K1170817 300511 

UNITED 

NATIONS EP

UNEP/GC.26/19

Governing Council 

of the United Nations 

Environment Programme 

Distr.: General 

24 February 2011 

Original: English 

Twenty-sixth session of the Governing Council/ 

Global Ministerial Environment Forum 

Nairobi, 21–24 February 2011 

Proceedings of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum at its twenty-sixth session 

Introduction 

1. The twenty-sixth session of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Governing 

Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum was held at UNEP headquarters, Nairobi, from 21 to 

24 February 2011. In keeping with section II of Governing Council decision 25/17 and the subsequent 

decision taken by the Bureau of the Council/Forum at its meeting in September 2010, the twenty-sixth 

session was held over four days. 

 I. Opening of the session (agenda item 1) 

2. The session was opened at 10.20 a.m. on Monday, 21 February, by a master of ceremonies. 

Prior to the delivery of opening statements, a group of Kenyan young people performed an 

award-winning song entitled “Trash is cash” and presented a video promoting the recycling of waste. 

In addition, a video presentation on the green economy was shown, featuring ministers and Heads of 

State supporting the concept of the green economy. Remarks were delivered by Mr. Edward Norton, 

United Nations Goodwill Ambassador for Biodiversity 

3. Opening statements were then delivered by Mr. Henri Djombo, Minister of Sustainable 

Development, Forestry and Environment of the Congo and Acting President of the Governing Council, 

in place of Mr. Oliver Dulić, Minister of Environment and Spatial Planning of Serbia and President of 

the Governing Council, who was unable to attend the current session; Mr. Jamil Ahmad, Secretary of 

the Governing Council, on behalf of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations; 

Mr. Joan Clos, Executive Director of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme 

(UN-Habitat); Mr. Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP; and Mr. Mwai Kibaki, President of 

Kenya. 

4. Mr. Djombo, in his statement, said that the work of the President and Bureau since the 

twenty-fifth session of the Council/Forum had been challenging as a result of the gathering momentum 

in environmental affairs. He expressed gratitude to the Council/Forum for its support and commitment 

to achieving tangible results at a time when the environmental agenda was becoming an important 

pillar in the quest for sustainable development, and to the Executive Director and UNEP secretariat for 

their efforts and determination to speak for the environment around the globe. The work of UNEP had 

demonstrated to Governments, civil society, the academic community, the private sector and 

grass-roots organizations that it was possible to address environmental degradation and move towards 

a sustainable, greener future. The economic and environmental challenges also presented new 

opportunities and the world was looking to UNEP for guidance and direction in responding to them. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

2

5. Recalling that the term of the Bureau was coming to an end, he outlined some of the events of 

its tenure and their outcomes. The twenty-fifth session of the Council/Forum in Nairobi in 2009 and 

the eleventh special session in Bali, Indonesia, in 2010 had created important frameworks for the 

reform process in UNEP. The Belgrade Process and the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome of the Consultative 

Group of Ministers or High-level Representatives on International Environmental Governance had 

resulted in the identification of viable options for a more integrated and effective approach to the 

environment and sustainable development. The adoption of the Nusa Dua Declaration in Bali had 

reaffirmed the importance of the Council/Forum and the commitments needed to tackle environmental 

challenges. The current session, meanwhile, afforded a significant opportunity to contribute to the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012, 

and he urged the participants to send a strong and cohesive message on environmental issues ahead of 

the Conference. 

6. In his statement, the Secretary-General highlighted the preparations for the United Nations 

Conference on Sustainable Development and the need for a new model for sustainable development, 

noting the role of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability in the efforts to devise such a model. 

He observed that work to build a green economy could provide an opportunity to unite the three pillars 

of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – but stressed that building a green 

economy would in turn require strengthening the international environmental governance structure. 

The full text of the Secretary-General’s statement may be found in annex IV to the present 

proceedings. 

7. Mr. Clos, in his statement, said that he was delighted, as the recently appointed Executive 

Director of UN-Habitat, at the level of cooperation and cordial relations that he found between UNEP 

and UN-Habitat. Noting that the effects of urbanization and climate change were converging in 

dangerous ways that seriously threatened the world’s environmental, economic and social stability, he 

gave a historical summary of the response to the urbanization challenge since the Vancouver Action 

Plan of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements in 1976. The United Nations 

Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, had introduced the 

concept of sustainable human settlements, and the second United Nations Conference on Human 

Settlements, held in Istanbul, Turkey, in 1996, had advanced the notion of sustainable urbanization. 

More recently, the notion of the green economy had entered the sustainable development debate. 

8. UN-Habitat was vigorously responding to those global trends. A top priority was new urban 

planning, which aimed to prevent urban sprawl and minimize the demand for mobility. Other priorities 

were climate change mitigation and adaptation at the urban level, slum prevention and upgrading, 

improved access to basic urban services and strengthening local institutions and governance. The new 

approach emphasized planning in advance and in phases, on a scale appropriate to tackle existing 

problems. Nairobi was one city that had already begun to adopt new urban planning, through its 

Nairobi Metro 2030 Strategy, to which UN-Habitat had contributed. Stressing the high priority that 

UN-Habitat accorded to efforts to combat climate change, he said that its Urban Environment and 

Planning Branch had recently launched the Cities and Climate Change Initiative, which had already 

begun working with selected cities in all continents of the developing world. In addition, UN-Habitat 

had just completed its 2011 Global Report on Human Settlements, entitled Cities and Climate Change. 

In conclusion, he said that in all those efforts UN-Habitat had benefited from the cooperation and 

support of UNEP, and that collaboration was an essential component of the UN-Habitat partnership 

framework for 2008–2013. 

9. In his statement, the Executive Director described the harsh realities of the global environment 

that were driving the debate ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 

giving examples of population growth, increased road traffic, increased carbon concentrations in the 

atmosphere, land degradation, declining fish stocks and disappearing species. There were other more 

encouraging indicators, however, and in Africa, notably in Kenya, Rwanda and South Africa, there 

were already cheering examples of a worldwide transition to a greener, more sustainable economy. 

Those examples could inspire the Council/Forum ahead of the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development by showing what could be achieved with pragmatic but optimistic 

approaches. One of the challenges of the Conference would be to scale up and accelerate such 

approaches. 

10. He welcomed the environmental elements of the new Constitution of Kenya and the lead that 

the country’s Government was taking in developing geothermal, photovoltaic and wave energy 

sources and in other areas such as reforestation. Noting that UNEP and other United Nations entities 

were endeavouring to follow the directive of the Secretary-General to lead by example, he highlighted, 

among other things, the new energy-neutral offices of UNEP and UN-Habitat, designed and built by 

Kenyan companies, and the fact that the current session was, for the first time, paperless. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

3

11. Mr. Kibaki, declaring the session officially open, described it as a beacon of hope for the 

people of the world who looked to the Council/Forum to provide leadership and guidance in the face 

of ever-increasing challenges to the global environment. Since the twenty-fifth session of the 

Council/Forum, in 2009, there had been numerous catastrophes associated with environmental 

degradation, which continued to have a negative impact on development goals. In the past year, 

however, expectations had been rekindled by significant new agreements, for example under the 

auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, by which the global community had 

renewed its commitment to collective action, and it was hoped that the Council/Forum would carry the 

process forward to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 

12. The global environmental challenges underscored the continuing importance and relevance of 

UNEP. The Government of Kenya had taken significant steps to improve the infrastructure and 

security around the United Nations Office at Nairobi. The Government also welcomed the approval at 

the sixty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly of the establishment of an 

intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services as a contribution to 

the scientific base of UNEP and hoped that the platform would be permanently hosted in Nairobi. 

13. The Government of Kenya supported the strengthening of international environmental 

governance and welcomed the focus of the Council/Forum on the green economy. While not a 

substitute for sustainable development, the green economy’s emphasis on the natural capital base and 

ecosystem services was a move in the right direction. He looked to the Green Climate Fund and 

Global Environment Facility to support developing countries in the transition to green growth. The 

attention of the Council/Forum to the problem of electronic waste was also welcome and the 

Government of Kenya hoped for viable solutions to the issue. 

 II. Organization of work (agenda item 2) 

 A. Election of officers 

14. At the 1st plenary meeting of the session, on 21 February, the Council/Forum elected the 

following officers by acclamation: 

President: Ms. Rosa Aguilar Rivero (Spain) 

Vice-Presidents: Mr. Zoltan Illes (Hungary) 

 Ms. Liana Bratasida (Indonesia) 

 Ms. Graciela Muslera (Uruguay) 

 Rapporteur: Mr. Mauricio Xerinda (Mozambique) 

15. In her acceptance speech, the President said that she was honoured to be entrusted with the 

important responsibility at a time when the international community was faced with momentous 

decisions to ensure the sustainability of the planet. She pledged to ensure continuity in the work agreed 

upon at the eleventh special session of the Council/Forum and to work for ambitious results from the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Outlining her aims for her tenure, she 

focused on preparations for the Conference; the importance of raising public awareness of 

environmental issues and ensuring the effective participation of civil society, the private sector, 

non-governmental organizations, trade unions, young people and women; and supporting UNEP 

activities in priority areas of work such as climate change, ecosystems management, mercury and 

water, to ensure that they enjoyed the priority place that they merited. Working towards the 

Conference, UNEP had to signal the opportunities and multiple benefits of sustainable development 

clearly. She urged the representatives to conduct their deliberations in a climate of cooperation and to 

strive for a common objective, as only thus would UNEP be able to fulfil its mandate and provide the 

leadership for which the world was looking. 

 B. Adoption of the agenda 

16. At the 1st plenary meeting, the Council/Forum adopted the following agenda for the session on 

the basis of the provisional agenda approved by the Council/Forum at its twenty-fifth session 

(UNEP/GC.26/1): 

1. Opening of the session. 

2. Organization of work: 

(a) Election of officers; 

(b) Adoption of the agenda and organization of work. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

4

3. Credentials of representatives. 

4. Policy issues: 

(a) State of the environment; 

(b) Emerging policy issues; 

(c) International environmental governance; 

(d) Coordination and cooperation within the United Nations system on 

environmental matters; 

(e) Coordination and cooperation with major groups; 

(f) Environment and development. 

5. Follow-up to and implementation of the outcomes of United Nations summits and 

major intergovernmental meetings, including the decisions of the Governing Council. 

6. Budget and programme of work for the biennium 2012–2013 and the Environment 

Fund and other budgetary matters. 

7. Provisional agenda, date and venue of future sessions of the Governing Council/Global 

Ministerial Environment Forum: 

(a) Twelfth special session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum; 

(b) Twenty-seventh session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum. 

8. Other matters. 

9. Adoption of the report. 

10. Closure of the session. 

 C. Organization of the work of the session 

17. At the 1st plenary meeting, the Council/Forum considered and approved the organization of 

work of the session in the light of the recommendations contained in the annotated agenda 

(UNEP/GC.26/1/Add.1). 

18. Pursuant to one of those recommendations, as agreed by the Bureau, it was decided that the 

Council/Forum would hold ministerial consultations from the afternoon of Monday, 21 February, to 

the afternoon of Wednesday, 23 February. The focus of those consultations would be on the 

contribution of UNEP to the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development, the green economy and international environmental governance, under agenda 

item 4 (b). 

19. Also at its 1st plenary meeting, the Council/Forum decided to establish, in accordance with 

rule 60 of its rules of procedure, a committee of the whole. The Committee of the Whole would meet 

concurrently with the ministerial consultations and would consider agenda items 4 (a) (Policy issues: 

state of the environment); 4 (c)–(f) (international environmental governance; coordination and 

cooperation within the United Nations system on environmental matters; coordination and cooperation 

with major groups; environment and development); 5 (Follow-up to and implementation of the 

outcomes of United Nations summits and major intergovernmental meetings, including the decisions 

of the Governing Council); 6 (Budget and programme of work for the biennium 2012–2013 and the 

Environment Fund and other budgetary matters); 7 (Provisional agenda, date and venue of future 

sessions of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum: twelfth special session of 

the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum; twenty-seventh session of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum); and 8 (Other matters). 

20. It was further decided at the 1st plenary meeting that the Committee of the Whole would be 

chaired by Ms. Bratasida. A decision was also made to establish a drafting group to work on draft 

decisions for possible adoption by the Council/Forum, to be chaired by Mr. Macharia Kamau (Kenya). 

The Council/Forum also decided to establish a friends of the President group to assist the President in 

preparing her summary of the ministerial consultations. The group would comprise two representatives 

from each of the five United Nations regional groups, one representative of the European Union and 

one representative of the Group of 77 and China. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

5

21. It was further agreed that the Council/Forum would consider agenda items 3 (Credentials of 

representatives), 9 (Adoption of the report) and 10 (Closure of the session) at the plenary meeting on 

the afternoon of Thursday, 24 February. 

22. The Council/Forum took note of the fact that the session was the first to be conducted in 

paperless form, with documents made available electronically. 

 D. Attendance 

23. The following States members of the Governing Council were represented at the 

session/forum:1 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, 

Canada, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Fiji, 

Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), 

Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, 

Mozambique, Netherlands, Niger, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi 

Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, Spain, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Republic of 

Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Zambia. 

24. The following States not members of the Governing Council but members of the 

United Nations or members of a specialized agency or of the International Atomic Energy Agency 

were represented by observers: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Austria, Barbados, Bhutan, 

Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gambia, 

Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Holy See, Honduras, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kuwait, 

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Lithuania, Malawi, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States 

of), Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, 

Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, 

Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, 

Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of 

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), 

Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe. 

25. An observer for Palestine also participated. 

26. The following United Nations bodies, secretariat units and convention secretariats were 

represented: Asian Institute of Technology-United Nations Environment Programme Regional 

Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific, Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary 

Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Convention on Biological Diversity, 

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Convention on Wetlands of 

International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Office of the United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees, Ozone Secretariat, Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent 

Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, Secretariat of the 

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, Stockholm Convention on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Economic 

Commission for Africa, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, United Nations Environment Programme Caribbean 

Environment Programme/Regional Coordinating Unit, United Nations Environment Programme 

Mediterranean Action Plan, United Nations High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, United Nations 

Industrial Development Organization, United Nations Institute for Training and Research, 

United Nations University. 

27. The following specialized agencies were represented: Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, International Civil Aviation Organization, World Bank, World Meteorological 

Organization. 

28. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented: African Centre for 

Technology Studies, African Union Commission, Caribbean Community Secretariat, Commonwealth 

Secretariat, European Union, Global Environment Facility, International Atomic Energy Agency, 

 

1 The membership of the Governing Council was determined by elections held at the 52nd plenary meeting 

of the sixty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly, on 15 November 2007, and at the 35th 

plenary meeting of the sixty-fourth session, on 3 November 2009. On 28 July 2010, the General Assembly, acting 

on a request from the representative of Croatia to the United Nations (A/64/869) contained in a letter of 22 July 

2010 announcing that his country would relinquish its seat on the Governing Council for the remainder of its term 

in favour of Belarus, elected Belarus, as endorsed by the Eastern European States to the Governing Council, for a 

one-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2011 and expiring on 31 December 2011. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

6

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, International Union for Conservation of 

Nature, League of Arab States. 

29. In addition, a number of non-governmental and civil society organizations were represented by 

observers. A full list of participants was made available as document UNEP/GC.26/INF/24. 

 E. Policy statement by the Executive Director 

30. At the 1st plenary meeting, the Executive Director delivered a policy statement in which he 

said that the Governing Council at its current session would consider themes central to the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. He reflected on the events of 2010, which 

had started badly in the aftermath of the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Copenhagen in December 2009, 

and with the news that no country had managed to attain the goal of reversing the loss of biodiversity. 

As the year continued, however, there were reasons for optimism, including the more positive 

outcomes of the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change in December; the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention 

on Biodiversity; and the establishment of an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity 

and ecosystem services. He stressed that as the issue of climate change involved all countries it should 

remain within the multilateral context of the Framework Convention on Climate Change; it was 

imperative to continue striving for action, supported by work at the science-policy interface, to keep 

the global temperature rise below 2° C. 

31. Turning to the UNEP medium-term strategy for the period 2010–2013 and its six thematic 

areas, he said that since 1 January 2010 UNEP had been implementing a new results-based programme 

of work and that 80 per cent of change management projects had been completed. The year 2010 had 

been financially difficult in the wake of the global financial crisis, but 2011 promised some recovery 

of momentum. He thanked Ms. Angela Cropper for her vision and determination in contributing to the 

implementation of the results-based programme in her position as Deputy Executive Director of 

UNEP. 

32. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development presented a major opportunity to 

support the emergence of the green economy across the globe. The concept embraced the two issues 

that were at the core of the future of the planet: conservation of the environment, biodiversity and 

ecosystem services; and sustainable development that generated livelihoods and green employment 

opportunities while alleviating poverty. The environment-economy nexus presented a means of 

weaving together the economic, environmental and social pillars of sustainable development within a 

paradigm that embraced equity and participation. Another issue central to the UNEP agenda was 

international environmental governance, which was one of the main enabling conditions for the green 

economy. In conclusion, he invoked the spirit of previous meetings that had been pivotal in redefining 

the environmental agenda, such as the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which 

took place in Stockholm in 1972, and the United Nations Conference on Environment and 

Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; breakthroughs such as those historic events did not 

occur without leadership, and the Governing Council at its current session had the opportunity to 

exercise global leadership in shaping the agenda for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development. 

33. Following the Executive Director’s policy statement the Council/Forum heard general 

statements from the representatives of Hungary, speaking on behalf of the European Union, and the 

United States. 

34. The representative of Hungary expressed appreciation for the leadership shown by the 

Executive Director and his staff, saying that the European Union looked forward to continued 

collaboration with UNEP. The current session was taking place at a crucial moment, providing a 

significant opportunity to move forward the discussion on international environmental governance and 

to put the green economy concept into practice in the lead-up to the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development. Tackling environmental, economic and social challenges simultaneously 

was the most effective way to meet them. The multiple crises being faced affected all levels of society 

and needed to be dealt with in an inclusive way, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders. 

Several of the issues to be considered by the Council/Forum, including chemicals and wastes, had 

strong links with the core issues of the green economy and international environmental governance. A 

comprehensive approach to all environmental issues was therefore required to overcome competing 

policies and financial demands and address increasing institutional fragmentation. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

7

35. The representative of the United States said that she was proud to attend the meeting in her 

capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The memorandum 

of understanding that was to be signed between the Agency and UNEP signified their mutual 

commitment to multilateralism as a necessary tool with which to protect human health and the 

environment. Cooperation between the two bodies would help in providing the sound science and solid 

data that were critical to environmental decision-making. The Agency was also keen to take part in 

policy and programmatic cooperation with UNEP. The foundation for tackling environmental 

challenges lay in ensuring that strong local, national and regional governance regimes were in place, 

and the Agency had much to offer in guiding environmental laws and institutions, compliance and 

enforcement, and fair and transparent resolution of environmental disputes. 

