25 January 2002: The penultimate meeting of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or their Representatives on International Environmental Governance (IGM) was convened in New York at UN Headquarters on Friday, 25 January 2002.

Over one hundred delegates from 67 countries participated, including five environment ministers. Approximately 75% of the participants came from their New York missions to the UN. Participants were informed that a depleted International Environmental Governance (IEG) Trust Fund had imposed a limit on the number of ministers and Permanent Representatives to UNEP who were able to attend.

A decision to convene the one-day meeting in New York was taken at a joint meeting of the Bureau of the UNEP Governing Council, the Committee of the Permanent Representatives to UNEP and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) on 23 May 2001. In the words of UNEP Governing Council President David Anderson, who is also Canada’s Environment Minister, the meeting was convened so that the IEG process could continue to benefit from the views of New York-based delegations and to ensure a close linkage with the preparatory process for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). Many of the participants were also preparing to take part in the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the WSSD, scheduled to take place at UN Headquarters from 28 January-8 February. A number of delegations, including Australia and the EU, indicated that they had been led to understand that the New York meeting had been convened for informational purposes.

During the one-day meeting, participants took part in morning and afternoon plenary discussions, offering general and then specific responses to President Anderson’s revised “building blocks” paper, now entitled the “Draft Report of the President of the UNEP Governing Council for Consideration by the Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or their Representatives on IEG” (UNEP/IGM/SS/ 2). Keen to underline and protect the inclusive and participatory nature of the IEG process, with its inputs from experts, civil society, the UN system as well as State representatives, President Anderson announced that he had purposely avoided the use of bracketed wording in his new document, which incorporates new elements agreed at IGM-4 in Montreal late last year. He explained that the objective of the IEG process was to achieve a consensus agreement rather than engage in traditional formal negotiation. He suggested that this approach would help participants to collectively refine recommendations without losing sight of their overall objective.

Participants used the plenary sessions to restate and elaborate their views on the IEG process and on the President’s draft recommendations on: the role and structure of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF); the strengthening of UNEP’s role, authority and financial situation; improved coordination and coherence of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); capacity building, technology transfer and country-level coordination for the environment pillar of sustainable development; enhanced coordination across the UN system, including the role of the Environmental Management Group (EMG); and the future perspective.

Members of the G-77/China and the US continued to express concern over the President’s insistence that what the US described as a “true negotiation” be avoided in the lead up to the final IGM meeting on 12 February in Cartagena, Colombia. At this time, President Anderson will present a detailed report that will seek to reflect all the views presented during the IEG process. Some participants cautioned that the President’s recommendations would remain open until they could negotiate. The Earth Negotiations Bulletin report outlining these discussions in detail can be found at: http://enb.iisd.org/linkages/unepgc/iegnyc/