and across the spectrum of multi-lateral funded, reporting needs to be more local approaches. After all, action environmental agreements (MEAs) effective in conveying meaningful and implementation are ultimately and the GEG system, quickly escalate information. Volume after volume local affairs. to significant amounts. Thus, after volume of reports may keep

Accountability in the GEG System There are at least three different types of accountability in the GEG system that need to be addressed separately:

Accountability to mandate. Is an international organization accomplishing what it was created to accomplish? Businesses are most clear on this type of accountability, which is measured by their bottom lines. International organizations are surprisingly silent on this. For example, a treaty secretariat or national representative is more likely to tell you how many meetings were held and how many decisions were made than to say whether, how, and to what extent the purpose of the treaty was advanced because of these meetings and decisions.

Institutional accountability. Is an organization well- managed? Managerial processes, such as hiring, staff performance and reward, budgetary controls, etc., have occasionally become the subject of public discussion, but usually only when they become ‘scandals,’ raised by those who wish to discredit the GEG system. Supporters of the GEG system often choose to wink, nod, and ignore blatant managerial abuse in international organizations, thus being complicit in a conspiracy of silence, just because they do not wish to strengthen the hands of those out to ‘cut the system down to size.’

Accountability to constituency. Whom are international organizations accountable to? This gets straight to the power politics of institutions, including inter-state, intra-state and non-state actor politics. It can be argued that global citizenry is the constituency of global environmental institutions, with Member States acting as custodians. While global citizenry interacts with global institutions through the state apparatus, in doing so it does not cede its right to hold these institutions and their actions accountable.

Adapted from: Adil Najam and Mark Halle, “Global Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Accountability.” Sustainable Development Insights, No.5, May 2010

sustainable development insights | 008 | august 2011 3 Rio+20: Accountability and Implementation and as Key Accountability Goals Rio+20: their authors busy, but mostly go (APRM), or nationally-initiated peer- on whether such data dumps are unread and join their predecessors reviews, such as France’s peer-review good or bad for the overall health in the ever-growing pile feeding the of National Sustainable Development of the system, the number of similar global data overload. We need better Strategies. Other review approaches episodes is likely to grow. Given the reporting, not more reports. Effective are being explored, including UNEP’s predictable recurrence, it would reporting places asymmetrical work on MEA review methodology, be wise to conceptualize ways in requirements on different countries. or bottom-up approaches based on which the impact of such ‘leaks’ Developing countries will require assistance for capacity-building “The internet and information technologies open a new range of and other enabling measures, while developed countries need to take possibilities for monitoring and transparency.” the lead with clear and accurate reporting, including on fulfillment local review mechanisms. Review can be positively channeled towards of existing commitments. Reporting, mechanisms have to be conceived accountability and implementation. particularly self-reporting, also has and understood as collaborative asymmetrical consequences, where efforts in the context of eradication 3. Improved Compliance weaker parties can be penalized (for of the culture of unaccountability, Mechanics example by donors) for reporting rather than as an impingement An effective set of compliance failure, while more powerful on sovereignty or stepping into incentives entails a delicate balance countries face no repercussions. some other agency’s mandate. of ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots.’ The problem This needs to be recognized and Environmental leaders need to set of accountability is not only that the addressed if effective reporting is this culture in motion by voluntarily system does not punish bad behavior, to be achieved. initiating such performance reviews to but also that it does not reward good establish themselves as the purveyors behavior. A system of incentives for 2. Improved Transparency of best practice. Once enough of better performance with rewards for Mechanics them take the lead in this, it will good behavior and early action is Transparency is a key element of become more and more difficult for needed to complement monitoring accountability, especially with regard other actors not to follow suit. and penalty-based approaches. to review and monitoring programs. Monitoring is a task where NGOs Rewards for countries who live up There are different review models, and whistle blowers have traditionally to their commitments, for example, each with their advantages and been active, either in a collaborative could include trade preferences, or drawbacks. The essential element way, such as the civil society-led preferential access to international is that the monitoring of GEG wildlife trade monitoring network, credit or to global support funds performance becomes independently TRAFFIC, or through a more such as the Global Environmental verifiable and allows the involvement aggressive approach, such as the Facility (GEF). There is ample of third parties. Existing review Environmental Intelligence Agency. precedent of needs-based preferential mechanisms include those based treatment, so perhaps it is also time on self-reviews, third-party reviews, The internet and information for performance-based preferential and peer-reviews. An example of technologies open a new range of treatment. It must be stressed that third-party review is the OECD’s possibilities for monitoring and a country’s performance should not Environmental Performance Review transparency. From a top-down or only be compared to that of similar (EPR) Programme, while a review centralized perspective, the possibility countries, but, most importantly, based on voluntary national of transmitting and revealing large against itself. Is a country doing presentations is exemplified by the quantities of information at the click better over time? MDG Annual Ministerial Review. of a mouse allows for centralized Peer-reviews are a growing area of transparency or ‘raw’ accountability. The transparency mechanisms interest, with examples found in Wikileaks has already had an impact discussed above should be linked OECD DAC peer reviews, NEPAD’s on climate change and other MEA directly to compliance. The key African Peer Review Mechanism negotiations. While the jury is out element is for the information to clearly show whether agreements are

4 sustainable development insights | 008 | august 2011 being complied with or not. Such information, when available across countries, will itself become a source of real pressure on countries to improve their image — i.e., be seen to be compliant to, rather than deviant from, their global responsibilities.

4. Capacity Building The need for more and better capacity building in developing countries is a permanent demand in the GEG system. The lack of capacity in developing countries is a real and H i g h - L e v e l B r a instorming S e s s i o n : urgent problem that, among its many consequences, perpetuates the lack “Accountability and Implementation: of accountability (for both developed The Keys to Sustainable Development” and developing countries) and makes The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range implementation more difficult, and Future at Boston University co-hosted a side event on “Accountability sometimes impossible. The role and Implementation: The Keys to Sustainable Development” at the of capacity building in improving Second Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on accountability and implementation Sustainable Development (Rio+20) on March 8, 2011. cannot be underestimated. However, the key question — as in so many The event, supported by the Nordic UN Missions of Denmark, Finland, capacity building issues — is capacity Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to the United Nations in New York, for whom and capacity for what? was attended by senior diplomats, nongovernmental experts, and scholars, and served as a high-level brainstorming session to identify To begin with, capacity enhancement key steps towards accountability and implementation in the global for improved reporting, transparency, environmental governance system. The session was chaired by Amb. and compliance is needed. Moreover, Carsten Staur (Denmark), facilitated by Prof. Adil Najam (BU Pardee it is needed at the national (and Center), and included presentations by Sen. Elizabeth Thompson sometimes local) levels. In essence, (Barbados), Dr. André Aranha Corrêa do Lago (Brazil), Dr. Asad Khan we are talking about the capacity to (Pakistan), Amb. Irene Freudenschuss-Reichl (Austria), and implement and the capacity to be Dr. Bradnee Chambers (UNEP). able to account for implementation. The brainstorming session with senior practitioners provided valuable The creation of structural and input into the ideas presented in this paper. The session highlighted permanent capacity in developing the fact that accountability is now clearly seen as a key challenge for all countries to monitor, report, and , including for governance in pursuit of sustainable analyze information related to development, and especially in the context of Rio+20 discussions. implementation is an urgent need. While there is wide support in both North and South for addressing Importantly, such capacity is needed accountability concerns, the preferred approaches of various actors in governmental as well as non- range from largely voluntary initiatives to more mandatory measures. governmental institutions so that The urgency for a meaningful response, however, seems shared by all. effective networks for accountability can be created and sustained. of accountability, including will only succeed to the extent that Enabling Institutional by strengthening the habits of they manage to change the culture Arrangements accountability and reinforcing of unaccountability, thus ensuring Institutional arrangements are these habits in a positive fashion. accountability and implementation in needed to nurture accountability Institutions are important, but they the longer-term. mechanics and foster a culture sustainable development insights | 008 | august 2011 5 Rio+20: Accountability and Implementation and as Key Accountability Goals Rio+20: 1. Compendium of Best Practices accessed as well as updated. wheel over and over again. With One component of encouraging the register of commitments, a cultural shift away from Any such compendium would negotiators will have a handy unaccountability is to establish a be greatly strengthened if it also reference to existing agreements compendium of best practices in included information on ‘bad and an incentive to make only those accountability. Despite the prevailing practice,’ if only as exemplars of commitments that countries have culture of unaccountability in GEG, what is to be avoided. Knowing the intention or capacity to fulfill. throughout the system there are best practice helps us to avoid Most importantly, such a register will cases and examples of good practice. reinventing the wheel; knowing bad move the focus away from the need These cases need to be documented practice prevents us from stumbling to be seen to reaching agreement and understood, both to avoid twice against the same stone. The on ‘new’ commitments (even when reinventing the wheel and to increase idea should not be to shame, but to they are not new at all) and towards the levels of expectation. Recognizing outline a clear sense of what is not a discussion of how well we are and rewarding (even if just by desirable and why. doing — or not — in fulfilling ‘old’ acknowledging) good practice will commitments. likely foster replication and nudge 2. Registry of Commitments the system towards a culture of With very few exceptions, every The proposed registry could quickly accountability. conference of the parties (CoP), evolve from a mere compilation subsidiary body, and any other of commitments to a system of The compendium should not be GEG meeting results in decisions, commitment tracking and reporting. conceived as one more publication. conclusions, declarations, plans of Similar mechanisms are being After all, as mentioned above, what action/implementation and a myriad developed in an ad hoc basis for is needed is better information, not of other agreements that ultimately specific issue-areas, such as climate more reports. The compendium boil down to commitments. How finance, but no GEG-wide registry of best practices, then, should be many commitments, by whom, and system is in place. Examples include conceived as a dynamic learning on what? Which ones have been OECD’s tracking of development process, where best practices fulfilled? No one really knows, as financing, or the proposal for GEG are not only compiled, but also many commitments are already finance tracking (Najam and Muñoz dissected and analyzed, providing forgotten by the time the next 2008). Institutionally, UNEP would the added value of highlighting meeting is held and most remain perhaps be best placed to host this what worked where, when, and unimplemented. register since it has the institution- why. Within this framework, a wide mandate for information publication providing a yearly There is an urgent need for a gathering and knowledge creation. snapshot could be presented at the centralized registry of commitments Indeed, placing such a system within annual meeting of the Commission that keeps track of which country UNEP would also serve to strengthen on Sustainable Development (CSD) or institution has agreed to do UNEP in other significant ways. For with the main goal of celebrating what, and the extent to which that example, it would provide a renewed reason for better inter-institution coordination, especially between “There is an urgent need for a centralized registry of commitments MEA secretariats and UN agencies that keeps track of which country or institution has agreed to do and programmes.

what, and the extent to which that commitment has been fulfilled.” 3. (Re)New(ed) Focus for CSD Recent events at the Commission on and acknowledging good practice, commitment has been fulfilled. Sustainable Development (CSD) have thus reinforcing a system of positive Having an open, transparent, again highlighted the fact that it is an rewards. Different from other and easily accessible record of all institution with a forever uncertain reports, such a compendium could commitments will have a healthy future. Constrained by the straight ‘live’ on the internet — in a manner effect on the system and keep jacket of a rather inflexible 14 year that allows it to be dynamically negotiators from re-inventing the Programme of Work, its negotiation

6 sustainable development insights | 008 | august 2011 role severely weakened by an inability two decades. Accountability of GEG enhance greater accountability in to deliver, the CSD clearly needs to (as well as the other dimensions of environmental governance. rediscover itself again. Born from Global Governance for Sustainable the Rio Earth Summit 20 years ago, Development) would become the key The Economic Commission for CSD has the perfect opportunity at function of the CSD. Europe’s Aarhus Convention on Rio+20 to reach back to its roots Access to Information, Public and renew itself as the agency it was We envision a reporting process Participation in Decision-making and originally designed to be. where secretariats would be tasked Access to Justice in Environmental (and given the necessary tools Matters is a working model that

“... we propose that the CSD returns to its original purpose, and becomes a reporting and assessment hub, the place where the world meets once a year to assess and to report on progress towards sustainable development, including on environmental issues.”