 F. Introduction of the draft decisions prepared by the Committee of Permanent 

Representatives 

36. Ms. Regine Hess, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to UNEP and Acting Chair 

of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, presented to the Council/Forum for its consideration 

the draft decisions prepared by the Committee, as contained in document UNEP/GC.26/L.1, 

highlighting the collaborative process by which the draft decisions had been prepared and the 

challenges that it had entailed. 

 G. Ministerial consultations 

37. At its 2nd plenary meeting, on the afternoon of 21 February, the Council/Forum began its 

consideration of agenda item 4 (b), emerging policy issues, in the form of ministerial consultations, 

focusing on the themes of the contribution of UNEP to the preparatory process for the United Nations 

Conference on Sustainable Development, the green economy and international environmental 

governance. 

38. The ministerial consultations began at the 2nd plenary meeting, when ministers were given a 

comprehensive update on the status of the international community’s preparations for the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and activities being undertaken by UNEP in 

that regard. At the 3rd and 4th plenary meetings, on 22 February, the theme of the green economy was 

discussed. The theme of international environmental governance was discussed at the 5th and 6th 

plenary meetings, on 23 February. The 6th plenary meeting included concurrent round-table 

discussions that were intended to enable participants to explore the issues more fully in smaller 

groups. 

39. A special ministerial-level lunch meeting on the nineteenth session of the Commission on 

Sustainable Development was held on Tuesday, 22 February, to provide a forum for the discussion of 

the following thematic issues: transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and a 10-year 

framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production. 

40. At the 7th plenary meeting, on the afternoon of Thursday, 24 February, the President of the 

Council/Forum presented a draft summary of the views expressed during the consultations on each 

theme considered during the twenty-sixth session of the Council/Forum. She said that the summary 

reflected the variety of views expressed during the ministerial consultations, and did not constitute a 

consensus text. 

41. The Council/Forum took note of the President’s summary, which is set out in annex III to the 

present proceedings. 

 H. Report of the Committee of the Whole 

42. The Committee of the Whole held eight meetings, from 21 to 24 February 2011, to consider 

the agenda items assigned to it. At its 7th plenary meeting, on 24 February, the Council/Forum took 

note of the report of the Committee of the Whole. The report is set out in annex II to the present 

proceedings. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

8

 III. Adoption of decisions 

43. At its 7th plenary meeting, the Council/Forum adopted the following decisions: 

Decision No. Title

26/1 International environmental governance 

26/2 World environment situation 

26/3 Chemicals and wastes management 

26/4 Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem 

services 

26/5 Ten-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and 

production 

26/6 Organizing the third intergovernmental review meeting of the Global 

Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from 

Land-based Activities 

26/7 Consultative process on financing options for chemicals and wastes 

26/8 Amendments to the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured 

Global Environment Facility 

26/9 Proposed biennial programme of work and budget for 2012–2013 

26/10 Management of trust funds and earmarked contributions 

26/11 Enhanced coordination across the United Nations system, including the 

Environment Management Group 

26/12 Enhancing cooperation and coordination within the chemicals and wastes 

cluster 

26/13 Omnibus decision on reports of the Executive Director 

26/14 Global Environment Monitoring System Water Programme 

26/15 Strengthening international cooperation on the environmental aspects of 

emergency response and preparedness 

26/16 Promoting South-South cooperation on biodiversity for development 

26/17 Provisional agendas, dates and venues for the twelfth special session of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum and the 

twenty-seventh session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum 

44. At the time of the adoption of the draft omnibus decision on reports of the Executive Director, 

one representative expressed the view that the Council/Forum should not adopt decisions the sole 

purpose of which was to acknowledge the submission of reports by the Executive Director in response 

to requests from the Council/Forum. Such decisions, he said, were unnecessary and took up valuable 

time that was needed for the conduct of more urgent business. 

 IV. Credentials of representatives (agenda item 3) 

45. In accordance with rule 17, paragraph 2, of the rules of procedure, the Bureau examined the 

credentials of the representatives attending the session. Representatives of 54 of the 58 member States 

attended the session and their credentials were found to be in order. The Bureau so reported to the 

Council/Forum, which approved the Bureau’s report at the 7th plenary meeting, on 24 February 2011. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

9

V. Policy issues (agenda items 4 (a) (State of the environment), 4 (c) 

(International environmental governance), 4 (d) (Coordination 

and cooperation within the United Nations system on 

environmental matters), 4 (e) (Coordination and cooperation with 

major groups), 4 (f) (Environment and development) 

VI. Follow-up to and implementation of the outcomes of 

United Nations summits and major intergovernmental meetings, 

including the decisions of the Governing Council (agenda item 5) 

VII. Budget and programme of work for the biennium 2012–2013 and 

the Environment Fund and other budgetary matters 

(agenda item 6) 

VIII. Provisional agenda, date and venue of future sessions of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum 

(agenda item 7) 

46. Agenda items 4–7 (save for sub-item 4 (b), which was the subject of the ministerial 

consultations referred to above in section G of chapter II) were considered by the Committee of the 

Whole. The report on the deliberations of the Committee is contained in annex II to the present 

proceedings. 

47. The decisions adopted by the Council/Forum on the items are set out in annex I to the present 

proceedings and are listed in chapter III above. 

IX. Other matters (agenda item 8) 

48. No other matters were discussed. 

X. Adoption of the report (agenda item 9) 

49. The present proceedings were adopted by the Council/Forum at its 7th plenary meeting, on 

24 February 2011, on the basis of the draft proceedings which had been circulated and on the 

understanding that the secretariat and the Rapporteur would be entrusted with their finalization. 

XI. Closure of the session (agenda item 10) 

50. Many representatives made statements on behalf of their countries or regional groups. Many 

said that the outcomes of the current session would contribute significantly to the preparatory process 

for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Some, however, expressed 

reservations about the rate and nature of progress being made on some major issues, such as 

international environmental governance and the green economy. 

51. The representative of Somalia, supported by another representative, expressed concern about 

the dumping of hazardous waste including radioactive materials on the coast of Somalia. He said that 

Somalia was supported by the League of Arab States and the African Union in requesting the 

Executive Director to keep the matter under review and to prepare a report on it in consultation with 

relevant United Nations bodies. 

52. The representative of Rwanda, speaking on behalf of the African Group and requesting that his 

statement be reflected in the present proceedings, said that in designing the work programme of the 

global partnership on waste management priority should be accorded to an assessment of the e-waste 

problem so as to establish a baseline on the extent of the problem. The work programme should also 

give priority to the needs of Governments of developing countries and countries with economies in 

transition. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

10

53. One representative said that his delegation did not share the view of the majority as presented 

in the President’s summary in favour of a transition to a green economy. Another said that the 

information that had been made available on the green economy was insufficient and that his 

Government had reservations about the UNEP report Towards a green economy: pathways to 

sustainable development and poverty eradication. The debate on the matter therefore needed to be 

taken further. 

54. In his statement, the representative of Switzerland said that his Government would support the 

UNEP Trust Fund for Environmental Emergencies with a contribution of $300,000. 

55. The Executive Director, in his concluding remarks, congratulated the Council/Forum for its 

work in completing such an ambitious programme of work. While the paperless meeting had 

experienced a few glitches, the savings in paper and expenditure had been considerable. He thanked 

the major groups and stakeholders for their commitment and involvement, and urged the 

Council/Forum to take advantage of the expert group on international environmental governance that it 

had established. He said that the UNEP family would make a significant contribution to the emerging 

agenda during preparations for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and again 

paid tribute to Ms. Cropper for her work during her tenure as Deputy Executive Director of UNEP. 

56. In her closing remarks, the President said that the session had focused on two major issues of 

great relevance to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development – the green economy 

and international environmental governance. She was convinced that all the initiatives agreed upon at 

the current session would have a broad, long-term impact in promoting sustainable development and 

moving to a greener, fairer future. More work was needed to clarify how the green economy could act 

as a tool for sustainable development and poverty eradication. There was an urgent need, she said, to 

move from commitment to action; the question was not what, but how, and in taking action it was 

important to bear in mind the national realities of each country. Many stakeholders had a role to play 

in the process, including UNEP, global major groups and stakeholders, and other sectors of society. 

57. The twenty-sixth session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum 

was declared closed at 6.45 p.m. on Thursday, 24 February 2011. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

11

Annex I 

Decisions adopted by the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum at its twenty-sixth session 

Decision No. Title

26/1 International environmental governance 

26/2 World environment situation 

26/3 Chemicals and wastes management 

26/4 Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem 

services 

26/5 Ten-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and 

production 

26/6 Organizing the third intergovernmental review meeting of the Global 

Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from 

Land-based Activities 

26/7 Consultative process on financing options for chemicals and wastes 

26/8 Amendments to the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured 

Global Environment Facility 

26/9 Proposed biennial programme of work and budget for 2012–2013 

26/10 Management of trust funds and earmarked contributions 

26/11 Enhanced coordination across the United Nations system, including the 

Environment Management Group 

26/12 Enhancing cooperation and coordination within the chemicals and wastes 

cluster 

26/13 Omnibus decision on reports of the Executive Director 

26/14 Global Environment Monitoring System Water Programme 

26/15 Strengthening international cooperation on the environmental aspects of 

emergency response and preparedness 

26/16 Promoting South-South cooperation on biodiversity for development 

26/17 Provisional agendas, dates and venues for the twelfth special session of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum and the 

twenty-seventh session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum 

 Decision 26/1: International environmental governance 

The Governing Council,

Recalling its decision 25/4 of 20 February 2009, on international environmental governance, in 

which it established a consultative group of ministers or high-level representatives that in accordance 

with its mandate presented a set of options for improving international environmental governance2

 to 

the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its eleventh special session, with a 

view to providing inputs to the General Assembly,

Recalling also its decision SS.XI/1 of 26 February 2010, on international environmental 

governance, in which it further decided to establish a regionally representative, consultative group of 

ministers or high-level representatives (the consultative group), which was requested to consider the 

broader reform of the international environmental governance system, building on the set of options 

but remaining open to new ideas, 

 

2 UNEP/GCSS.XI/4. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

12

Expressing thanks to the Governments of Kenya and Finland for hosting the meetings of the 

consultative group in Nairobi and Espoo, respectively, and gratitude to the Minister of Environment of 

Finland and the Minister of Environment and Mineral Resources of Kenya for co-chairing the 

consultative group and appreciation to the Executive Director for serving as adviser to the group, 

Noting that inputs to the consultative group were made by civil society groups through the 

secretariat and by the United Nations system through the Environment Management Group and 

through the participation of designated representatives of relevant United Nations agencies at meetings 

of the consultative group, 

Having considered that strengthening the global authoritative voice, in addition to other 

voices, for the environment is a key outcome of the international environmental governance reform 

process, providing credible, coherent and effective leadership for environmental sustainability under 

the overall framework of sustainable development, 

Stressing the importance of securing political momentum for and efficient follow-up to the 

international environmental governance process, 

1. Welcomes the results of the consultative group as contained in the outcome document 

of the consultative group’s meetings, known as the “Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome”;3

 

2. Takes note of the report of the Executive Director on the implementation of 

incremental changes identified in the set of options4

 and requests the Executive Director, in 

consultation with the Committee of Permanent Representatives, to submit a draft decision for 

consideration by the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twelfth special 

session on those incremental improvements requiring a Governing Council decision as indicated in 

that report; 

3. Invites the President of the Governing Council to transmit the Nairobi-Helsinki 

Outcome to the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development at its second session and to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session; 

4. Invites the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development, in its consideration of the institutional framework for sustainable development, to 

consider the options for broader institutional reform identified in the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome as a 

contribution to strengthening the institutional framework for sustainable development by improving 

international environmental governance; 

5. Also invites the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development at its second session to initiate a full analysis of the financial, structural and 

legal implications and comparative advantages of the options identified in the Nairobi-Helsinki 

Outcome, using the expertise of relevant United Nations system entities, including the United Nations 

Environment Programme and relevant stakeholders and major groups eligible to participate in the 

Preparatory Committee; 

6. Requests the Executive Director, in cooperation with other interested United Nations 

entities and with extrabudgetary resources, to organize informal meetings in New York for 

governmental representatives on the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome in the context of discussions on the 

institutional framework for sustainable development; 

7. Also requests the Executive Director to provide a report on progress in the 

implementation of the present decision to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment 

Forum at its twelfth special session, in 2012; 

8. Decides to assess the progress achieved on international environmental governance at 

the twelfth special session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, in 2012. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

 

3 UNEP/GC.26/18.

4 UNEP/GC.26/3. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

13

 Decision 26/2: World environment situation 

The Governing Council, 

Pursuing its functions and responsibilities as outlined in General Assembly resolution 

2997 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972, including to keep under review the world environmental 

situation in order to ensure that emerging environmental problems of wide international significance 

are prioritized and receive appropriate and adequate consideration by Governments, and to promote 

the contribution of the relevant international scientific and other professional communities to the 

acquisition, assessment and exchange of environmental knowledge and information, 

 Recalling its decisions 22/1 of 7 February 2003 on early warning, assessment and monitoring, 

23/6 of 25 February 2005 on keeping the world environmental situation under review, SS.X/5 of 

22 February 2008 on the Global Environment Outlook: environment for development, and 25/2 of 

20 February 2009 on the world environmental situation, 

Noting the findings contained in a number of environmental assessment reports and 

publications released since the twenty-fifth session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum, in particular those prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme in 

cooperation with partners and presented in the report of the Executive Director on the state of the 

environment and the contribution of the United Nations Environment Programme to addressing 

substantive environmental challenges,5

 

 Noting also the findings of scientific environmental assessments conducted between 2009 and 

2011,6

 including the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in that period and 

earlier, 

Expressing concern that the documented environmental degradation and widespread changes 

resulting from human activity together with natural processes and the loss of ecosystem services are 

barriers to the attainment of internationally agreed sustainable development goals, 

Welcoming with appreciation efforts by the United Nations Environment Programme to 

increase the impact of its scientific assessments by improving their coherence and scientific rigour and 

to build regional and national capacities for environmental data collection, information and 

assessment, performed in cooperation with other United Nations entities, national Governments, 

non-governmental organizations and other partners, 

Recognizing that a core mandate of the United Nations Environment Programme is to keep 

under review the world environmental situation and provide policy-relevant guidance in addressing 

emerging environmental problems in response to the findings of key scientific assessments, and that 

the United Nations Environment Programme, through the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of 

the Global Environment Facility, in addition to its mandate for providing scientific and technological 

advice to the Global Environment Facility as a financial mechanism of global conventions, is 

responsible for identifying emerging environmental issues, 

Recalling section III of its decision 25/2, by which it called for a set of requirements for a 

migration to targeted assessments on thematic priority areas supported by a UNEP-Live enabling 

framework, section II of its decision 25/2 on improvements to the international environmental 

assessment landscape and section I A of its decision 22/1 on strengthening the scientific base of the 

United Nations Environment Programme, 

Mindful of the needs articulated in the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and 

Capacity-building, such as capacity-building in developing countries and countries with economies in 

transition to improve the management of environmental data and information for environmental 

assessment, reporting and early warning, 

Welcoming the report submitted by the Executive Director in response to section III of 

decision 25/2,7

 

5 UNEP/GC.26/4. 

6 UNEP/GC.26/INF/13. 

7 UNEP/GC.26/4/Add.1. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

14

I 

Impact of integrated environmental assessments 

1. Urges Governments to promote, as appropriate, the use of integrated environmental 

assessments reporting on the state of the environment as regular sources of information for relevant 

national and international policy processes to strengthen the scientific basis of environmental 

management and decision-making and to raise general awareness of emerging environmental issues; 

2. Requests the Executive Director: 

(a) Through the programme of work, to continue efforts to improve the coherence of 

assessments through the application of consistent and appropriate methodologies and to improve their 

scientific rigour through consistent, rigorous and appropriate review processes to assist in developing 

scientific assessment processes that are credible, relevant and legitimate to enhance their impact and to 

strengthen the capacities of countries; 

(b) To assist countries in capacity development, in line with the Bali Strategic Plan as 

appropriate, through the programme of work, to use global knowledge and experience in scientific 

assessments, notably the customization of global methodologies to other scales of implementation 

such as the national and city levels, to assist countries in building their capacity in the use of national 

and local data and to support countries in identifying key environmental policy issues that require 

scientific research; 

II 

Future assessment of environmental change over the period 2012–2013 

3. Also requests the Executive Director through the programme of work: 

 (a) To continue to conduct comprehensive integrated and scientifically credible global and 

thematic environmental assessments, avoiding duplication and building on continuing assessment 

work, to support decision-making processes at all levels, in the light of the continuing need for 

up-to-date, scientifically credible, policy-relevant information on environmental change worldwide, 

including analyses of cross-cutting issues; 

 (b) To engage all relevant stakeholders in conducting integrated global and thematic 

environmental assessments to support and strengthen further their scientific credibility, policy 

relevance and legitimacy; 

 (c) To undertake policy-relevant integrated global and thematic assessments of 

environmental change in accordance with the option that embeds the global assessment within the 

framework of the medium-term strategy; 

 (d) To facilitate the finalization of the fifth report in the Global Environment Outlook 

process and the summary for policymakers in time to feed into the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development in 2012; 

4. Urges Governments to follow up on the work initiated with the Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment by building their capacity and conducting new assessments of ecosystems and 

biodiversity and by using the results of the existing assessments to establish priorities for development 

and environmental protection; 

5. Encourages Governments to support assessments of freshwater resources, both surface 

and groundwater, and land degradation and to take into account the critical role of ecosystems and 

biodiversity in food security and sustainable food production systems; 

6. Invites the Executive Director, by engaging appropriate institutions, research networks 

and other partners, to continue the assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme of 

short-lived climate forcers and to keep under review emerging science and to update governments, 

international organizations and other stakeholders, as appropriate; 

7. Calls upon Governments in a position to do so and relevant institutions to provide 

extrabudgetary resources for technical cooperation and capacity-building to support assessment 

initiatives; 

8. Requests the Executive Director to report on progress in implementation of this 

initiative to the Governing Council at its twenty-seventh session, in 2013; 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

15

III 

International assessment landscape

9. Requests the Executive Director, subject to availability of resources, to strengthen the 

assistance provided to developing countries in conducting environmental assessments and acting on 

their findings; 

10. Invites the Executive Director to initiate discussions with the United Nations Office of 

Legal Affairs Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, and other competent United Nations 

bodies as appropriate, regarding the potential role of the United Nations Environment Programme in 

providing technical and scientific support for the first cycle of the regular process for global reporting 

and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects; 

IV 

UNEP-Live 

11. Requests the Executive Director to proceed with the development of the UNEP-Live 

platform and: 

(a) To present the pilot proof-of-concept phase of a UNEP-Live platform, in line with the 

United Nations Internet-based data access system (UNdata), consisting of an interactive web 

application with supporting data management capacities able to present historic near-real-time data 

and indicators on a limited number of environmental themes, to the Governing Council at its twelfth 

special session, in 2012; 

(b) To mobilize partnerships and institutional and technical networks in the 

non-governmental and private sectors to provide technical assistance for the development of the 

UNEP-Live platform; 

(c) To work with countries and relevant regional and thematic networks to agree on a set 

of priority environmental data and indicators to be shared within UNEP-live; 

 (d) To present a detailed set of requirements and costing of resources needed for the 

development of a more elaborate version of the UNEP-Live platform to the Governing Council at its 

twenty-seventh session, in 2013.

