The conflict between Frank Biermann and Adil Najam's opinions on a world environmental organization (WEO) is clear just from their paper's titles: Biermann wrote "The Case for a World Environment Organization" in 2000 while Najam answered with "The Case Against a new Environmental Organization" in 2003. However, some of their conclusions are surprisingly similar. Despite all appearances of being diametrically opposed, Biermann and Najam make similar suggestions towards empowering the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Biermann is convinced of a global environmental organization's ability to organize and coordinate action on pressing global environmental issues. He specifically highlights three issues with the current system of environmental organizations that would be improved with the creation of a WEO. These issues are 1) a deficiency of "coordination of distinct policy arenas" (e.g. agriculture, energy, trade) 2) a deficiency in the "process of capacity-building in developing countries," and 3) a deficiency in the "implementation and further development of international environmental standards" (Biermann, 2000).
Those deficiencies leave a lot to be desired from the current system. Biermann's solution is to create a new WEO to centralize resources and eliminate redundancies between smaller environmental programs. Najam, on the other hand, believes Biermann is answering the wrong question. He too sees problems with the current setup (or rather, the lack of one) but believes the blame lies in a different quarter.
While Najam agrees that the handling of global environmental concerns needs to be improved, he sees the shape of the problem quite differently from Biermann. To Najam, Biermann's proposal to create a new WEO is like trying to fix a broken phone by buying a new case. It doesn't address the actual problem. Rather than in the structure of an organization, Najam believes the problem and solution lies with nations themselves and a lack of will to address environmental issues.
So as we've seen, we have two people talking about the same problem, but one of them doesn't even think the other is talking about the right problem. So how do they end up coming to similar conclusions?
Biermann lays out three different models for creating a WEO. His first model is called the "cooperation model." It upholds the status quo by keeping environmental issues decentralized in issue-specific organizations, but empowers UNEP by upgrading it to be"a full-fledged international organization with its own budget and legal personality, increased financial and staff resources, and enhanced legal powers" (Biermann, 2000). The organization's role would be to cooperate with issue-specific environmental organizations as well as emphasizing the tasks of raising awareness, facilitating technology transfer, and offering environmental expertise on international, national, and subnational levels. This model is Biermann's least ambitious, but it does address his main concerns about the different areas of deficiency.
Najam comes to his conclusion through a slightly different route. As another argument against a new WEO he argues that the UNEP we have today has not been as useless as detractors claim. In fact, he lists what he considers to be some of its unsung successes, like making the environment a global concern, advancing the global environmental agenda, and bringing public legitimacy to environmental issues. The result of this re-evaluation of UNEP is his own suggestion to shore up UNEP's power and give it the resources and political power to actually achieve its mission. This stays true to Najam's claim that the real problem is political will, not organizational structure, but cedes some ground to those who want a more powerful WEO.
Though their papers seem to argue for entirely different ends, Biermann and Najam end up finding common ground. The fact that these two authors with extremely different opinions on the future of a WEO support the same conclusion gives that conclusion quite a lot of weight. Strengthening UNEP might be the intermediate step forward that the two sides - those for and against the creation of a WEO - can agree on.
References
Biermann, F. (November 01, 2000). The Case for a World Environment Organization. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 42, 9, 22-31.
I think this is an interesting insight. However, are there differences between Biermann's 'cooperation model' and Najam's empowerment of the UNEP? And do you think that Najam's larger point, that WEO advocates siphon time and money away from solving problems, still stands as regards Biermann?
ReplyDeleteAlthough both the articles reach somewhat of a similar conclusion, they are not the same at all. As Biermann is concerned with the organizational aspects of the environmental problems, his changes to the UNEP will still not address the root problems of lack of political will from countries. He would measure success with how good the organization is.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, even if Najam believes tweaking the UNEP will help, it is only a first step, not the final destination as it is with Biermann. Najam would use the changes as a tool increase political will: the true environmental problem. He would not see any organization as a success unless is shifts the political will toward being more favorable of environmental changes.