Revisiting the original mandate of and mandate) to assess progress has been widely cited as a success. CSD provides useful inspiration, par- towards the respective goals of their The Aarhus convention, however, is ticularly in terms of how important organizations, and to develop their regionally limited in scope. It may the accountability and implementa- reports based but not dependent on be time for a global instrument, tion role was in the original design national reporting. The focus would a global version of the Aarhus of this platform. For example, the be measuring actual progress, rather Convention, to improve the GEG original architects of the CSD had than effort, as illustrated earlier system and move it towards a new envisaged its role as including: with the ‘pushing the wall’ analogy. culture of accountability. As we begin “monitor progress in […] activities related Importantly, the idea is not that preparations for the 2012 Rio+20 to the integration of environmental and agencies report ‘to’ the CSD, but that conference, negotiation of such a developmental goals throughout the United they report ‘at’ the CSD. This is a key global instrument might be a goal Nations system through analysis and evalu- distinction. The idea here is for the that Rio+20 sets for itself. If the great ation of reports from all relevant organs, CSD to return to its conception as achievement of the Rio conference organizations, programmes and institutions a forum that brings together the key in 1992 was that it triggered a of the United Nations system dealing with actors in GEG to take stock of where surge of global environmental various issues of environment and develop- we are in our global commitment to negotiations and environmental ment;” and “consider […] information sustainable development, what have instruments, it would be a fitting regarding the progress made in the imple- we achieved, and what still remains goal for Rio+20 to put together mentation of environmental conventions.” to be done. The idea is not to give a robust system of accountability the CSD a punitive or regulatory role, around these negotiations and Thus, we propose that the CSD but rather to turn it into a venue instruments. Such an instrument returns to its original purpose, and for an ongoing assessment of the clearly would be Aarhus-plus. Not becomes a reporting and assessment global progress towards sustainable only because it would be global, hub, the place where the world meets development. but more importantly because it once a year to assess and to report could incorporate the type of steps on progress towards sustainable 4. Towards a Global Instrument and recommendations outlined in development, including on (‘A Global Aarhus’) this paper: an umbrella agreement environmental issues. It would thus Ultimately we are ready to move which brings together a system cease to act as a negotiating forum towards the next step of creating of better accountability for better and embrace its original design more a global legal instrument to implementation in GEG. wholeheartedly than it has in its first • sustainable development insights | 008 | august 2011 7 Rio+20: Accountability and Implementation and as Key Accountability Goals Rio+20: Further Reading Sustainable Development Knowledge Partnership (SDKP) Biermann, Frank et al. 2010. “Earth System Governance: a Research brings together governments, Framework.” International Environmental Agreements 10:277–298. individuals, institutions, and networks engaged in the production Muñoz, Miquel and Adil Najam. 2009. “Rio + 20: Another World Summit?” and dissemination of knowledge on Sustainable Development Insights, No. 2. Boston: The Frederick S. Pardee Center sustainable development, including for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, Boston University. research institutions and sustainable development expert networks. Its Najam, Adil. 2011. “Climate Change Funds and Development: How to aim is to organize knowledge on Ensure Transparency and Access to Information on Funding Streams for sustainable development and make Adaptation” in: Transparency International, Global Corruption Report. London: it available to policy makers and Earthscan. practitioners. The Partnership is supported by the Division for Najam, Adil and Mark Halle. 2010. “Global Environmental Governance: the Sustainable Development of Challenge of Accountability.” Sustainable Development Insights, No.5. Boston: the United Nations. Sustainable Development Insights is a contribution The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, of The Frederick S. Pardee Center for Boston University. the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University to the SDKP. Najam, Adil and Miquel Muñoz. 2008. Tracking Global Environmental Finance: A Proposal. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable The Frederick S. Pardee Center for Development (IISD). the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University Najam, Adil, Mihaela Papa and Nadaa Taiyab. 2006. Global Environmental convenes and conducts Governance: A Reform Agenda. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for interdisciplinary, policy-relevant, and Sustainable Development (IISD). future-oriented research that can contribute to long-term improvements Selin, Henrik and Adil Najam (eds.). 2011. Beyond Rio + 20: Governance for a in the human condition. Through its Green Economy. A Pardee Center Task Force Report. Boston: The Frederick S. programs of research, publications Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, Boston University. and events, the Center seeks to identify, anticipate, and enhance Hannah Stoddart (ed.). 2011. A Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development the long-term potential for human Governance. London: Stakeholder Forum. progress, in all its various dimensions.

Sustainable Development Insights Series Editor: Prof. Adil Najam

Boston University Pardee House 67 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215 USA

[email protected] +1 617-358-4000 (tel.) Acknowledgment +1 617-358-4001 (fax) This initiative was conceived and generously supported by the Nordic UN www.bu.edu/pardee Missions of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden to the United Nations in New York. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the The views expressed in Sustainable authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Nordic Missions, Development Insights are strictly those or of Boston University, of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of of the author(s) and should not be assumed the Longer-Range Future, or of the United Nations. to represent the position of their own institutions, of Boston University, of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study www.un.org/esa/dsd http://tinyurl.com/susdevkp www.bu.edu/pardee of the Longer-Range Future, or the United Nations.