12. Also requests the Executive Director to develop and maintain a web-based platform to 

present information on the status of the international environmental assessment landscape; 

13. Invites Governments to engage in the development of the pilot UNEP-Live platform, to 

make available the necessary data, information and indicators on priority environmental issues and to 

engage national institutions as distributed participants in the platform; 

14. Requests the Executive Director to provide an interim report on the status of the 

UNEP-Live platform to the Governing Council at its twelfth special session, in 2012. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/3: Chemicals and wastes management 

The Governing Council,

Recalling the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development8

 and 

internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, 

Recalling also its decisions 18/12 of 26 May 1995, 19/13 of 7 February 1997, 20/23 of 

4 February 1999, SS.VII/3 of 15 February 2002, 22/4 of 7 February 2003, 23/9 of 25 February 2005, 

SS.IX/1 of 9 February 2006, 24/3 of 9 February 2007 and 25/5 of 20 February 2009 concerning global 

policies related to chemicals management and the development of a strategic approach to international 

chemicals management, 

Recalling further its decisions 24/5 of 9 February 2007 and 25/8 of 20 February 2009 on waste 

management, 

 

8 Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 

26 August–4 September 2002 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.03.II.A.1 and corrigendum), 

chap. I, resolution 2, annex. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

16

Acknowledging the widespread concern over the serious adverse effects of hazardous 

substances and wastes on human health and the environment, 

Noting that work on chemicals and waste management will be carried out as part of the 

programme of work of the United Nations Environment Programme, particularly the subprogrammes 

on harmful substances and hazardous wastes and on resource efficiency, 

Recognizing the need to take into consideration countries’ differing circumstances, 

developmental priorities and capacities, including technical and financial capabilities, 

Confirming that waste management poses a serious challenge, especially for developing 

countries and countries with economies in transition, and stressing the need for international 

organizations to undertake enhanced, more focused and coordinated actions to fill current gaps in the 

support given to efforts by developing countries, 

Noting the significance of partnerships underpinned by conclusive scientific evidence, 

Mindful of the work under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements 

of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent 

Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stockholm 

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, in addition to the Strategic Approach to International 

Chemicals Management and the intergovernmental negotiating committee to prepare a global legally 

binding instrument on mercury, 

Aware of the need to ensure coherence and complementarity and avoid duplication of 

activities, 

Mindful of the concern of African countries regarding the continued export of products and 

wastes containing hazardous substances to those countries, 

Taking into account that most of the vulnerable populations exposed to hazardous substances 

live in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, 

Acknowledging with appreciation the response of the Joint Environment Unit of the 

United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of 

Humanitarian Affairs to the deaths of children from lead poisoning in Nigeria and other countries, 

Having considered the reports of the Executive Director on chemicals and waste management,9

 

I 

Lead and cadmium 

1. Acknowledges the progress and efforts made on lead and cadmium, including actions 

taken to finalize the reviews of scientific information on those metals,10 in particular the actions taken 

to fill the data and information gaps in accordance with section II of decision 25/5 and other actions 

taken under the project addressing risks posed by exposure to lead and cadmium of the United Nations 

Environment Programme subprogramme on harmful substances and hazardous wastes;11

2. Also acknowledges the need for additional work to fill information gaps; 

3. Notes that there remains a need for a continued focus on reducing the risks posed by 

lead and cadmium; 

4. Takes note of the studies on the possible effects on human health and the environment 

of the trade of products containing lead, cadmium and mercury in Latin America and the Caribbean 

and in Asia and the Pacific;12

5. Also takes note of the key scientific findings and the identified data gaps of the 2010 

final review of the scientific information on lead and of the 2010 final review of the scientific 

information on cadmium; 

6. Acknowledges the efforts made by Governments and others to tackle the risks posed by 

lead and cadmium, in particular to phase out the use of lead in gasoline through the Partnership for 

Clean Fuels and Vehicles, the initial actions under the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead in Paints, 

regional and national legal actions to limit the content of lead and cadmium in, among other things, 

 

9 UNEP/GC.26/5/Rev.1 and UNEP/GC.26/8. 

10 UNEP/GC.26/INF/11/Add.1 and UNEP/GC.26/INF/11/Add.2. 

11 UNEP/GC.26/INF/11/Add.5. 

12 UNEP/GC.26/INF/11/Add.3 and UNEP/GC.26/INF/11/Add.4. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

17

toys, jewellery, batteries, electric and electronic equipment and vehicles, and other initiatives and 

actions implemented within the United Nations Environment Programme, and urges Governments to 

continue participating in and contributing to these initiatives; 

7. Requests the Executive Director to continue to promote and facilitate work in relation 

to the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles and the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead in Paints 

while working in close cooperation and coordination with Governments, intergovernmental 

organizations, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders; 

8. Also requests the Executive Director, in coordination with Governments, 

intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders as 

appropriate, and subject to the availability of resources, to continue activities on lead and cadmium at 

all levels, especially in developing countries, particularly in Africa, and countries with economies in 

transition, including activities such as capacity-building and awareness-raising in relation to the 

information contained in the reviews of scientific information on lead and cadmium and the 

environmental and human health problems associated with exposure to these two metals, the initiative 

to coordinate global efforts to achieve the environmentally sound management of lead and cadmium 

batteries throughout their life cycles, and the deepening of the scientific basis of existing studies; 

9. Notes that further action is needed to tackle the challenges posed by lead and cadmium 

and encourages further efforts by Governments and others to continue reducing the risks to human 

health, in particular to children and other vulnerable populations, and to the environment from lead 

and cadmium throughout the life cycles of these substances, including action to promote the use of 

lead-free and cadmium-free alternatives, where appropriate, and recognizing the specific 

environmental, economic and social conditions of developing countries and countries with economies 

in transition; 

10. Urges Governments and private entities to take measures to promote the 

environmentally sound management of products, wastes and contaminated sites containing lead and 

cadmium; 

11. Requests the Executive Director, subject to the availability of resources and building 

on existing structures, to initiate a partnership on lead and cadmium in cooperation with Governments 

and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations; 

12. Also requests the Executive Director, coordinating with stakeholders as appropriate, to 

include available information in the clearing-house mechanism of the secretariat of the Strategic 

Approach to International Chemicals Management on the possibility of replacing lead or cadmium 

with less hazardous substances or techniques and on techniques for emission abatement from reviews, 

subject to the availability of resources and for a test period of two years, and encourages Governments 

and others to submit such information to the clearing-house mechanism; 

13. Invites the International Conference on Chemicals Management to take into account, at 

its third session, the information provided in the scientific reviews on lead and cadmium and to 

consider how the risks from those metals should be reduced at the national, regional and global levels; 

14. Invites Governments and others in a position to do so to provide extrabudgetary 

resources to support the implementation of the present decision in relation to lead and cadmium; 

II 

Mercury 

15. Reaffirms the mandate set out in section III of decision 25/5 for the intergovernmental 

negotiating committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury; 

16. Acknowledges the progress made by the committee at its first two sessions; 

17. Requests the Executive Director to continue to provide support to developing countries 

and countries with economies in transition to enable them to participate effectively in the committee’s 

work; 

18. Welcomes the confirmation at the committee’s second session that the diplomatic 

conference for the adoption of the instrument will be convened in Japan; 

19. Acknowledges the progress made by the United Nations Environment Programme 

mercury programme, including under the Global Mercury Partnership and other initiatives, urges 

Governments and other stakeholders to continue to support and contribute to the Global Mercury 

Partnership, and urges all partners to continue their efforts to take immediate steps to reduce risks from 

mercury exposure; 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

18

20. Requests the Executive Director, subject to the availability of resources, to undertake 

specific actions in the context of the Global Mercury Partnership to strengthen the capacities of 

developing countries and countries with economies in transition to initiate or further develop their 

national inventories of mercury; 

21. Invites Governments and others in a position to do so to provide extrabudgetary 

resources to support the implementation of the present decision in relation to mercury; 

III 

Implementation of the Strategic Approach to 

International Chemicals Management 

22. Welcomes the outcomes of the second session of the International Conference on 

Chemicals Management and the progress made in implementing the Strategic Approach to 

International Chemicals Management, stresses the importance of its implementation and further 

development and welcomes the continued leadership of the United Nations Environment Programme 

in that regard; 

23. Urges the United Nations Environment Programme to continue to implement the 

Strategic Approach, particularly in relation to emerging policy issues and those elements of its 

programme of work related to the environmental aspects of the Strategic Approach, including 

mainstreaming activities and the assessment of the economic and social costs of unsound chemicals 

management, together with the assessment of economic instruments that internalize the external costs 

related to chemicals, to be reflected in the first Global Chemicals Outlook report, to be published in 

early 2012; 

24. Welcomes efforts to enhance the engagement of the health sector in the implementation 

of the Strategic Approach, in particular the development of the health sector strategy called for by the 

International Conference on Chemicals Management at its second session and the elaboration of 

environment and health linkages in response to the Libreville Declaration on Health and Environment 

in Africa and the Luanda Commitment on its implementation; 

25. Urges Governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental 

organizations and others in a position to do so to contribute financially and in kind to the 

implementation of the Strategic Approach, including in support of the Quick Start Programme, the 

Strategic Approach secretariat and the programme of work of the United Nations Environment 

Programme; 

IV 

Waste management, including management 

of electrical and electronic waste 

26. Requests the Executive Director to provide further assistance to developing countries 

and countries with economies in transition in their efforts to develop and strengthen the national 

implementation of an integrated waste management approach through the programme of work and 

budget; 

27. Also requests the Executive Director to support Governments in enhancing access to 

energy in rural areas through the conversion of waste agricultural biomass into energy, taking into 

consideration national experiences and technologies from developing countries and countries with 

economies in transition, and through the development of guidance materials, including on 

public-private partnerships, and capacity-building activities in the field of greenhouse-gas mitigation, 

in particular through recycling and, where appropriate, by converting waste to energy, through the 

programme of work and budget;

28. Further requests the Executive Director to provide more intensive capacity-building 

and demonstration projects in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, in 

particular in urban areas and in the field of electrical and electronic waste (“e-waste”), aimed at 

optimizing waste prevention, the recycling and recovery of waste and the efficient use of resources 

and materials at the local level, including through what is commonly known as the “3Rs” (reduce, 

reuse and recycle), consistent with the provisions of the Basel and Stockholm conventions and 

complementary to their capacity-building work, through the programme of work and budget; 

29. Requests the Executive Director further to enhance cooperation and coordination 

between all relevant United Nations bodies, the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, the Basel 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

19

Convention regional centres, the “Solving the e-waste problem” initiative and other international 

institutions for the better implementation of the present decision and to seek to avoid possible 

duplication of activities; 

30. Recommends to the Executive Director that the issue of integrated waste management 

should be further dealt with as a key priority area under the United Nations “Delivering as one” 

initiative; 

31. Takes note of the initiative by the United Nations Environment Programme to set up a 

global partnership on waste management and requests the Executive Director: 

(a) To continue to consult widely on the terms of reference for this partnership, including 

on the objectives, the organizational structure, the work programme (which includes e-waste as a one 

of the priority areas), and business planning with indicators of progress; 

(b) To broaden the information platform so as to collect and disseminate information 

related to waste management; 

(c) To focus the work of the partnership on the waste management needs of developing 

countries and countries with economies in transition; 

(d) To strengthen the cooperation and coordination with relevant United Nations and other 

relevant international institutions in the area of waste management; 

(e) To build upon experiences of other partnerships developed under the auspices of the 

United Nations Environment Programme, especially in terms of structure, tools and functions; 

(f) To ensure coherence and complementarity and avoid duplication with relevant work 

under the United Nations and other international institutions and arrangements, in particular the Basel 

Convention and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management; 

32. Notes the role of the International Environmental Technology Centre; 

33. Calls upon Governments to consider improving waste prevention and management, 

including in the field of e-waste, as a central objective when adopting and developing their own 

national sustainable development strategies, as appropriate; 

34. Invites Governments and relevant organizations to provide extrabudgetary resources 

for the implementation of the present decision in supporting the United Nations Environment 

Programme and other entities, including the Secretariat of the Basel Convention and the Basel 

Convention regional centres; 

V 

Final provisions 

35. Requests the Executive Director to present a report on progress in the implementation 

of the present decision concerning lead and cadmium, mercury and waste management to the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twenty-seventh session; 

36. Also requests the Executive Director to present a report on progress in the 

implementation of the present decision in relation to the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals 

Management to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twelfth special 

session; 

37. Further requests the Executive Director to submit input on chemicals and waste 

management as part of the contribution of the United Nations Environment Programme to the 

Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, to be held in 

2012. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/4: Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and 

ecosystem services 

The Governing Council, 

Recalling its main functions and responsibilities set out in General Assembly 

resolution 2997 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972, under which the Governing Council is, among other 

things, to promote the contribution of the relevant international scientific and other professional 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

20

communities to the acquisition, assessment and exchange of environmental knowledge and 

information and, as appropriate, to the technical aspects of the formulation and implementation of 

environmental programmes within the United Nations system, 

Taking note of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and its follow-up process, the 

consultative process towards an international mechanism of scientific expertise on biodiversity and 

decision IX/15 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 

Recalling its decision SS.XI/4 of 26 February 2010, 

Recognizing the need to strengthen and improve the science-policy interface for biodiversity 

and ecosystem services for human well-being through the establishment of a science-policy platform, 

Taking note of decision X/11 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity and decision 185 EX/43 of the Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization, by which both bodies welcomed the establishment of an 

intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, 

Taking note of General Assembly resolution 65/162 of 20 December 2010, 

Having considered the report of the Executive Director on an intergovernmental 

science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services,13 

1. Endorses the outcomes of the third and final ad hoc intergovernmental and 

multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and 

ecosystem services, held in Busan, Republic of Korea, from 7 to 11 June 2010; 

 2. Decides, based on the request by the General Assembly in its resolution 65/162 of 

20 December 2010, without prejudice to the final institutional arrangements for the intergovernmental 

science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services and in consultation with all relevant 

organizations and bodies, in order fully to operationalize the platform, to convene a plenary meeting 

providing for the full and effective participation of all member States, in particular representatives 

from developing countries, to determine modalities and institutional arrangements for the platform at 

the earliest opportunity; 

3. Requests the Executive Director, in cooperation with the United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and 

the United Nations Development Programme, to convene the plenary meeting in 2011 and to continue 

to facilitate any ensuing process to implement the platform until such time as a secretariat is 

established; 

4. Invites the Executive Director to submit an offer of interest to be considered along 

with other offers and subject to the procedures agreed during the plenary meeting, signifying the 

interest of the United Nations Environment Programme to host or otherwise support the secretariat of 

the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services; 

5. Urges Governments and invites relevant organizations and non-governmental donors 

in a position to do so to provide extrabudgetary financial resources and other contributions to facilitate 

the plenary meeting that will support the platform’s operationalization, including the full and effective 

participation of representatives from developing countries per General Assembly resolution 65/162 of 

20 December 2010; 

6. Requests the Executive Director to report on progress in the implementation of the 

present decision and its financial and administrative implications to the Governing Council at its 

twelfth special session. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/5: Ten-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption 

and production 

 The Governing Council, 

Recalling Agenda 21,14 adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and 

Development, which in its paragraph 4.8 calls for action to meet the objective of promoting patterns of 

consumption and production that reduce environmental stress and meet the basic needs of humanity, 

 

13 UNEP/GC.26/6. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

21

Recalling also paragraphs 2, 14 and 15 of the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development,15

Recalling further Governing Council decision 22/6 of 7 February 2003, 

Recognizing that resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production are one of 

the six cross-cutting priorities and objectives of the United Nations Environment Programme’s 

medium-term strategy for the period 2010–2013, which is aimed at providing strategic direction to the 

Programme’s activities in all areas, 

Commending the progress made since the twenty-second session of the Governing Council in 

advancing the sustainable consumption and production agenda through the activities of the 

United Nations Environment Programme, notably through its subprogramme on resource efficiency, 

and through the activities of the Marrakech Process on sustainable consumption and production, 

Acknowledging the numerous and diverse sustainable consumption and production initiatives 

under way at the national, regional and international levels, many of which have received financial and 

technical support from the United Nations Environment Programme and the Marrakech Process, 

Welcoming the support demonstrated for the development of a 10-year framework of 

programmes on sustainable consumption and production by the Commission on Sustainable 

Development at its eighteenth session, in 2010, and also welcoming the recognition by the 

Commission of the work of the Marrakech Process and its task forces, 

Welcoming also the strengthened collaboration between the United Nations Environment 

Programme and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs during the current 

cycle of the Commission on Sustainable Development, and expressing support for the increased 

participation of the United Nations Environment Programme in preparations for and the 

implementation of the outcomes of the Commission’s nineteenth session, 

Taking note of the Chair’s summary of the high-level intersessional meeting of the 

Commission on Sustainable Development on a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable 

consumption and production, held in Panama in January 2011, as an input to the intergovernmental 

preparatory meeting for the nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, to be 

held from 28 February to 4 March 2011, and to the nineteenth session itself, to be held from 2 to 

13 May 2011, 

Acknowledging that further progress in achieving sustainable consumption and production 

requires a more coherent and sustained approach that, among other things, provides policies and tools 

for implementation, access to information and participation, and capacity-building to enable relevant 

stakeholders to respond in the most appropriate and efficient way to regional and national priorities 

and needs, to scale up and build linkages between relevant initiatives and actions within the 

United Nations family and other stakeholders, and to channel resources effectively, 

1. Invites the Executive Director to build upon and strengthen the United Nations 

Environment Programme’s existing activities and initiatives with governmental institutions and other 

relevant stakeholders, including the private sector, in promoting sustainable consumption and 

production patterns; 

2. Invites support for Aichi Biodiversity Target 4 of the Strategic Plan of the Convention on 

Biological Diversity, adopted by the Conference of the Parties to that Convention in decision X/2, 

which target is that, by 2020 at the latest, Governments, businesses and stakeholders at all levels have 

taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and 

have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits; 

3. Supports the development of a concise, ambitious, practical and action-oriented 10-year 

framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production that aims at responding to 

national, regional and global needs, provides appropriate institutional arrangements and encourages 

the broad participation and involvement of stakeholders and effectiveness, efficiency and coherence 

14 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 

3-14 June 1992 (United Nations publication, Sales No.E.93.I.8 and corrigenda), vol. I: Resolutions adopted by the 

Conference, resolution 1, annex II. 

