ESPM 169: International Governmental Organizations and the Global EnvironmentFacilityOctober 1 2002Big Points:1. International Governmental Organizations and their role2. Funding international environmental politics - capacity building - GEF and associated instruments1. International Governmental OrganizationsRole: decision-making organizations whose members are nation states (and their representatives);the organizational underpinnings of global governance"Governmental" (cf. NGOs): made up of national representatives (though actiosn don't always reflect dominant national interests)Examples: UN (UNEP, UNDP, General Assembly, CSD, Security Council); World Bank, International Monetary Fund, NATO, WTOWays in which they vary: role and function, voting, membership (and entry requirements), funding rules (and who supports them), autonomy (decision-making procedures); typically, not very big in terms of staff, office space, resourcesPorter, Brown and Chasek, p. 45: An IO may influence the outcomes of global environmental issues in 4 ways: set the agenda for global action; convene and influence negotiations; may develop normative codes of conduct (soft law); may influence state policies on issues not under negotiation. UN: http://www.un.org/Overview/brief.html - most recent member? Switzerland- functions: peacekeeping (peacemaking, peace building) and international security (Iraq situation); human rights and humanitarian assistance; economic development; environmental protection - sustainable development, plus health, children, other agencies - security council, general assembly - funding issuesWorld Bank and IMF:- The WB has historically operated more like a fund, and the International Monetary Fund more like a bank- IMF: created as part of the post WW2 international economic system, to supervise the international monetary system, and engage in medium term lending to countries experiencingtemporary balance of payments difficulties - members deposit money, therefore like a bank - now spearheading the neoliberal revolution – conditionalities debt crisis as catalyst of changing role: move into restructuring, in particular, micro level restructuring, not just macro (so, privatization as well as balance of payments and money supply adjustment) restructuring imposes heavy adjustments on recipient countries, and these costs are highly uneven with respect to environment, poor, women IMF remains fairly impervious to demands that it takes environmental and social concerns directly into account- World Bank: makes loans and channels aid and development assistance from DCs to LDCs - especially known for funding large scale development projects - has provided c. $400bn in loans to LDCs and economic institutions, plus c. $100bn via the International Development Agency (zero or low interest)2- part of a set of MDBs - Asian, Inter-American, African, European (the set to which the US belongs) it has of necessity been dragged kicking and screaming into the environmental arena.2. Funding IEPa. Capacity-building - financial, institutional, personnel, technological type resources to improve a country's public sector and policy-making abilities; i.e. more than just "one-time" aid - kind of a buzz word, but is guiding a lot of aid, and analysis of international environmental institutions - aimed at state, local, NGO capacities - important for long-term effectivenessb. The GEFhttp://www.gefweb.orgIn 1990: GEF set up as an experimental program to supply funds to LDCs - grants –or very favorable terms – for projects with global benefits. - in response to demands for aid in order to fulfill international environmental commitmentsGermany and France: suggestedWorld Bank: fundedUNEP and UNDP administered15 member Scientific and Technical Advisory Board3 an unusual example of collaboration between UN and WB clearly a very important project and institution: has it lived up to its potential?4 priorities:1. protection of the stratospheric ozone layer2. limiting emissions of greenhouse gases3. preservation of biological diversity4. protection of international waters First phase: July 1991 – July 1993 - allocated $750 million to projects in (potentially) 25 countries: 80% to BD and GW; little to Ozone, due to Montreal Protocol Fund - to projects that would not otherwise be viableCriticisms:a. criteria not clearb. Priorities represented DC not LDC concerns, such as desertification and urban air pollution; weighted in favor of the donorsc. Weak leadership and institutional arrangementsd. Participation problems: NGOs and local groups excluded; “green sticker” for WB - or is it the “mainstreaming” role?1992 at Rio: Negotiations begin over its Restructuring:4Main point: become an interim mechanism for transfer of funds to carry out CC and BD conventions adopted at the meeting - also home of Montreal protocol fund, eventuallyPermanent institutional structure redesigned over the next 18 months to balance north and south concerns; restructured GEF inaugurated in 1994.a. all countries represented in an assembly, meets every three yearsb. 32 seat governing council: 16 LDCs; 14 DCs; 2 former soviet bloc countries (who appear to be recipients – FP in Focus Brief); complicated majority decisions: 60% of donors AND 60% of recipientsIndustrial countries committed $2 billion for trust fund between 1994-1997.1998: Replenished with $2.75 bnBy end of FY 1999: a total of 338 projects had been allocated funding, a total of US$2,347m - often with matching fundseligible countries: those eligible to borrow from the World Bank, or an eligible recipient of UNDP technical assistanceIncremental costs:"GEF funds the "incremental" or additional costs associated with transforming a project with national benefits into one with global environmental benefits. For example, choosing solar energy technology over coal or diesel fuel meets the same national development goal (power generation), but is more costly. GEF grants cover the difference or "increment" between a less costly, more polluting option and a costlier, more environmentally friendly option." (GEF webpage)c. role of NGOs: consultants and subcontractors - projects often passed over to them to carry out; also are supposed to monitor the GEF - feel more like "hired hands" than equal partners.d. in 1995 land degradation added to list of projects, as long as could be linked to CBD or CC5GEF Instrument: