The study's analysis indicates that most proposed reforms of the environmental pillar can be accomplished legally and functionally without upgrading UNEP to a specialized agency, and some options may be mutually supportive, such as adding or enhancing an environmental organization and reforming the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD).
November 2011: The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released an independent study, titled “Options for Broader Reform of the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD): Structural, Legal, and Financial Aspects,” outlining the pros, cons and implications of five IFSD options identified in Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome of the 26th Session of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC/GMEF).
DESA commissioned the study following an invitation from the UNEP Governing Council to the second session of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee (PrepCom II).
In the view of the authors, Steven Bernstein with Jutta Brunnée, both from the University of Toronto, the UNCSD “presents the greatest political opportunity in the last 20 years to move forward on the IFSD” because it is a central theme of the Conference and because there is “virtually no debate” among governments or stakeholders that reform is needed.
The study’s analysis indicates that: most proposed reforms of the environmental pillar can be accomplished legally and functionally without upgrading UNEP to a specialized agency; a specialized agency such as a world environment organization has the potential for stable funding because it would be based on assessed contributions; a Sustainable Development Council (SDC) is the most promising option to respond to the integration of the three pillars, and the legal process of creating the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is a good model in terms of timeline and process; enhanced system-wide planning could be achieved through the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB); and broader economic coherence, especially with the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs), remains a concern under all proposals. The study concludes that some options may be mutually supportive, such as adding or enhancing an environmental organization and reforming the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD).
The authors suggest that a future study on financing for sustainable development – independent of any of the five options – would be warranted, and that the Delivering as One model may facilitate the most efficient delivery of sustainable development activities. [Publication: Options for Broader Reform of the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD): Structural, Legal, and Financial Aspects]