15 Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South 

Africa,26 August-4 September 2002 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.03.II.A.1 and corrigendum), 

chap. I, resolution 2, annex. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

22

within and beyond the United Nations system, based on the most effective and successful features of 

the reviewed models of cooperation in other fields; 

4. Invites the Commission on Sustainable Development to finalize and adopt at its 

nineteenth session a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production 

and requests the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with other relevant 

agencies, to enhance coordination and coherence in its implementation; 

5. Requests the Executive Director: 

(a) To ensure that the United Nations Environment Programme continues to play an active 

and co-leading role with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs in the 

development of a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production in all 

its dimensions such as objectives, institutional arrangements and priority programmes; 

(b) To offer to take a lead role in the implementation of a 10-year framework of 

programmes on sustainable consumption and production; 

(c) To take the necessary measures for the United Nations Environment Programme to 

play a lead role in the implementation of the 10-year framework of programmes; 

(d) Directly to support implementation of the 10-year framework of programmes in 

programme areas where the United Nations Environment Programme has particular expertise; 

6. Encourages Governments to participate actively in the finalization of a sound and 

effective 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production during the 

intergovernmental preparatory meeting for the nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable 

Development, and the nineteenth session itself, and to support its subsequent implementation to 

promote a shift to sustainable consumption and production; 

7. Invites Governments and others in a position to do so to provide financial and technical 

assistance and capacity-building through public and private efforts to support the implementation of 

the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, once adopted; 

8. Recognizes that the 10-year framework of programmes could be an important input into 

the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, to be held in 

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012; 

9. Requests the Executive Director to submit a report on the implementation of the present 

decision to the Governing Council at its twelfth special session in anticipation of the Governing 

Council’s contribution to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/6: Organizing the third intergovernmental review meeting of the 

Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment 

from Land-based Activities 

The Governing Council,

Recalling its decision SS.XI/7, which pertained to, among other things, the outcomes of the 

World Ocean Conference held in Manado, Indonesia, in May 2009, and by which it requested the 

Executive Director to extend United Nations Environment Programme cooperation and engagement 

with other United Nations agencies to support the implementation of the Manado Ocean Declaration, 

Taking note of General Assembly resolution 65/150 of 20 December 2010, on the protection of 

coral reefs for sustainable livelihoods and development, by which, among other things, the General 

Assembly urged States, within their national jurisdictions, and competent international organizations, 

within their mandates, to take all practical steps at all levels to protect coral reefs and related 

ecosystems for sustainable livelihoods and development, 

Recalling the requirement, as stated in paragraph 13 (c) of the Washington Declaration on the 

Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities,16 periodically to review the 

implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment 

from Land-based Activities, 

 

16 UNEP(OCA)/LBA/IG.2/6, annex II. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

23

1. Takes note of the progress report of the Executive Director on the implementation of 

decision SS.XI/7 on oceans,17 which includes information on work undertaken by the United Nations 

Environment Programme to protect marine and coastal ecosystems, especially through its marine and 

coastal strategy, the Regional Seas Programme and the Global Programme of Action for the Protection 

of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities; 

2. Invites Governments and international and regional financial institutions to make 

coordinated efforts to support developing countries in implementing marine and coastal initiatives, 

including within the United Nations Environment Programme, at the national, regional and global 

levels; 

3. Encourages the Executive Director to consider extending the support of the 

United Nations Environment Programme to the expert workshop on the role of marine and coastal 

biodiversity and ecosystems in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change impacts, as proposed in 

paragraph 77 of decision X/29 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity, as a means of implementing relevant aspects of the present decision and paragraph 2 of 

decision SS.XI/7; 

4. Requests the Executive Director to proceed with organizing the third session of the 

Intergovernmental Review Meeting on the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the 

Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, working to ensure that 

participation is as broad as possible, and to that end urges all Governments to be actively involved in 

the intergovernmental review process and, where possible, to make financial contributions to defray 

the costs associated with that meeting; 

5. Also requests the Executive Director to engage the technical expertise and services of 

an international maritime body such as the International Maritime Organization, noting that the 

International Maritime Organization’s activities with regard to shipping can play a vital role in the 

protection of the marine environment from land-based activities through its activities in relation to 

seas and marine protection. 

7th meeting 

 24 February 2011 

Decision 26/7: Consultative process on financing options for chemicals and 

wastes 

The Governing Council, 

Recalling its decision SS.XI/8 of 26 February 2010 and the need for heightened efforts to 

increase the political priority accorded to the sound management of chemicals and wastes and the 

increased need for sustainable, predictable, adequate and accessible financing for the chemicals and 

wastes agenda, 

Recalling also the request in that decision to the Executive Director to continue leading the 

consultative process and to report on the progress made and the direction of the process, 

Recalling further the request in that decision to the Executive Director to launch, in 

collaboration with relevant partners, initiatives to raise awareness of the importance of the sound 

management of chemicals and wastes through various avenues, including the media and key 

international opportunities such as intergovernmental meetings and public events at both the national 

and international levels, 

Taking note of General Assembly resolution 65/162 of 20 December 2010, by which the 

General Assembly welcomed the consultative process on financing options for chemicals and wastes 

and expressed support for further efforts through the United Nations Environment Programme to 

continue such discussions, in cooperation and coordination among the three chemicals and wastes 

conventions and to support Governments in their efforts to implement, comply with and enforce these 

multilateral environmental agreements, 

Having considered the progress report submitted by the Executive Director on the consultative 

process on financing options for chemicals and wastes and, in particular, the information on the third 

meeting, held in Pretoria, South Africa, on 10 and 11 January 2011,18 

 

17 UNEP/GC.26/10. 

18 UNEP/GC.26/11 and Add.1. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

24

1. Acknowledges the progress made and the work carried out to date by the United 

Nations Environment Programme regarding the consultative process; 

2. Requests the United Nations Environment Programme to continue to provide support 

for the consultative process, as called for at the third meeting in the consultative process and described 

in the report of the Executive Director on the outcome of the third meeting;19

3. Reiterates its invitation to Governments and other interested parties, including the 

private sector, to provide financial and in kind support for the process and for awareness-raising 

initiatives; 

4. Requests the Executive Director to submit a final report to the Governing 

Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twelfth special session on the implementation of 

decision SS.XI/8 and of the present decision. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/8: Amendments to the Instrument for the Establishment of the 

Restructured Global Environment Facility 

The Governing Council, 

Recalling its decision SS.IV/1 of 18 June 1994 on the adoption of the Instrument for the 

Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility, 

Recalling also its decision 22/19 of 7 February 2003 on amendments to the Instrument for the 

Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility, which included land degradation, 

primarily desertification and deforestation, and persistent organic pollutants as new focal areas of the 

Global Environment Facility, 

Recalling further its decision 24/13 of 9 February 2007 on an amendment to the Instrument for 

the Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility relating to the location of meetings 

of the Council of the Global Environment Facility, 

Recalling the approval in May 2010 by the Fourth Assembly of the Global Environment 

Facility of amendments to the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global 

Environment Facility relating to the availability of the Global Environment Facility to serve as a 

financial mechanism for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries 

Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, and to the appointment 

and term of the Chief Executive Officer/Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility under 

paragraph 21 of the Instrument, 

Having taken note of the report of the Executive Director20 and the supporting material,21

1. Decides to adopt the amendment to the Instrument for the Establishment of the 

Restructured Global Environment Facility by which the Global Environment Facility will be made 

available to serve as a financial mechanism for the United Nations Convention to Combat 

Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly 

in Africa; 

2. Also decides to adopt the amendment to paragraph 21 of the Instrument relating to the 

appointment and term of the Chief Executive Officer/Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility, 

by which the text 

“The CEO shall be appointed to serve for three years on a full time basis by the 

Council on the joint recommendation of the Implementing Agencies. The CEO may be 

reappointed by the Council. The CEO may be removed by the Council only for cause.” 

will be replaced with: 

“The CEO shall be appointed to serve for four years on a full time basis by the 

Council. The CEO may be reappointed by the Council for one additional four year term.”; 

 

19 UNEP/GC.26/11/Add.1. 

20 UNEP/GC.26/12. 

21 UNEP/GC.26/INF/15. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

25

3. Invites the Executive Director to consider ways of enhancing the capacity of the 

United Nations Environment Programme, as the principal United Nations body in the field of the 

environment, to strengthen its role as an implementing agency of the Global Environment Facility; 

4. Requests the Executive Director to transmit the present decision to the Chief Executive 

Officer/Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/9: Proposed biennial programme of work and budget for 2012–2013 

The Governing Council, 

Having considered the proposed programme of work and budget for the biennium 

2012–201322 and the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

Questions,23

1. Approves the programme of work for the biennium 2012–2013 taking into account the 

relevant decisions of the Governing Council; 

2. Also approves appropriations for the Environment Fund in the amount of 

190.962 million United States dollars, of which a maximum of 122.310 million United States dollars is 

allocated to cover post costs for the purposes indicated in the following table: 

Environment Fund programme of work and budget for the biennium 2012–2013 (thousands of United 

States dollars)

A. Executive direction and management 9 041 

B. Programme of work 165 500 

1. Climate change 30 788 

2. Disasters and conflicts 10 454 

3. Ecosystem management 36 226 

4. Environmental governance 41 622 

5. Harmful substances and hazardous waste 19 543 

6. Resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production 26 867 

C. Fund programme reserve 6 365 

D. Programme support 10 055 

Total 190 962 

3. Welcomes the extensive consultations that have taken place between the Executive 

Director and the Committee of Permanent Representatives on the preparation of the draft programme 

of work and budget for the biennium 2012–2013; 

4. Requests the Executive Director to hold consultations for the preparation of all future 

programmes of work and budgets; 

5. Acknowledges the progress on the implementation of the medium-term strategy, as 

presented in the progress performance report;24

6. Authorizes the Executive Director, with a view to ensuring better conformity with the 

practices in other United Nations bodies, to reallocate resources between budget lines up to a 

maximum of 10 per cent of the appropriations to which the resources are reallocated; 

7. Also authorizes the Executive Director, if necessary, to reallocate funds in excess of 

10 per cent and up to 20 per cent of an appropriation in consultation with the Committee of Permanent 

Representatives; 

 

22 UNEP/GC.26/13. 

23 UNEP/GC.26/13/Add.1. 

24 UNEP/GC.26/INF/6/Add.1. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

26

8. Further authorizes the Executive Director to adjust, in consultation with the 

Committee of Permanent Representatives, the level of Environment Fund allocations to bring it into 

line with possible variations in income compared to the approved level of appropriations; 

9. Authorizes the Executive Director to enter into forward commitments not exceeding 

20 million United States dollars for Environment Fund activities for the biennium 2014–2015; 

10. Requests the Executive Director to continue to apply a prudent approach to the 

management of the resources of the Environment Fund, including through the careful management of 

contractual arrangements; 

11. Notes that in recent bienniums an increasing share of the Environment Fund has been 

allocated to post costs, resulting in a reduced share of Environment Fund resources being devoted to 

non-post costs; 

12. Requests the Executive Director to take the steps necessary to increase the 

Environment Fund resources that are allocated to non-post costs, and to report half-yearly to 

Governments through the Committee of Permanent Representatives on the progress made; 

13. Also requests the Executive Director to continue to shift emphasis from the delivery of 

outputs to the achievement of results, ensuring that United Nations Environment Programme managers 

at all levels take responsibility for the achievement of programme objectives and the efficient and 

transparent use of resources to that end, subject to United Nations processes of review, evaluation and 

oversight; 

14. Further requests the Executive Director to report to Governments, through the 

Committee of Permanent Representatives, on a yearly basis, and to the Governing Council at its 

regular and special sessions, on the progress made in respect of each of the subprogrammes and their 

relevant expected accomplishments and on the execution of the budget of the Environment Fund, 

including voluntary contributions, expenditures and reallocations of appropriations or adjustments of 

allocations; 

15. Authorizes the Executive Director to streamline reporting to Governments through the 

Committee of Permanent Representatives by merging progress reporting on administrative and 

budgetary matters with programme performance reporting; 

16. Requests the Executive Director to provide regular briefings to the Committee of 

Permanent Representatives on the programme and budget performance of each subprogramme to 

enable the Committee to perform its monitoring task adequately; 

17. Also requests the Executive Director to ensure that earmarked contributions to the 

United Nations Environment Programme, apart from those for which the United Nations Environment 

Programme merely acts as treasurer, are used to fund activities that are in line with the programme of 

work; 

18. Takes note of the information document on the relationship between the 

United Nations Environment Programme and the multilateral environmental agreements that it 

administers25 and requests the Executive Director, in consultation with the relevant multilateral 

environmental agreement secretariats, the United Nations Board of Auditors, the Office of Legal 

Affairs and all relevant bodies, to address in a progress report, which includes input and commentary 

from the multilateral environmental agreements, the issues of accountability and the financial and 

administrative arrangements, including their legal bases, between the United Nations Environment 

Programme and the multilateral environmental agreements that it administers, to be presented to the 

Governing Council at its twelfth special session; 

19. Calls for the allocation of an appropriate share of the United Nations regular budget to 

the United Nations Environment Programme; 

20. Reiterates the need for stable, adequate and predictable financial resources for the 

United Nations Environment Programme and, in accordance with General Assembly 

resolution 2997 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972, which underlined the need to consider the adequate 

reflection of all administrative and management costs of the Environment Programme in the context of 

the United Nations regular budget, looks forward to the implementation of the requests of the General 

Assembly to the United Nations Secretary-General to keep the resource needs of the United Nations 

Environment Programme and the United Nations Office at Nairobi under review so as to permit the 

 

25 UNEP/GC.26/INF/21 and Corr.1 (reissued for technical reasons). 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

27

effective delivery of necessary services to the United Nations Environment Programme and the other 

United Nations organs and organizations in Nairobi; 

21. Takes note of General Assembly resolution 65/162 of 20 December 2010, by which the 

General Assembly called for increased support for strengthening the human, financial and 

programmatic capacities of all regional offices of the United Nations Environment Programme in the 

context of its budget and programme of work, and requests the Executive Director, in consultation 

with the Committee of Permanent Representatives, to review the needs and potential of such offices in 

assisting countries in mainstreaming their environmental priorities and maintaining the strategic 

presence of the Programme at the national and regional levels, with the results of the review to be 

submitted to the Governing Council at its twelfth special session for its consideration; 

22. Requests the Executive Director to submit, in consultation with the Committee of 

Permanent Representatives, a prioritized, results-oriented and streamlined programme of work and 

budget with a reduced share of the Environment Fund for post costs and an increased share for 

non-post costs for the biennium 2014–2015 that clearly prioritizes the application of the resources of 

the Environment Fund for consideration and approval by the Governing Council at its twenty-seventh 

session; 

23. Also requests the Executive Director to prepare, in consultation with the Committee of 

Permanent Representatives, a medium-term strategy for the period 2014–2017 with a clearly defined 

vision, clearly defined objectives, priorities and impact measures and a robust mechanism for review 

by Governments, for approval by the Governing Council at its twenty-seventh session. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/10: Management of trust funds and earmarked contributions 

The Governing Council,

Having considered the report of the Executive Director on the management of trust funds and 

earmarked contributions,26

Recalling the authority vested in the Executive Director, with the approval of the Governing 

Council, to establish trust funds within the framework of the Environment Fund for specified purposes 

consistent with the policies, aims and activities of the United Nations Environment Programme, as 

provided for in Article V of the General Procedures Governing the Operations of the Fund of the 

United Nations Environment Programme, in addition to all other relevant policies and procedures 

promulgated by the Secretary-General regarding the operation of trust funds, 

I 

Trust funds in support of the programme of work of the United Nations 

Environment Programme 

1. Notes and approves the establishment of the following trust funds since the twenty-fifth 

session of the Governing Council: 

 A. Technical cooperation trust funds 

 (a) RED – Technical Cooperation Trust Fund to Support the Programme of Work and 

Responsibilities of the United Nations Environment Programme in the United Nations Collaborative 

Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, 

which was established in 2009 with no expiry date; 

 (b) ESS – Technical Cooperation Trust Fund for the Implementation by the United Nations 

Environment Programme of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EBA); 

 (c) TPL – Technical Cooperation Trust Fund for the Financing of Professional Officers by 

the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), which was established in 

2009 with no expiry date; 

2. Approves the extension of the following trust funds subject to the Executive Director 

receiving requests to do so from the relevant Governments or donors: 

 

26 UNEP/GC.26/14/Rev.2. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

28

 B. General trust funds 

 (a) AML – General Trust Fund for the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment 

(AMCEN), which is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (b) CWL – General Trust Fund for the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW), 

which is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (c) MCL – General Trust Fund in support of Activities on Mercury and its Compounds, 

which is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (d) WPL – General Trust Fund to Provide Support to the Global Environment Monitoring 

System/Water Programme Office and to Promote its Activities, which is extended up to and including 

31 December 2013; 

 C. Technical cooperation trust funds 

 (a) BPL – Technical Cooperation Trust Fund for the Implementation of the Agreement with 

Belgium (financed by the Government of Belgium), which is extended up to and including 31 December 

2013; 

 (b) GWL – Technical Cooperation Trust Fund for the Provision of Support to the Global 

International Global Waters Projects (financed by the Government of Finland), which is extended up to 

and including 31 December 2013; 

 (c) REL – Technical Cooperation Trust Fund for the Promotion of Renewable Energy in the 

Mediterranean Region (financed by the Government of Italy), which is extended up to and including 

31 December 2013; 

II 

Trust funds in support of regional seas programmes, 

conventions, protocols and special funds 

3. Notes and approves the establishment of the following technical cooperation trust fund 

since the twenty-fifth session of the Governing Council: EAP – Multi-Donor Technical Cooperation 

Trust Fund for the Implementation of the African Elephant Action Plan, which was established in 2011 

with no expiry date; 

4. Approves the extension of the following trust funds subject to the Executive Director 

receiving requests to do so from the relevant Governments or contracting parties: 

 A. General trust funds 

(a) BEL – General Trust Fund for Additional Voluntary Contributions in Support of 

Approved Activities under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is extended up to and 

including 31 December 2013; 

 (b) BGL – General Trust Fund for the Core Programme Budget for the Biosafety Protocol, 

which is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (c) BHL – Special Voluntary Trust Fund for Additional Voluntary Contributions in Support 

of Approved Activities of the Biosafety Protocol, which is extended up to and including 31 December 

2013; 

 (d) BYL – General Trust Fund for the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is 

extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (e) BZL – General Trust Fund for Voluntary Contributions to Facilitate the Participation of 

Parties in the Process of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is extended up to and including 

31 December 2013; 

 (f) CRL – Regional Trust Fund for the Implementation of the Action Plan for the Caribbean 

Environment Programme, which is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (g) ESL – Regional Trust Fund for the Implementation of the Action Plan for the Protection 

and Development of the Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of East Asian Seas, which is extended 

up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (h) MEL – Trust Fund for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, which 

is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

29

 (i) MSL – Trust Fund for the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild 

Animals, which is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (j) MVL – General Trust Fund for Voluntary Contributions in Support of the Convention on 

the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, which is extended up to and including 

31 December 2013; 

 (k) PNL – General Trust Fund for the Protection, Management and Development of the 

Coastal and Marine Environment and the Resources of the Northwest Pacific Region, which is extended 

up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (l) ROL – General Trust Fund for the Operational Budget of the Rotterdam Convention on 

the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International 

Trade, which is extended up to and including 31 December 2013; 

 B. Technical cooperation trust funds 

(a) BIL – Special Voluntary Trust Fund for Voluntary Contributions to Facilitate the 

Participation of Parties, in particular the Least Developed and the Small Island Developing States among 

Them, and Parties with Economies in Transition (Biosafety Protocol), which is extended up to and 

including 31 December 2013; 

 (b) RVL – Special Trust Fund for the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent 

Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, which is extended up 

to and including 31 December 2013; 

 (c) VBL – Voluntary Trust Fund to Facilitate the Participation of Indigenous and Local 

Communities in the work of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is extended up to and 

including 31 December 2013. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/11: Enhanced coordination across the United Nations system, 

including the Environment Management Group 

The Governing Council,

Recognizing the role of the United Nations Environment Programme in enhanced coordination 

and collaboration across the United Nations system to achieve greater coherence in environmental 

activities, 

Recalling its decision SS.XI/3, on enhanced coordination across the United Nations system, 

including the Environment Management Group, 

Recalling also the Joint Inspection Unit report on the environmental profile of the 

United Nations system organizations and their in-house environmental management policies and 

practices,27

Welcoming the efforts of the Executive Director, including in his capacity as Chair of the 

Environment Management Group, and those of its members in promoting cooperation across the 

United Nation system on environmental activities, 

Welcoming in particular the progress made in the implementation of the memorandum of 

understanding between the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations 

Development Programme as presented by the Executive Director,28 and in that regard expressing 

satisfaction with the establishment of a joint working group, as described in the memorandum, 

 Expressing appreciation for the progress report prepared under the guidance of the senior 

officials of the Environment Management Group at their sixteenth meeting and as presented by the 

Executive Director,29

 Commending the Group on its progress in facilitating cooperation across the United Nations 

system to assist Member States in implementing the environmental agenda, 

 

27 JIU/REP/2010/1. 

28 UNEP/GC.26/INF/9/Add.1. 

29 UNEP/GC.26/15, annex. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

30

Welcoming in particular the Group’s contribution to the tenth meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity30 and its follow-up decision to continue its support 

for the implementation of the biodiversity agenda across the United Nations system, 

1. Supports the continued efforts by the Group to mainstream environmental 

considerations in activities at the programme, management and operational levels in close cooperation 

with the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination and its subsidiary bodies; 

2. Encourages the Group to continue to promote coherence in programming 

environmental activities in the United Nations system, including by mainstreaming environmental 

concerns into sectoral programmes, through such measures as the following: 

(a) Contribution to the international agenda on biodiversity, including implementation of 

the relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its 

tenth meeting; 

(b) Preparation of a United Nations system-wide contribution to the tenth session of the 

Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those 

Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa; 

(c) Contribution by the United Nations system to the nineteenth session of the 

Commission on Sustainable Development, including all five themes for the session; 

(d) Preparation of a contribution by the United Nations system, identifying existing studies 

on the green economy, to the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development; 

3. Also encourages the Group to continue supporting the implementation of the 

United Nations climate-neutral strategy and advancing the sustainability of policies, management 

practices and operations in the United Nations system, including sustainable procurement, and the 

establishment of and agreement to put in place a process for environmental impact assessment and the 

use of environmental and social safeguards in respect of projects taken up directly by the organizations 

of the United Nations system;

4. Requests the Executive Director in his capacity as Chair of the Group to provide a 

progress report on the Group’s work to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum 

at its twelfth special session; 

5. Requests the Executive Director to provide a progress report on the implementation of 

the memorandum of understanding between the United Nations Environment Programme and the 

United Nations Development Programme to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment 

Forum at its twelfth special session; 

6. Urges the United Nations Environment Programme to consider using the Poverty and 

Environment Initiative as a model for future collaboration with the United Nations Development 

Programme and with other United Nations agencies, where relevant, building on the comparative 

advantages of each organization. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/12: Enhancing cooperation and coordination within the chemicals 

and wastes cluster 

The Governing Council, 

Recalling chapter 19 of Agenda 2131 and Governing Council decisions 18/12 of 26 May 1995, 

18/32 of 25 May 1995, 19/13 of 7 February 1997, SS.V/5 of 22 May 1998, 20/22 of 4 February 1999, 

20/23 and 20/24 of 4 February 1999, 21/3, 21/4, 21/5 and 21/6 of 9 February 2001, SS.VII/3 of 

15 February 2002, 22/4 of 7 February 2003, 23/9 of 25 February 2005, 24/3 of 9 February 2007 and 

25/5 of 20 February 2009 concerning global policies related to chemicals management, 

 

30 “Advancing the biodiversity agenda – a UN system-wide contribution to the biodiversity agenda”, report 

by the Environment Management Group, available on the Group’s website at www.unemg.org. 

31 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 

3–14 June 1992 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and corrigenda), vol. I: Resolutions adopted by 

the Conference, resolution 1, annex II. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

31

Recalling also decisions BC.Ex-1/1, RC.Ex-1/1 and SC.Ex-1/1, adopted by the conferences of 

the parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes 

and Their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain 

Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stockholm Convention on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants, respectively, at the simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the 

conferences of the parties to those three conventions, 

Welcoming the progress achieved in enhancing cooperation and coordination within the 

chemicals and wastes cluster, implementing the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals 

Management, the negotiations on a global legally binding instrument on mercury, the consultative 

process on financing options for chemicals and wastes, the Global Chemicals Outlook process, and the 

steps taken by the United Nations Environment Programme to address the global challenges posed by 

chemicals to human health and the environment, 

Stressing that the future process to enhance cooperation and coordination within the chemicals 

and wastes cluster as proposed in the present decision should complement and build on the review of 

the process of enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm 

conventions called for in decisions BC.Ex-1/1, RC.Ex-1/1 and SC.Ex-1/1, and is intended to be a 

broader and longer-term process, 

Noting the objectives set at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

in 1992 and confirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 

that by 2020 chemicals are used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant 

adverse effects on human health and the environment, and the need to review the objectives in the 

context of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, 

Noting also that further action may be needed to strengthen the sound management of 

chemicals and wastes globally up to 2020 and beyond, 

Taking note that the objective of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals 

Management is that by 2020 chemicals are used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of 

significant adverse effects on human health and the environment, and that further action might need to 

be taken beyond that date to work towards enhancing the implementation of that objective at the 

global, regional and, in particular, national levels, 

Taking note also of the initial analysis on further enhancing cooperation and coordination 

within the chemicals and wastes cluster by the United Nations Environment Programme32 and of the 

need and opportunities for strengthening the continued sound management of chemicals and wastes,

Recognizing that challenges posed by chemicals and wastes are global, enduring and 

constantly evolving and that they are interrelated with crucial environmental issues such as 

environment-dependent human health, the health of ecosystems and better ecosystem management, the 

preservation of biodiversity, and the link between poverty and environment, environmental disasters, 

climate change and sustainable consumption, thus forming part of the challenges posed to international 

environmental governance, 

Recognizing also that chemicals are integral to sustainable development but that the sound 

management of chemicals and wastes is not yet fully integrated into sustainable development 

processes, 

Recognizing further the leading role that the United Nations Environment Programme 

continues to play, working in close cooperation with Governments and other key stakeholders, in 

developing a global and coordinated approach to coherent chemicals and wastes management, 

Having considered the initial analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme of the 

need and opportunities for strengthening the further sound management of chemicals and wastes,33

1. Underlines the need for an approach to the sound management of chemicals and 

wastes at all levels that responds in an effective, efficient, coherent and coordinated manner to new 

and emerging issues and challenges; 

2. Requests the Executive Director, working with the secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam 

and Stockholm conventions and of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, in 

addition to other key stakeholders in the area of the sound management of chemicals and wastes at the 

global level, to continue efforts to enhance cooperation and coordination regarding the chemicals and 

 

32 UNEP/GC.26/16. 

33 Ibid. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

32

wastes-related agenda at the national, regional and global levels and to report on progress in those 

efforts at the meetings of the conferences of the parties to those conventions in 2011; 

3. Invites those countries that have not ratified the multilateral environmental agreements 

on chemicals and wastes to do so in an expeditious manner as a contribution to concerted efforts to 

enhance cooperation and coordination within the chemicals and wastes cluster; 

4. Requests the Executive Director to facilitate and support an inclusive, country-driven, 

consultative process on the challenges to and options for further enhancing cooperation and 

coordination in the chemicals and wastes cluster in the long term, building on the above-mentioned 

initial analysis report and the comments received thereon from Governments, relevant 

intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental stakeholders; 

5. Invites the participants in the above-mentioned consultative process to take into 

consideration partnerships between all relevant sectors to build capacities, to ensure adequate 

technology transfer and to promote the provision of necessary technical and financial resources; 

6. Requests the Executive Director to provide input to the Preparatory Committee for the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and to present a progress report on the 

consultative process to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twelfth 

special session and a report on the outcome of the consultative process to the Governing 

Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twenty-seventh session; 

7. Urges Governments and other stakeholders in a position to do so to contribute 

extrabudgetary resources for the conduct of the process. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/13: Omnibus decision on reports of the Executive Director 

The Governing Council,

Recalling its decisions SS.X/3 of 22 February 2008 on the medium-term strategy for the period 

2010–2013, 25/9 of 20 February 2009 on South-South cooperation for achieving sustainable 

development, and SS.XI/7 of 26 February 2010 on oceans, 

Recalling also its decision SS.X/3, which welcomes the United Nations Environment 

Programme medium-term strategy for the period 2010–2013 and, among other things, encourages the 

Executive Director to continue to strengthen results-based management in the United Nations 

Environment Programme, 

1. Takes note of the reports by the Executive Director34 summarizing the activities 

undertaken by the United Nations Environment Programme on South-South cooperation for achieving 

sustainable development and on oceans; 

2. Requests the Executive Director to continue to strengthen results-based management in 

the United Nations Environment Programme and, wherever possible, to provide an account of relevant 

activities in a results-based report to the Governing Council on the implementation of the programmes 

of work and budgets. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/14: Global Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme 

The Governing Council,

Recalling its decisions 23/2 of 25 February 2005 and 24/16 of 9 February 2007 on the updated 

water policy and strategy of the United Nations Environment Programme, 

Reaffirming the role of the United Nations Environment Programme as the main global 

environmental authority and principal body within the United Nations system in the field of 

environment, including global water quality monitoring and assessment, 

 

34 UNEP/GC.26/9, UNEP/GC.26/10 and UNEP/GC.26/INF/6/Add.1, respectively. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

33

Reaffirming also the need to strengthen the scientific base of the United Nations Environment 

Programme, within its mandate, including through the reinforcement of the scientific capacities of 

developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the area of environmental 

protection, 

Recognizing the increased need for reliable and high-quality global water quality data, 

assessments and indicators in support of decision-making on environment and sustainable 

development, 

Acknowledging that the Global Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme is one of 

the main sources for global water quality data within the United Nations system and provides the 

evidence-based information on the state and trends of global inland water quality required for the 

sustainable management of the world’s freshwater, 

Recognizing the importance of United Nations system initiatives devoted to water research, 

water resources management, water assessment, education and capacity-building, particularly those 

led by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or with its involvement, 

such as the World Water Assessment Programme, the World Water Development Report, the 

International Hydrological Programme and the UNESCO-IHE Institute of Water Education,

Recognizing also the need to increase the capacity and the number of countries that provide 

reliable water quality data and information to enhance the usefulness of the Global Environment 

Monitoring System/Water Programme, both for the users of today and the vast array of potential users 

of tomorrow as issues of water quality become increasingly important, 

1. Acknowledges the need to improve the tracking and monitoring of water quality and 

capacity of developing countries in this field; 

2. Requests the Executive Director to facilitate the further development of the Global 

Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme to ensure that the Programme provides 

scientifically credible water quality data that meet the needs of the United Nations: 

(a) To inform decision-making by ensuring the integration of water quality data and 

information into a broad range of issues, from ecosystems and human health to poverty and economic 

sustainability; 

(b) To create a knowledge base for assessing water quality and factors that affect water 

quality by focusing more on research, indicators and data applications; 

(c) To promote access to information by encouraging and facilitating data-sharing, 

interoperability and standards to create accessible web-based information on water quality; 

(d) To strengthen capacity to enhance monitoring programmes and analytical, assessment 

and research activities for integrated water resource management in developing countries; 

(e) To encourage cooperation at the regional level to enhance water monitoring at the 

global level, to ensure better coordination of the Global Environment Monitoring System/Water 

Programme with other existing global, regional and national water monitoring systems and other 

specified water monitoring systems to improve its efficiency and to avoid duplication and ensure data 

coherence; 

3. Encourages Governments and other organizations to participate actively in the Global 

Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme by contributing water quality data and 

information; 

4. Invites Governments and others in a position to do so, including the private sector, to 

provide financial and in-kind support for Global Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme 

capacity-building and transfer of technology efforts in developing countries; 

5. Requests the Executive Director to report to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum at its twenty-seventh session on the implementation of the present decision. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

34

Decision 26/15: Strengthening international cooperation on the environmental 

aspects of emergency response and preparedness 

The Governing Council, 

Reaffirming its view that there are inherent linkages between environmental, humanitarian and 

development outcomes, and that there is a need to identify and address environmental risks linked to 

natural and man-made disasters as defined in subprogramme 2 of the programme of work of the 

United Nations Environment Programme, on disasters and conflicts,35 

 Welcoming the role of the United Nations Environment Programme as the focal point for 

environment in respect of needs assessments carried out in the United Nations system and within the 

humanitarian coordination system through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee cluster approach, 

Noting with concern the extent to which the current limitations of international emergency 

response systems could unintentionally amplify the environmental impacts of natural and man-made 

disasters, and recognizing that greater efforts and support are needed to assist affected countries, upon 

their request, to respond to and manage environmental risks and impacts, 

Acknowledging the need to tackle the underlying factors that contribute to an increased risk of 

disaster, 

Expressing concern at the possible future impacts of climate change, such as increases in the 

frequency, intensity and unpredictability of extreme hydrological and meteorological events, which 

could contribute to corresponding increases in the number and scale of disasters and the need for 

international assistance for prevention, response and recovery, 

Taking into account the vulnerability of developing countries, including the most vulnerable, 

such as small island developing States and least developed countries, to natural hazards and the 

environmental impacts of natural and man-made disasters, which could undermine the attainment of 

internationally agreed development goals such as the Millennium Development Goals, 

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 44/224 of 22 December 1989, on international 

cooperation in the monitoring, assessment and anticipation of environmental threats and in assistance 

in cases of environmental emergency, and 46/182 of 19 December 1991 and 58/114 of 17 December 

2003 on strengthening the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance by the United Nations, 

Recalling also its decisions 21/17 of 9 February 2001 and 22/8 of 7 February 2003 on further 

improvement of environmental emergency prevention, preparedness, assessment, response and 

mitigation, 

Noting that the medium-term strategy for the period 2010–2013 identifies disasters and 

conflicts as one of six cross-cutting thematic priorities of the United Nations Environment Programme, 

Welcoming the continued collaboration between the United Nations Environment Programme 

and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, through their Joint Environment Unit, as 

the principal multilateral tool for mobilizing and coordinating international response to environmental 

emergencies, 

Recalling the Hyogo Declaration and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 adopted by 

the General Assembly in its resolution 60/195 of 22 December 2005, which outline relevant principles 

for disaster risk reduction and disaster preparedness at all levels, 

Noting with appreciation the development of specialized expertise within the United Nations 

Environment Programme on mainstreaming environmental issues in humanitarian operations to 

minimize possible environmental impacts and ensure that they do no harm with regard to longer-term 

vulnerability and development,

Recalling also that, while it is a primary responsibility of Governments to establish, where 

possible, adequate structures, procedures and capacities for responding to environmental risks, 

preventive action and preparedness should always be prioritized as the means of dealing with such 

risks stemming from natural and man-made disasters, 

1. Requests the Executive Director: 

(a) To coordinate, in cooperation with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian 

Affairs, within the coming 12 months, the preparation of a baseline document on current roles, 

 

35 UNEP/GC.26/13. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

35

responsibilities and divisions of labour between international organizations involved in responding to 

environmental emergencies, identifying key gaps and opportunities; 

(b) To facilitate, in cooperation with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian 

Affairs, a process over the coming three years on the basis of the above-mentioned document to ensure 

that key organizations involved in responding to environmental emergencies have a clear and mutually 

agreed understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities in various scenarios; 

(c) To contribute to efforts to monitor and evaluate the risks of potential natural and 

man-made disasters; 

2. Decides, in cooperation with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 

the United Nations Development Programme and other relevant actors, to continue to contribute to 

strengthening the United Nations response mechanism for the coordination and mobilization of 

international assistance to countries facing environmental risks and impacts from natural and 

man-made disasters, through, in particular, the disasters and conflicts subprogramme of the 

programme of work of the United Nations Environment Programme and the collaborative partnership 

between the Programme and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; 

3. Requests the Executive Director to continue to raise awareness of and promote 

cooperation on the environmental dimensions of natural and man-made disasters and of the 

environmental implications of humanitarian and other international response; 

4. Also requests the Executive Director to continue, in close cooperation with the 

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, the United Nations Development Programme, the 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and other actors, through the 

implementation of the programme of work of the United Nations Environment Programme, to 

strengthen integrated approaches to reducing the risk of natural and man-made disasters and adapting 

to the impacts of climate change, 

5. Invites Governments, international organizations, international financial institutions 

and other relevant stakeholders to provide countries, particularly developing countries, with 

technological support, capacity-building and resources for prevention, preparedness and response; 

6. Invites Governments to provide adequate support, including financial resources, for the 

effective mainstreaming of environmental needs in humanitarian response planning and operations and 

to provide in kind resources, including seconded personnel, to the United Nations Environment 

Programme and for the collaborative partnership between the United Nations Environment Programme 

and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to enable them efficiently to assist 

countries, in particular developing countries, 

7. Also invites Governments to improve the linkages and coordination between 

emergency response, early recovery and development actors from the onset of emergency response; 

8. Further invites Governments to improve the involvement of local and regional actors 

in prevention, preparedness and response to the environmental aspects of natural and man-made 

disasters in consultation, as appropriate, with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 

and other relevant actors; 

9. Requests the Executive Director to bring the outcomes of the forthcoming ninth 

meeting of the international Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies to the attention of the 

Governing Council at its twenty-seventh session; 

10. Also requests the Executive Director to organize, in consultation with the Office for the 

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and other 

relevant partners and within available resources, regular expert meetings on environmental 

emergencies to promote the application of voluntary guidelines for environmental emergencies among 

member States; 

11. Encourages Governments, international organizations, international financial 

institutions and relevant stakeholders in a position to do so to contribute to the Trust Fund for 

Environmental Emergencies of the United Nations Environment Programme to support developing 

countries in building their capacity to prevent, respond effectively to and manage the environmental 

impacts and risks of natural and man-made disasters. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

36

Decision 26/16: Promoting South-South cooperation on biodiversity for 

development 

The Governing Council, 

Recognizing that biodiversity is a key social, environmental, economic, financial, cultural and 

strategic asset for developing countries and that the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is 

critical for sustainable development and poverty eradication, 

Recalling the outcomes of the High-level United Nations Conference on South-South 

Cooperation held in Nairobi in December 2009, 

Recalling also resolution 64/1 of 6 October 2009, in which the General Assembly describes 

South-South cooperation as an important element of international cooperation for development that 

offers viable opportunities for developing countries in their individual and collective pursuit of 

sustained economic growth and sustainable development and emphasizes that South-South 

cooperation is not a substitute for, but is complementary to, North-South cooperation, 

Recalling further the Nusa Dua Declaration adopted by the Governing Council/Global 

Ministerial Environment Forum in February 2010, which acknowledges that biodiversity is at the core 

of human existence,36

Recalling its decisions 24/12 and 25/9 on South-South cooperation in achieving sustainable 

development, 

Highlighting that South-South and triangular cooperation with the support and partnership of 

developed countries leads to increased ownership of projects by developing countries and facilitates 

cost-effective and culturally and socially appealing solutions, 

Reiterating the role of regional and interregional initiatives and of the United Nations as a 

catalyst and facilitator for South-South cooperation, 

Recalling decision IX/25 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity, in which developing-country parties are encouraged to engage in South-South cooperation 

on the issue of biodiversity, complemented and supported by North-South cooperation, and to 

incorporate biodiversity concerns into regional and subregional cooperation agreements and associated 

activities and parties are encouraged to establish, as appropriate, multi-stakeholder collaborative 

partnerships to address biodiversity concerns at the regional, subregional, national and subnational 

levels, 

Acknowledging the progress by the Group of 77 and China in preparing a multi-year plan of 

action for South-South cooperation on biodiversity for development as a complement to the 

Development Platform for the South launched in June 2008 at the twelfth session of the 

Intergovernmental Follow-up and Coordination Committee on Economic Cooperation among 

Developing Countries, held in Yamoussoukro, 

Recalling decision X/23 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity, in which the Conference of the Parties welcomes the Multi-Year Plan of Action for 

South-South Cooperation on Biodiversity for Development as adopted by the Group of 77 and China 

at the South-South Cooperation Forum held on 17 October 201037 and requests the Working Group on 

Review of Implementation, at its fourth meeting, to examine and further develop the Plan for 

consideration at the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity, taking into account synergies with, among others, the biodiversity technology initiative and 

framework for capacity-building for the integration of biodiversity into poverty eradication and 

development being developed under the Convention, 

1. Welcomes the report of the Executive Director on South-South cooperation in 

achieving sustainable development;38

2. Looks forward to the finalization of the Multi-Year Plan of Action for South-South 

Cooperation on Biodiversity for Development; 

3. Welcomes the offer by the Republic of Korea, through its National Institute of 

Biological Resources, to host an expert meeting in early 2011 to discuss further modalities for 

 

36 UNEP/GCSS.XI/11, decision SS.XI/9. 

37 UNEP/CBD/COP/10/18/Add.1/Rev.1. 

38 UNEP/GC.26/9. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

37

South-South and triangular cooperation and a road map towards the possible adoption of a plan at the 

eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity; 

4. Encourages member States and other Governments to contribute further to the 

development of the Multi-Year Plan of Action for South-South Cooperation on Biodiversity for 

Development; 

5. Invites parties, other Governments, regional organizations and their secretariats, 

international organizations, United Nations bodies, including the United Nations Environment 

Programme, Biodiversity Liaison Group members, the Rio conventions, donors, indigenous peoples’ 

organizations, non-governmental organizations and centres of excellence to contribute to the further 

development of the Multi-Year Plan of Action; 

6. Welcomes the consideration by the Global Environment Facility of the establishment 

of a South-South biodiversity cooperation trust fund for the implementation of the Strategic Plan for 

Biodiversity 2011–2020, based on voluntary contributions; 

7. Requests the Executive Director to report to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum at its twenty-seventh session on the contributions of the United Nations 

Environment Programme to promoting South-South cooperation. 

7th meeting 

24 February 2011 

Decision 26/17: Provisional agendas, dates and venues for the twelfth special 

session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum and 

the twenty-seventh session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum 

The Governing Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 2997 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972 and 53/242 of 

28 July 1999, 

Recalling also General Assembly resolutions 47/202 A (paragraph 17) of 22 December 1992, 

54/248 of 23 December 1999, 56/242 of 24 December 2001, 57/283 B (paragraphs 9–11 of section II) 

of 15 April 2003, 61/236 (paragraph 9 of section II A) of 22 December 2006, 62/225 (paragraph 9 of 

section II A) of 22 December 2007, 63/248 (paragraph 9 of section II A) of 24 December 2008, 64/230 

(paragraph 9 of section II A) of 22 December 2009 and 65/245 (paragraph 10 of section II A) of 

24December 2010,

Recalling further its own decision SS.VII/1 of 15 February 2002, 

I 

Twelfth special session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum 

1. Decides to hold the twelfth special session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum in 2012 from 20 to 22 February 2012;39

2. Approves the following provisional agenda for the twelfth special session of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum: 

1. Opening of the session. 

2. Organization of work: 

(a) Adoption of the agenda; 

(b) Organization of work. 

3. Credentials of representatives. 

4. Emerging policy issues: environment and development. 

5. Other matters. 

6. Adoption of the report. 

 

39 The venue of the twelfth special session will be decided in consultation with the Bureau of the Governing 

Council and the member States. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

38

7. Closure of the session. 

II 

Twenty-seventh session of the Governing Council/Global 

Ministerial Environment Forum 

3. Decides that, in accordance with rules 1, 2 and 4 of its rules of procedure, the 

twenty-seventh session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum shall be held 

in Nairobi from 18 to 22 February 2013; 

4. Also decides that informal consultations between heads of delegations should be held on 

the afternoon of the day before the opening of the twenty-seventh session; 

5. Approves the following provisional agenda for the twenty-seventh session of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum: 

1. Opening of the session. 

2. Organization of work: 

(a) Election of officers; 

(b) Adoption of the agenda and organization of work. 

3. Credentials of representatives. 

4. Policy issues: 

(a) State of the environment; 

(b) Emerging policy issues; 

(c) International environmental governance; 

(d) Coordination and cooperation within the United Nations system on 

environmental matters; 

(e) Coordination and cooperation with major groups; 

(f) Environment and development. 

5. Follow-up to and implementation of the outcomes of United Nations summits and 

major intergovernmental meetings, including the decisions of the Governing 

Council. 

6. Budget and programme of work for the biennium 2014–2015 and the Environment 

Fund and other budgetary matters. 

7. Provisional agenda, date and venue of future sessions of the Governing 

Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum: 

(a) Thirteenth special session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum; 

(b) Twenty-eighth session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum. 

8. Other matters. 

9. Adoption of the report. 

10. Closure of the session. 

7th meeting 

 24 February 2011 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

39

Annex II 

Report of the Committee of the Whole 

Rapporteur: Mr. István Teplán (Hungary) 

Introduction 

1. At the 1st plenary meeting of its twenty-sixth session, on 21 February 2011, the 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment 

Forum established a committee of the whole to consider agenda items 4 (a), 4 (c)–4 (f) and 5–8. The 

Committee was also to consider draft decisions prepared by the Committee of Permanent 

Representatives to UNEP and proposed for adoption by the Council/Forum, which were contained in 

document UNEP/GC.26/L.1, a draft decision submitted by a Government, which was contained in 

document UNEP/GC.26/L.2, and draft decisions proposed during the session. 

2. In accordance with the decision of the Council/Forum the Committee of the Whole held eight 

meetings from 21 to 24 February 2011. As decided by the Bureau the Committee was chaired by 

Ms. Liana Bratasida (Indonesia. The Committee elected Mr. István Teplán (Hungary) to serve as its 

Rapporteur. 

 I. Opening of the meeting 

3. The Chair of the Committee of the Whole opened the meeting and outlined the conduct of 

work. 

 II. Organization of work 

4. The Committee agreed to follow the programme of work circulated to Committee members at 

its 1st meeting in a conference room paper. Delegations were requested to submit any draft decisions 

to the secretary of the Governing Council by the end of the afternoon meeting on Monday, 

21 February. Draft decisions would be discussed under the relevant agenda items and suggestions on 

language and text would be addressed by either the Committee or the drafting group established to that 

end by the Council/Forum during its 1st plenary meeting, chaired by Mr. Macharia Kamau (Kenya). 

5. The Committee agreed to establish a working group on the budget and programme of work, 

chaired by Ms. Regine Hess (Germany), and a working group on chemicals management, which would 

also consider waste management, co-chaired by Mr. Vladimir Lenev (Russian Federation) and 

Mr. John Roberts (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The latter working group 

could also be requested to perform additional tasks, should it be deemed necessary. 

6. In considering the items before it, the Committee had before it the documentation outlined for 

each item in the annotated agenda for the current session (UNEP/GC.26/1/Add.1). 

7. The Committee heard an introductory statement by Mr. Ibrahim Thiaw, Director of the 

Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, on behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP, in 

which he highlighted the special significance of the current session in the light of the forthcoming 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Noting that a number of key items on the 

agenda for the current session echoed those to be considered at the Conference, he stressed that the 

deliberations and decisions taken over the coming four days would shape the discussions at the 

preparatory meetings for the Conference. 

8. At the current session, the Committee of the Whole would consider 18 or more draft decisions, 

including on international environmental governance, chemicals and wastes, an intergovernmental 

science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the UNEP budget and programme 

of work. He underscored the importance of building on past work and maintaining the momentum 

achieved to date. Decisions adopted by the Governing Council would have a significant impact on 

UNEP and the global environment. In a globalized world of interconnected countries, economies and 

peoples, he said, the ability to manage threats such as air pollution, climate change and biodiversity 

loss required new responses at the local, national, regional and global levels involving all stakeholders. 

UNEP had a major role to play in shaping international policy decisions of critical importance to the 

future of the planet. In an era of belt-tightening and fiscal austerity, sustainable management of UNEP 

was necessary to ensure its future well-being. He stressed that the UNEP budget and programme of 

work for 2012–2013, which was results-based with priority areas focusing on the comparative 

advantage of UNEP, was presented on the basis of zero real growth. Although not desirable, zero 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

40

growth was the most credible scenario in view of the global financial crisis. In closing, he stressed that 

the secretariat remained at the disposal of the Governing Council to assist in and facilitate the smooth 

running of its deliberations at the current session. 

9. The Committee then heard, prior to taking up the individual agenda items entrusted to it, brief 

introductions by the proponents of a number of the draft decisions that it was to consider. The 

representative of Switzerland introduced a draft decision on strengthening international cooperation 

for environmental crisis response submitted by his Government, contained in document 

UNEP/GC.26/L.2. The representative of Nigeria, on behalf of the group of African countries, 

introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on lead and cadmium and the 

representative of Brazil, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, introduced a conference room paper 

setting out a draft decision on promoting South-South cooperation on biodiversity for development. 

 III. Policy issues (agenda item 4) 

 A. State of the environment (agenda item 4 (a)) 

 1. Chemicals and wastes management 

10. The Committee took up the item at its 1st plenary meeting, on the afternoon of Monday, 

21 February 2011. Introducing the item, the representative of the secretariat said that under the 

sub-item there were three main issues before the Committee: lead and cadmium; mercury; and the 

Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management. She described progress made in the three 

areas since the Governing Council’s twenty-fifth session, before going on to highlight the most 

important aspects of the draft decisions on those subjects before the Committee. Subsequently, she 

drew attention to the relevant documentation and a draft decision on chemicals and wastes 

management (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft decision 3). 

11. Another representative of the secretariat introduced the documentation on the consultative 

process for financing options for chemicals and wastes and on enhancing cooperation and coordination 

within the chemicals and wastes cluster, including a draft decision on each subject (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, 

draft decisions 8 and 13). 

 (a) Lead and cadmium 

12. All the representatives who took the floor welcomed the finalization by UNEP of the scientific 

reviews on lead and cadmium, which were of global concern because of their adverse effects on 

human health and the environment. One representative said that the reviews contained clear scientific 

justification for further international action, and that UNEP should play a key role in coordinating that 

action. He and several others called for a global partnership on lead and cadmium, as described in a 

conference room paper previously introduced. One representative, speaking on behalf of a group of 

countries, said that while the reviews provided compelling evidence of the need for action there was 

no need for a legally binding instrument. 

13. One representative said that the reviews contained gaps that needed to be closed, proposing the 

launch of a government-led process for reviewing studies undertaken to date, identified data gaps and 

information on national legislation and other action and for preparing proposals for consideration by 

the Governing Council at its twenty-seventh session. 

14. One representative said that the regional studies on lead and cadmium had not been made 

available in sufficient time for thorough consideration. Several representatives called for additional 

information to be gathered, with one requesting special attention to be paid to the subject in an African 

context and another suggesting that more time should be devoted to science-based discussions before a 

final decision on the matter was taken at the international level. A third stressed the need to fill 

knowledge gaps and to establish technical and financial mechanisms that took into account individual 

countries’ situations. One representative said that the responsibility for generating knowledge lay with 

UNEP, while another said that UNEP should take the lead in promoting a reduction in the use of lead 

and cadmium with the support of the International Conference on Chemicals Management and the 

Strategic Approach. 

15. One representative warned of the danger of exports to developing countries of used products 

containing lead and cadmium, calling for action to ensure the safe disposal of such products and 

stressing the concept of extended producer responsibility in that context. Another said that work on the 

subject should take into account relevant technical guidelines of the Basel Convention on the Control 

of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

41

16. In response to a request for clarification as to UNEP efforts on lead and cadmium in batteries, 

the representative of the secretariat said that the recycling of batteries containing lead and cadmium 

led to considerable releases of those metals, with consequences for human health. UNEP was therefore 

seeking to establish a financial and technical consortium to tackle those issues and to introduce sound 

management practices in respect of recycling and secondary smelting. The Global Environment 

Facility was involved in such discussions. 

 (b) Mercury 

17. All representatives who took the floor welcomed the progress made to date by the 

intergovernmental negotiating committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury. 

18. One representative said that a bottom-up approach was necessary to build an efficient, 

effective, coherent and comprehensive chemicals and wastes management regime that was responsive 

to new and emerging issues and challenges of global concern; in that context, the mercury instrument 

to be negotiated should be embedded in the existing chemicals and wastes cluster and thereby foster 

synergies. 

19. Several representatives called for additional information to be made available to assist in 

decision-making, particularly where developing countries were concerned. One stressed the 

importance of information with regard to the production of national inventories of sources and 

releases, for those countries that did not already have them, and their further development, for those 

that did; financial support would be required for the preparation of inventories, particularly for 

developing countries. He also said that the information in some of the documents available to the 

committee needed to be updated to give a more accurate idea of the most suitable control measures to 

be included in the instrument; some, for example, contained very limited information from particular 

regions or areas, and should be global in scope. Additional information was also required on mercury 

storage, the lack of which in some regions could compromise the control measures in the mercury 

instrument and the entire instrument. 

20. While welcoming the efforts of UNEP to hold regional consultations on the mercury 

negotiations, one representative stressed that additional financial assistance and support would be 

necessary to hold further consultations in the lead-up to the committee’s third session. He drew a link 

between financial commitments and means of implementation, a link critical to ensuring that the 

instrument was not merely a list of good intentions. Financial assistance, capacity-building and 

technology transfer were needed to ensure that developing countries could implement and comply with 

the control measures eventually adopted. He called for the instrument to reflect the principle of 

common but differentiated responsibilities, to contain control measures that reflected countries’ 

situations, and to include institutional arrangements that would give parties the capacity to decide on 

the application of the instrument. He also stressed the social and economic impacts of any restriction 

on the use of mercury, given the prevalence of small-scale and artisanal gold mining in his region. 

21. Another representative endorsed the comments on the social and economic challenges faced by 

developing countries, saying that the instrument should be flexible, with a combination of binding and 

voluntary elements, and adaptable to countries’ individual circumstances. A balance needed to be 

struck between economic and environmental imperatives, with the principle of common but 

differentiated responsibilities as a guiding principle. 

22. Looking to the mandate of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, one representative 

said that it should not be reopened. Several others said that, while they would have been interested in 

expanding the committee’s mandate to incorporate additional elements, for example other substances 

of global concern, they were willing to leave the mandate as it stood. Another said that in the 

committee’s discussions to date no attention had been paid to health issues, as the committee had 

focused its attention on environmental impacts, the dual objective of the instrument notwithstanding. 

23. The representative of a non-governmental organization said that the mercury instrument 

should be ambitious and that the draft elements paper submitted to the committee at its second session 

did not go far enough in the light of the challenges faced by developing countries and those with 

economies in transition. She warned of the danger of recovered mercury being diverted to unsound 

uses, such as artisanal and small-scale gold mining, should there be no ban on exports of mercury to 

developing countries. 

24. The representative of Japan expressed appreciation for the Executive Director’s acceptance of 

his Government’s offer to host the diplomatic conference at which a legally binding instrument on 

mercury would be signed. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

42

 (c) Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management 

25. Many of the representatives who took the floor expressed support for the Strategic Approach 

to International Chemicals Management as a model for other international efforts, welcomed the 

efforts of UNEP to implement it and called for its strengthening. One said that the Strategic Approach 

offered an ideal international governance structure for tackling new emerging issues, saying that it 

should be used in an effective, efficient and complementary manner by stakeholders. There was a need 

to identify financing for the implementation of the Strategic Approach, he said, suggesting that the 

consultative process on financing chemicals and wastes could contribute to and complement 

discussions in that regard. He welcomed the development of a draft strategy to strengthen the 

engagement of the health sector in the implementation of the Strategic Approach and looked forward 

to its adoption at the third session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management, in 2012. 

26. One representative said that there was a need to recognize the gulf between developed and 

developing countries, suggesting that all stakeholders should contribute to a database on chemicals and 

hazardous wastes management that would enable all countries to develop implementable plans of 

action to combat the problems posed by such substances. 

27. Another representative, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, said that it was extremely 

important for the Executive Director to submit a progress report to the Governing Council at its 

twelfth special session on the implementation of any decision adopted at the current session so that the 

Council could provide input into the third session of the International Conference on Chemicals 

Management, in 2012. 

 (d) Waste management 

28. Several representatives stressed the importance of the Basel Convention in the area of waste 

management, calling for close cooperation and coordination between all initiatives with a view to 

avoiding duplication of work. A number of representatives drew attention to initiatives being 

promoted by their countries. One called for more focus on the work of the capacity-building 

programme on waste management of the International Environmental Technology Centre. Some 

suggested the development of new initiatives to ensure the sound management of wastes, while one 

questioned whether the launch of a global e-waste assessment, as proposed, would in fact be 

complementary and provide additional insight into the issue. One said that there was scope for UNEP 

to take a leading role in tackling e-waste. 

29. Another said that more attention should be paid to informal peri-urban areas, particularly when 

considering the potential to convert waste into energy. He said that UNEP should continue to assist 

countries to implement work undertaken under other initiatives, such as the guidelines on best 

available techniques and best environmental practices under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent 

Organic Pollutants. One representative called for a review and assessment of current guidelines, 

legislation and other instruments and their application to the urgent issue of e-waste. 

30. Several representatives suggested merging the draft decisions on waste management and 

electronic wastes that were set out in document UNEP/GC.26/L.1. 

 (e) Consultative process on financing options for chemicals and wastes 

31. All the representatives who took the floor praised the Executive Director’s initiative in 

establishing the consultative process for financing options for chemicals and wastes and welcomed the 

progress made to date. One representative said that particular progress had been achieved at the third 

meeting in the process, which had been held in Pretoria, South Africa, on 10 and 11 January 2011, and 

called for greater consideration of the Pretoria Road Map in the draft decision before the 

Council/Forum. 

32. Another representative said that the consultative process should be directly linked to the 

chemicals and wastes conventions, the mercury instrument and the Strategic Approach. Another said 

that the process should be continued, welcoming its awareness and outreach activities, and suggested 

that the various options for financing chemicals and wastes should be evaluated with a view to 

ensuring stable financing. A third, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, questioned whether 

there was a need to engage in additional discussion on the matter at the current session, given that 

decision SS.XI/8 appeared to provide adequate guidance. 

 (f) Enhancing cooperation within the chemicals and wastes cluster 

33. All the representatives who took the floor welcomed the efforts by UNEP to enhance 

cooperation and coordination between the multilateral environmental agreements pertaining to 

chemicals and wastes, with several highlighting the need to avoid duplication of work. In that regard, 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

43

one said that the future of chemicals and wastes management should await the conclusion of the 

various discussions to take place in 2012 and 2013. Another stressed that it was crucial to respect the 

independent legal status of each convention and of its conference of the parties, which the synergies 

process had done to date by being country-driven. The draft decision before the Council/Forum, 

however, appeared to stray on that point. 

34. Several representatives endorsed the suggestion in the draft decision for a further study to 

ensure that the synergies process was delivering what was expected of it. Several said that such an 

analysis should be facilitated by UNEP but led by Governments, while another warned that it should 

not prejudge any outcomes or be out of line with the mandate of the synergies process itself. One said 

that it should not duplicate the synergies evaluation process that would take place under the three 

conventions. Another said that the study should be postponed until 2014 or 2015, so as to take into 

account the reviews that would be conducted in 2012 and 2013. One, speaking on behalf of a group of 

countries, said that a report on progress should be submitted to the Governing Council at its twelfth 

special session. 

35. One representative said that little progress had been made since the simultaneous extraordinary 

meetings of the conferences of the parties to the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention on the 

Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International 

Trade and the Stockholm Convention, held in Bali, Indonesia, from 22 to 24 February 2010, in further 

developing the synergies process, suggesting that any further activities should be based on clear goals 

that would allow progress to be measured. 

36. Another representative recalled that at the simultaneous extraordinary meetings the 

conferences of the parties had agreed to establish a joint head of the secretariats of the three 

conventions and sought information on the recruitment of the joint head. 

 (g) Draft decisions 

37. Following its discussions the Committee referred the draft decisions to the drafting group for 

further consideration. 

38. Following the deliberations of the drafting group the Committee took up revised versions of 

the three draft decisions as approved by the drafting group. The Committee approved for consideration 

and possible adoption by the Council/Forum the draft decision on enhancing cooperation and 

coordination within the chemicals and wastes cluster (UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.2, draft decision 2), the 

draft decision on the consultative process on financing options for chemicals and wastes 

(UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.2, draft decision 1), and the draft decision on chemicals and wastes management 

(UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.2/Add.1). 

39. At the time of approval of the draft decision on chemicals and wastes management a 

representative speaking on behalf of the group of African countries made a statement, asking that it be 

reflected in the present report. She said that the group welcomed the draft decision but wished to stress 

two points regarding the work programme for the global partnership on waste management. First, she 

said, priority should be accorded to activities relating to the assessment and inventorying of electrical 

and electronic wastes, with the aim of establishing a common knowledge baseline that would enable 

countries to determine the extent of the problem. Second, the work on assessment and inventories 

should give priority to developing countries and countries with economies in transition, and should 

include the assessment of guidelines and other instruments that would enable those countries to tackle 

e-waste effectively. 

 2. Sustainable consumption and production 

40. The representative of the secretariat drew attention to the relevant documents, summarized 

progress in developing a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and 

production and outlined sustainable consumption and production initiatives under way at the national, 

regional and international levels, many of which had received financial and technical support from 

UNEP and the Marrakech Process. The matter had been discussed at a high-level intersessional 

meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development, held in January 2011, and the draft decision 

before the Council/Forum (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft decision 5) aimed to ensure that UNEP had a 

mandate from the Governing Council should the Commission at its nineteenth session invite it to play 

a further important role in the development of the framework. 

41. In the ensuing discussion, there was broad support for action to promote sustainable 

consumption and production and recognition of the major role that UNEP could play in that regard. 

Several representatives stressed the importance attached to the matter in their own countries and 

described related initiatives. Several representatives highlighted the links between sustainable 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

44

consumption and production and various other issues of basic importance to the planet, including 

prevention of environmental degradation, prices of raw materials, poverty alleviation, food security, 

human and social well-being and preservation of the knowledge of indigenous peoples. 

42. One representative, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, said that the current discussion 

reflected the need to follow up on the key outcomes of the Marrakech Process and to build on the 

achievements of countries and regions such as the SWITCH programme of the European Union and 

the work of the Marrakech Process task forces. Another representative highlighted the importance of 

awareness-raising and education, calling for the promotion of sustainable consumption and production 

in a number of forums, including schools, businesses, industrial facilities, households and the media. 

She added that funding through UNEP regional offices would be most effective in supporting the 

initiative. More specific information on what needed to be done to help countries move towards 

sustainable consumption and production would be useful. 

43. Representatives of major groups welcomed the initiative. The representative of the business 

and industry major group said that industry played a major role in innovation and the development of 

products and production methods that reduced waste and promoted sustainable development. 

Sustainable consumption and production must be a flexible concept, adapted to national and regional 

contexts. The representative of the science and technology major group highlighted the link between 

sustainable consumption and production and the green economy. Supportive activities included 

documentation of good practices, mobilization of expertise from research institutes and partnership 

building. Major groups, he said, hoped to enhance collaboration with UNEP on the matter. 

44. The representative of a non-governmental organization said that, the efforts of the previous 

10 years notwithstanding, little significant progress had been made in combating unsustainable 

consumption and production. There were thousands of initiatives promoting sustainable consumption 

and production that merited support, and assisting those initiatives through the 10-year framework of 

programmes would help to promote the green economy. 

45. Following the discussion, the Committee referred the matter to the drafting group for further 

consideration. 

46. Following the work of the drafting group the Committee returned to its consideration of the 

draft decision, at which time the representative of the European Union introduced a conference room 

paper setting forth proposed amendments to the draft decision. 

47. Following discussion, the Committee approved for consideration and possible adoption by the 

Council/Forum the draft decision on a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption 

and production (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft decision 5), as amended orally and in accordance with the 

amendments set forth in the conference room paper. 

 3. World environment situation 

48. The representative of the secretariat drew attention to the relevant documentation, including 

the report of the Executive Director on the state of the environment (UNEP/GC.26/4), a draft decision 

on the world environment situation (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft decision 2), an inventory of 

environmental assessments conducted since the previous session of the Governing Council 

(UNEP/GC.26/INF/13) and the summary for decision makers of the Integrated Assessment of Black 

Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone (UNEP/GC.26/INF/20). He highlighted the key issues from the 

UNEP Year Book 2011, including plastic debris in the ocean, phosphorus and food production and 

emerging perspectives on forest biodiversity. 

49. Ms. Renate Christ, Secretary, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then reported on 

the Panel’s work. She briefly highlighted new issues in the Panel’s fifth assessment report, which was 

being prepared, including a focus on climate phenomena such as monsoons and El Niño and greater 

emphasis on assessing the social and economic aspects of climate change, and other special reports on 

renewable energy sources, climate change mitigation and risk management to be finalized in 2011. 

She outlined the findings of the InterAcademy Council report, commissioned by the Secretary-General 

and the Panel in the wake of sustained criticism of the Panel, recommending an examination of the 

Panel’s assessment process, evaluation of evidence, governance, management and conflict-of-interest 

policy. 

50. In the ensuing discussion representatives expressed support for regular environmental 

assessments as a basis for scientific decision-making on sustainable development and welcomed the 

contribution of UNEP in that area. One said that global environmental assessments were among the 

core activities of UNEP and a major reason for its success. UNEP was encouraged to continue 

producing high-quality assessments as part of its awareness-raising mandate. The work by UNEP and 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

45

relevant experts on the Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone was also 

praised. 

51. One representative, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, invited UNEP to consider the 

experiences with environmental reporting in Europe and to make full use of established environmental 

information networks. Representatives stressed the need to balance scientific aspects and stakeholder 

considerations, and to improve coherence by applying consistent and appropriate methodologies and 

review processes. 

52. One representative recommended the inclusion of citations in the assessment reports for easy 

access to additional information and the development of a taxonomy for improving the coherence of 

assessments. Another said that there was a need for assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem 

services; there was deep concern at the continuing degradation of the environment resulting in the loss 

of ecosystem services and increased assessment and monitoring were needed to keep track of those 

changes. With regard to future assessments of environmental change over the period 2012–2013, one 

representative stressed that any assessments should be able to support decision-making and should be 

scientifically credible and policy-relevant in the changing environmental context. 

53. A number of representatives welcomed the timely publication of the fifth Global Environment 

Outlook assessment report ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 

Concern was expressed that the Outlook process was heavily underfunded. Several representatives 

welcomed the development of the UNEP-Live enabling framework for a migration to targeted 

assessments on thematic priority areas, which was intended to streamline reporting processes and 

contribute to the aims of international environmental governance. It was suggested that UNEP should 

make use of input from established arrangements for information sharing such as the European 

Union’s Shared Environmental Information System and work with other relevant networks to avoid 

duplication. 

54. One representative welcomed the detailed information in the presentation on the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and expressed appreciation for the role of UNEP and 

other institutions in tackling the criticism directed at the Panel. Studies on chemicals, lead and 

cadmium and the marine environment were praised but one representative suggested that the 

information was based on a limited number of countries and that further work remained to be done. 

55. Following the discussion, the Committee referred the matter to the drafting group for further 

consideration. 

56. Following the deliberations of the drafting group the Committee approved for consideration 

and possible adoption by the Council/Forum the draft decision on the world environment situation as 

revised by the group (UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.4/Add.2). 

 4. Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services 

57. The representative of the secretariat recalled that, since 2008, UNEP had been facilitating 

discussions on the establishment of an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and 

ecosystem services. The process had culminated in agreement at the third ad hoc intergovernmental 

and multi-stakeholder meeting on the establishment of such a platform. By its resolution 65/162 of 

20 December 2010, the General Assembly had requested UNEP, without prejudice to the final 

institutional arrangements for the platform, in consultation with all relevant organizations and bodies, 

to convene a plenary meeting to determine modalities and institutional arrangements for the platform. 

He noted that the main objective of the draft decision set out in the report of the Executive Director on 

the platform (UNEP/GC/26/6) was to request the Executive Director, in close collaboration with 

partners, to convene the first plenary meeting of the platform, with the full participation of all member 

States, fully to operationalize the platform. 

58. In the ensuing discussion, many representatives expressed support for the Busan Outcome, 

General Assembly resolution 65/162 and the rapid operationalization of the platform. Many 

representatives thanked the Executive Director and UNEP for their role in the preparations for the 

platform’s establishment. One expressed support for the decision to establish the platform as a 

remarkable achievement in the International Year of Biodiversity 2010, saying that the platform would 

play a significant role in the interface between science and policy, contributing to the conservation and 

protection of biodiversity, to human well-being and sustainable development. Agreement to establish 

the platform sent a signal at the beginning of the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity that the 

international community stood ready to tackle biodiversity loss. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

46

59. Discrepancies were evident in representatives’ understanding of resolution 65/162, with 

several suggesting that the General Assembly had not established the platform and that at the 

platform’s first plenary meeting modalities and institutional arrangements for the platform to be 

approved by the General Assembly would be determined. Other representatives said that their 

interpretation of the resolution was that the General Assembly had de facto established the platform. 

60. Many representatives said that the platform’s decision-making body should tackle any 

outstanding issues, including those related to its operationalization and rules of procedure, at its first 

plenary meeting. Several representatives said that the Busan Outcome provided a solid foundation for 

the platform’s operationalization. 

61. One representative said that the Governing Council should provide the Executive Director with 

a mandate and a schedule for establishing and operationalizing the secretariat. Another suggested that 

the platform’s secretariat should be located in a megadiverse country with significant scientific human 

resources. A third said that it was necessary to agree on the structure and endowment of the secretariat 

prior to deciding on its physical location. The representative of the Republic of Korea expressed his 

Government’s firm desire to host the secretariat and intention to provide the necessary financial 

support. 

62. Many representatives spoke of the importance of the full participation in preparations for and 

meetings of the platform of all stakeholders, including the United Nations system and the scientific 

community, to ensure synergies. One representative requested UNEP to continue to facilitate 

multi-stakeholder participation in the platform. Another underscored the importance of the platform 

being open and inclusive and producing science that was freely accessible to all. One representative 

said that the meaningful participation of civil society and its considerable scientific expertise in the 

platform’s work would ensure optimal implementation of the platform and the best use of its results 

for biodiversity conservation. She stressed that the platform should aim to meet the needs of decision 

makers in the environment sector in addition to those at the nexus of environment and development. 

Another representative emphasized the importance of the platform including channels for considering 

credible and robust scientific information from all stakeholders, including indigenous knowledge, and 

of capacity-building to support scientific research in, and the participation of, developing countries. 

One representative voiced support for the establishment of a scientific network in the platform 

involving the United Nations University and other scientific bodies. 

63. One representative said that the platform’s independent and credible assessments in the field of 

biodiversity would contribute significantly to arresting biodiversity loss. Another expressed the hope 

that the platform would be as authoritative on biodiversity and ecosystem services as was the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on climate change, and that its products would have 

legitimacy for all stakeholders. To that end, the platform should be anchored in a partnership between 

UNEP, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations 

Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO), among others. She noted with appreciation that the UNESCO Executive 

Board had decided to seek institutional association with the platform and she urged other organizations 

to follow suit, suggesting that the Governing Council at the current session should authorize the 

Executive Director to express the willingness of UNEP to be an active partner in the platform. 

64. One representative, stressing that unprecedented and unacceptable global biodiversity loss 

posed a serious threat to humankind and that healthy ecosystems were essential to food security, 

livelihoods and sustainable development, said that biodiversity and ecosystem services were closely 

intertwined and needed equal focus in the platform’s work. She stressed the importance of 

transparency and open access to data, noting that improvements in assessments, modelling of 

ecosystems and conservation investments, among others, were dependent on data availability. 

Biodiversity and ecosystem services and their relationship to human well-being needed to be 

incorporated into decision-making at all levels. It was important, she said, to avoid creating 

cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and to seek effective and innovative ways forward. 

65. Two representatives of United Nations bodies recalled their considerable experience in respect 

of biodiversity and ecosystem services and involvement in the process leading to the establishment of 

the platform. They welcomed the opportunity to take part in the platform’s work, especially, said one, 

in building the capacity of young scientists and scientists in developing countries. 

66. The representative of the secretariat, noting the strong support expressed for the platform and 

for its rapid operationalization, welcomed any financial or in-kind support for the participation of all 

member States in the platform’s first meeting, which, it was hoped, would take place in the latter half 

of 2011. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

47

67. The Committee agreed to refer the draft decision on the platform (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft 

decision 4) to the drafting group for its consideration. 

68. Following the deliberations of the drafting group the Committee approved for consideration 

and possible adoption by the Council/Forum the draft decision on the intergovernmental 

science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services as revised by the group 

(UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.4). 

 5. Global Environment Monitoring System Water Programme 

69. The Committee exchanged views on the content of the draft decision on the Global 

Environment Monitoring System Water Programme (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft decision 15). 

70. Subsequently, the Committee discussed the text of the draft decision and it approved as orally 

amended the draft decision for consideration and possible adoption by the Council/Forum. 

 6. South-South cooperation; oceans; status of environmental treaties 

71. The Committee agreed to consider issues relating to South-South cooperation, oceans, and 

changes in the status of ratification of and accession to conventions and protocols in the field of the 

environment together. 

72. Introducing the issues, the representative of the secretariat drew attention to the relevant 

documents. 

 (a) Oceans 

73. One representative, referring to the preliminary work resulting in the UNEP/UNESCO/FAO 

report, “Blue Carbon: the Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding Carbon”, released in late 2009, which 

highlighted the importance of coastal ecosystems in capturing and storing carbon, expressed concern 

regarding ocean fertilization as a method for climate change mitigation through the capture and 

storage of carbon. He said that the precautionary principle should be strictly applied to ocean 

fertilization, given that there was a lack of knowledge to date on its consequences for the marine 

environment and its trophic chains. 

74. One representative, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, expressed grave concern about 

the continuing degradation of marine and coastal biodiversity, ecosystems and associated services. 

Healthy marine ecosystem goods and services were a precondition to sustainable development and 

prosperity, he said. He stressed the importance of strengthening ecosystem-based decision-making in 

the continuing debate on integrated management, based on the precautionary principle and the 

ecosystem approach, in respect of all activities that had an impact on marine biodiversity. He 

welcomed UNEP initiatives relating to oceans and encouraged UNEP to enhance efforts to achieve 

their objectives. The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from 

Land-based Activities had a significant role to play in the development of an integrated approach to 

watersheds, coastal areas and open oceans and its implementation should be prioritized. 

75. One representative expressed support for the third intergovernmental review of the Global 

Programme of Action, which would enhance the capacity of member States, especially developing 

countries and coastal States, to protect their marine and coastal ecosystems. It would provide a way 

forward to promote awareness of the harmful effects of land-based activities on marine ecosystems 

and afford opportunities to rectify damage, incorporating lessons learned to date and encouraging the 

participation of member States. He stressed that a careful scientific study and assessment should be 

carried out in collaboration with Governments and others to avoid duplication of effort. He 

acknowledged the contribution of the International Maritime Organization and other organizations in 

rendering services and technical expertise related to protection of the marine environment. 

76. The Committee approved for consideration and possible adoption by the Council/Forum the 

draft decision on organizing the third intergovernmental review meeting of the Global Programme of 

Action (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft decision 7), as orally amended. 

 (b) South-South cooperation on biodiversity for development 

77. The Committee took up the draft decision promoting South-South cooperation on biodiversity 

for development submitted in a conference room paper by the Group of 77 and China. One 

representative objected to the Chair’s suggestion to move the draft decision directly to the drafting 

group on the grounds that there was insufficient clarity as to whether the Conference of the Parties to 

the Convention on Biological Diversity had at its tenth meeting adopted a decision on the 

implementation of the Multi-Year Plan of Action for South-South Cooperation on Biodiversity for 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

48

Development. He was of the opinion that the matter had in fact been referred to the Ad Hoc 

Open-ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention. 

78. The representative of the secretariat clarified that, by its decision X/23, the Conference of the 

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity had welcomed the Multi-Year Plan of Action for 

South-South Cooperation on Biodiversity for Development, as adopted by the Group of 77 and China 

at the South-South Cooperation Forum held on 17 October 2010, as an important contribution to the 

implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. In addition, it had requested the Ad 

Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention, at its fourth 

meeting, to examine and further develop the Plan for consideration at the eleventh meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties. 

79. The representative of the Convention on Biological Diversity provided an overview of the 

development of the Multi-Year Plan of Action, drawing attention to decision X/23, which had been 

endorsed by the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session and welcomed as an important contribution 

to the implementation of the Strategic Plan. He recalled that South-South cooperation was a priority of 

the Governing Council and the General Assembly, with the United Nations Day for South-South 

Cooperation being observed on 19 December, and said that the support of UNEP, as host organization 

of the Convention, was fundamental to the success of the Plan. He outlined examples of South-South 

cooperation and concluded by expressing the hope that the Governing Council of UNEP would 

support the implementation of what he said was a historic initiative. 

80. A number of representatives stressed the importance of South-South cooperation for 

biodiversity and development. 

81. Following discussion of the text of the draft decision the Committee approved it, as orally 

amended, for consideration and possible adoption by the Council/Forum. 

 (c) Omnibus decision on reports of the Executive Director 

82. The Committee approved for consideration and possible adoption by the Council/Forum the 

draft omnibus decision taking note of reports of the Executive Director (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, decision 

14), as orally amended. 

83. One representative suggested that it was unnecessary to adopt such a decision and that in the 

future the Council/Forum should avoid adopting similar decisions in the interests of streamlining its 

work. 

 7. Strengthening international cooperation to respond to environmental crises 

84. Following informal consultations the representative of Switzerland introduced a conference 

room paper setting forth a revised version of the draft decision earlier submitted by his country on 

strengthening international cooperation for environmental crisis response. 

85. Following discussion of the text of the revised draft decision the Committee approved it, as 

orally amended, for consideration and possible adoption by the Council/Forum. 

 B. International environmental governance (agenda item 4 (c)) 

86. The Committee took up the sub-item at its 1st plenary meeting, on the afternoon of Monday, 

21 February 2011. The representative of the secretariat drew attention to the relevant documents and 

recalled the continuing process aimed at the reform of the international environmental governance 

system, including the work of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on 

International Environmental Governance at its first and second meetings. He introduced a draft 

decision on the matter, submitted by the Governments of Kenya and Finland, which aimed to maintain 

the political momentum gained by the Consultative Group. 

87. In the ensuing discussion, several representatives highlighted the priority accorded by their 

Governments to reform of the international environmental governance system. There was considerable 

debate on the progress of the international environmental governance agenda in the lead-up to the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Several representatives welcomed the work 

of the Consultative Group in aiding a common understanding of the issue and the tasks that remained 

to be tackled, as outlined in the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome. One representative said that the principle 

of “form follows function” had been a useful contribution to the debate. Some representatives stressed 

the relevance of the three pillars of sustainable development to the debate. 

88. The progress to date notwithstanding, a number of representatives said that discussions had not 

yet reached a point where a comprehensive package of options could be considered in the preparatory 

process for the Conference on Sustainable Development. One said that, while the Consultative Group 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

49

had identified options for broader institutional reforms, further work was needed on the financial, legal 

and comparative implications of the options. There was a consensus, however, that discussion should 

be Government-driven or continued through the regular processes of UNEP, with one noting that the 

Consultative Group’s work had concluded with the presentation of its report at the current session and 

several arguing against the formation of a high-level expert group to carry on the work. One 

representative said that, if such an expert group comprised government representatives, it might 

distract Governments from the focus needed in preparing for the Conference on Sustainable 

Development. 

89. One representative stressed the importance of ensuring that the follow-up to the 

Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome was handled in an appropriate forum; the proposals contained in the 

Outcome were very different in character and should be handled according to where the mandate for 

action lay. Regarding the system-wide proposals, some discussions had reached a point at which they 

could be brought to the attention of appropriate organs of the United Nations, while others required 

further intergovernmental deliberations, beginning with the Governing Council at the current session. 

90. On the matter of the dimension of reforms, several representatives spoke of the value of 

pursuing incremental reform. One representative said that incremental reforms had received 

insufficient attention from Governments, adding that the main responsibility for environmental 

governance lay with national Governments, according to national priorities and local environmental 

characteristics. Environmental governance should focus on enhancing implementation and making a 

difference on the ground to improve the lives of people and combat environmental degradation. 

91. There was some discussion of the changes to the institutional landscape that might best 

strengthen international environmental governance. While some favoured the establishment of a 

dedicated environment organization, most opposed the idea, with several representatives saying that 

the best way forward lay in better management of existing institutions and enhanced coordination. One 

representative said that promising developments had taken place in improving synergies between 

chemical-related conventions, but that much more needed to be done. 

92. A number of representatives spoke in favour of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of 

UNEP and other international organizations. Several said that there was a need to strengthen the 

science base of UNEP as a component of enhanced science-based decision-making. One said that the 

merits and demerits of options for reinforcing UNEP should be examined from the perspective of 

cost-effectiveness and budgetary implications. 

93. Several representatives said that there was a need to facilitate the implementation of 

environment-related measures at the country level within the context of a global environmental 

governance structure. One said that action on the environment at the grass-roots level was key, 

expressing concern that it could prove more difficult within a centralized system. Informed consensus 

on environmental management objectives and policies based on a sound understanding of shared roles 

and responsibilities was required. 

94. Some representatives said that developing countries required financial and technical support to 

implement their national environmental objectives and obligations, given the gap between their 

obligations and the financial resources available. One representative said that developing countries 

needed the continued commitment and action of others to ensure that funds were available for the 

implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and other international commitments. 

95. Following the discussion, the Committee referred the matter to the drafting group for further 

consideration. 

96. Following the deliberations of the drafting group there was considerable discussion of the 

revised draft decision approved by the group for the consideration of the Committee 

(UNEP/GC/26/CW/L.4/Add.1), in particular with regard to the terms “Welcomes” in paragraph 1 and 

“informal meetings” in paragraph 6, with one representative suggesting alternative terms. 

97. Following a lunch break, the Committee resumed its work at which point the Chair made a 

statement, to be reflected in the present report, clarifying that some delegations considered the 

welcoming of the “Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome” as an input that would not prejudge the final 

conclusions of the forthcoming intergovernmental process of the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development, and that the intent of the draft decision regarding the informal meetings was 

they would be undertaken in an open and transparent manner, conducted in the six official languages 

of the United Nations when so demanded, and would involve no negotiations and result in no agreed 

outcome. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

50

98. On the basis of that clarifying statement by the Chair the Committee approved the draft 

decision on international environmental governance for consideration and possible adoption by the 

Council/Forum. 

 C. Coordination and cooperation within the United Nations system on 

environmental matters (agenda item 4 (d)) 

99. The representative of the secretariat introduced the sub-item, saying that the documentation 

before the Committee pertained to efforts to enhance coordination across the United Nations system 

and included amendments to the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global 

Environment Facility and information on cooperation between UNEP and UNDP. 

100. Several representatives praised efforts to enhance coordination across the United Nations 

system, citing, among others, the Poverty and Environment Initiative jointly administered by UNEP 

and UNDP and the Environment Management Group as sterling examples of inter-agency cooperation. 

101. Two draft decisions were also before the Committee, on amendments to the Instrument for the 

Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility and on enhanced coordination across 

the United Nations system, including the Environment Management Group (UNEP/GC.26/L.1, draft 

decisions 9 and 12). 

102. During the ensuing discussion one representative stressed the importance of the report by the 

United Nations Joint Inspection Unit on the environmental profile of the United Nations system 

organizations and their in-house environmental management policies and practices 

(UNEP/GC.26/INF/22). The representative of the secretariat explained that UNEP had already 

commented on the Joint Inspection Unit report and formally responded to it and would provide further 

information to anyone interested. 

103. The Committee subsequently approved for consideration and possible adoption by the 

Council/Forum both draft decisions, as orally amended. 

 D. Coordination and cooperation with major groups (agenda item 4 (e)) 

104. The Committee took up the sub-item at its 5th plenary meeting, on the afternoon of 

Wednesday, 23 February 2011. The representative of the secretariat drew attention to the relevant 

documents: a note by the Executive Director on statements and recommendations from major groups 

and stakeholders to the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twenty-sixth 

session (UNEP/GC.26/INF/5); and a note by the Executive Director on inputs from major groups and 

stakeholders on international environmental governance (UNEP/GC.26/INF/19), containing responses 

from the major groups and stakeholders advisory group on international environmental governance to 

a set of questions posed by the Executive Director. 

105. The representative of the major groups and stakeholders advisory group then spoke, praising 

what he said was a unique new form of collaboration and cooperation between UNEP and the major 

groups and stakeholders and the regions, which could serve as a model for future cooperation between 

UNEP and other stakeholders, including in the lead-up to the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development. The responses to the Executive Director’s questions were based on input 

from all major groups and regions, gathered in a manner that was inclusive but did not require 

consensus or replace the individual views of regions and groups. The process had built stakeholders’ 

capacity to consider the challenging problems related to international environmental governance and 

just and equitable solutions thereto. He expressed appreciation for the support provided by UNEP and 

the hope that other entities would be similarly supportive. 

106. Underlining the important role of civil society in environmental matters, the representative of a 

non-governmental organization said that UNEP had been the first United Nations entity to work with 

civil society, including in the context of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 

the Malmö Ministerial Declaration and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and 

Development. The General Assembly, in its resolution 65/162 of 20 December 2010, had reaffirmed 

the active role that civil society must continue to play in environmental processes, including in the 

lead-up to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Civil society organizations 

were striving in concert with intergovernmental organizations to safeguard the future of humankind 

and the environment, a goal to which the success of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development was crucial. 

E. Environment and development (agenda item 4 (f)) 

107. The Committee agreed that as all issues arising under the item had been considered in 

conjunction with other items there was no need to discuss it separately. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

51

 II. Follow-up to and implementation of the outcomes of 

United Nations summits and major intergovernmental meetings, 

including the decisions of the Governing Council (agenda item 5) 

108. The Committee took up the item at its 5th plenary meeting, on the afternoon of Wednesday, 

23 February. The item was introduced by the representative of the secretariat. She drew particular 

attention to document UNEP/GC.26/INF/3, which provided information on resolutions adopted by the 

General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session of relevance to UNEP and measures taken and envisaged 

for the implementation of General Assembly resolution 62/208 of 19 December 2007. Of the over 

260 resolutions of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly, 40 dealt with environmental and 

sustainable development issues and were therefore of direct relevance to the UNEP programme of 

work. 

109. The Committee took note of the information provided. 

 III. Budget and programme of work for the biennium 2012–2013 and 

the Environment Fund and other budgetary matters 

(agenda item 6) 

110. The Committee took up the item at its 2nd plenary meeting, on the morning of Tuesday, 

22 February. Introducing the item, the representative of the secretariat said that the proposed budget 

and programme of work before the Committee had been guided by the medium-term strategy for the 

period 2012–2013 and was based on the strategic framework for the same period as approved by the 

United Nations Committee for Programme and Coordination. It had been shaped by the lessons 

learned in 2010–2011 as described in the report of the Executive Director (UNEP/GC.26/13), had been 

discussed and endorsed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives and had been positively 

reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. In its presentation 

it had been streamlined and refined in response to the Governing Council’s request. He highlighted 

some new features, namely the refined matrix management approach to programme implementation; 

the proposal of the Executive Director to adopt a zero-real-growth approach in the light of the 

economic crisis; and in response to requests from the Committee of Permanent Representatives, a 

reduction in the Environment Fund posts-to-non-posts ratio. 

111. In the ensuing discussion, most of the representatives who spoke commended the secretariat on 

its work in preparing the budget and programme of work. They expressed appreciation for the 

improvements to the document, saying that they looked forward to continued close cooperation with 

the secretariat to streamline the process further and increase transparency. 

112. Some representatives welcomed the efforts to address staff costs and the reduction in the share 

of the Environment Fund assigned to posts. One, however, said that the Executive Director should 

have reasonable freedom to decide how to allocate funds for staffing or non-staffing costs and felt that 

imposing staffing constraints ran counter to the shift towards a results-based approach. 

113. The principle of zero real growth was also welcomed by some who urged caution and 

supported efforts to avoid ambitious expenditures in the light of the experiences in 2010–2011 in the 

face of the severe economic crisis besetting many countries. One representative said, however, that 

UNEP should be able to rely on an adequate budget to achieve the expected outcomes of the 

programme of work and that zero real growth should therefore be a minimum option. 

114. One representative urged UNEP to work with other international organizations such as the 

World Bank to reduce duplication and to focus on activities where UNEP had a comparative 

advantage, such as the establishment of new multilateral environmental agreements, capacity-building 

to implement them and coordination of environmental activities within the United Nations system. 

One representative expressed support for the Executive Director in his efforts to clarify the budgetary 

and administrative relationship between UNEP and the multilateral environmental agreements and to 

put it on a more predictable and stable basis. 

115. A number of representatives called for predictable and reliable funding for UNEP, with one 

saying that all countries should strive to contribute in accordance with the indicative scale of 

contributions. One representative said that there was a need for increased support to regional offices to 

enable them to fulfil their important role. 

116. The Committee agreed to forward the draft decision on the programme of work and budget to 

the budget working group for further consideration. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

52

117. Following the deliberations of the working group on the programme of work and budget, the 

Committee approved for consideration and possible adoption by the Council/Forum the draft decision 

on the proposed biennial programme of work and budget for 2012–2013 (UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.3, draft 

decision 1). The Committee also approved for consideration and possible adoption by the 

Council/Forum a draft decision on the management of trust funds and earmarked contributions 

(UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.3, draft decision 2). 

118. At the time of the adoption of the decisions, one representative drew attention to an error in the 

corrigendum to the note by the Executive Director on the evolution of the relationship between the 

United Nations Environment Programme and the multilateral environmental agreements that it 

administers (UNEP/GC.26/INF/21/Corr.1). Under heading 6, the first sentence in the final paragraph 

should have read as follows: “The Parties authorize the use of budget line transfers of funds without 

increasing the size of the budget if such transfers are necessary to facilitate the extension”40. 

 IV. Provisional agenda, date and venue of future sessions of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum 

(agenda item 7) 

 A. Twelfth special session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum 

 B. Twenty-seventh session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum 

119. The sub-items under the item were considered together. The Committee took up the item at its 

6th plenary meeting, on the evening of Wednesday, 22 February, at which time it considered a draft 

decision on the provisional agendas, dates and venues of the twelfth special session and 

twenty-seventh regular session of the Council/Forum, which had been submitted by the Bureau and 

circulated in a conference room paper. 

120. The representative of the secretariat drew attention to the fact that the venue of the twelfth 

special session, which would be held from 20 to 22 February 2012, would be decided in consultation 

with the Bureau and the member States. 

121. The Committee then approved the draft decision for consideration and possible approval by 

the Council/Forum. 

 V. Other matters (agenda item 8) 

 A. Expression of sympathy in connection with the recent earthquake in 

New Zealand 

122. The Chair and a number of representatives expressed sympathy to the Government of New 

Zealand for the loss of life and destruction caused by an earthquake that had struck the country on 

22 February. The representative of New Zealand thanked them for their expressions of sympathy. 

 B. Decisions on reports by the Executive Director 

123. Asking that his remarks be reflected in the present report, one representative, supported by 

another, expressed the view that the Council/Forum should not adopt decisions the sole purpose of 

which was to acknowledge the submission of reports by the Executive Director in response to requests 

from the Council/Forum. Such decisions, he said, were unnecessary and took up valuable time that 

was needed for the conduct of more urgent business. 

 VI. Adoption of the report 

124. At its 7th plenary meeting, on the morning of Thursday, 24 February 2011, the Committee 

adopted the present report on the basis of the draft report contained in documents 

UNEP/GC.26/CW/L.1 and Add. 1 and 2, as orally amended, on the understanding that the report 

would be completed and finalized by the Rapporteur, working in conjunction with the secretariat. 

 

40 The corrigendum was reissued with the error corrected. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

53

 VII. Closure of the meeting 

125. The 8th and final meeting of the Committee of the Whole was declared closed at 3.30 p.m. on 

Thursday, 24 February 2011. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

54

Annex III 

President’s summary of the discussions by ministers and 

heads of delegation at the twenty-sixth session of the 

Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum of 

the United Nations Environment Programme 

1. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Governing Council/Global Ministerial 

Environment Forum, as the high-level environment policy forum of the United Nations, brings 

together the world’s environment ministers to review important and emerging policy issues in the field 

of the environment. 

2. The Council/Forum provides broad policy advice and guidance with the aim, among others, of 

promoting international cooperation in the field of the environment. 

3. The twenty-sixth session of the Council/Forum convened from 21 to 24 February 2011 at 

UNEP headquarters in Nairobi. During the high-level segment of the session representatives of 

135 countries and one observer, including 60 ministerial level representatives, and 113 major groups 

and stakeholders organizations, 22 United Nations organizations and 9 intergovernmental 

organizations, considered two separate topics under the overarching theme of the contribution of 

UNEP to the preparatory process of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 

Under this overarching theme, two specific sub-themes related to the Conference on Sustainable 

Development were addressed. The two themes were: 

(a) Green economy: benefits, opportunities and challenges of a green economy transition; 

(b) International environmental governance. 

4. In addition a ministerial lunch round-table discussion on UNEP and the nineteenth session of 

the Commission on Sustainable Development and its five themes (transport, mining, chemicals, 

wastes, and the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production) was 

also convened. 

5. The consultations were informed by one information document and four thought-provoking 

background papers prepared as briefings for the participants, as well as the outcome of the Twelfth 

Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum. 

6. This President’s summary identifies some of the main challenges and opportunities that were 

discussed by ministers and other heads of delegations with respect to the green economy and 

international environmental governance, together with messages to the world’s Governments, the 

United Nations system, civil society and the private sector to consider as they prepare for the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 

7. The President’s summary is a reflection of the interactive dialogue that occurred between the 

ministers and other heads of delegations attending the twenty-sixth session of the Council/Forum. It 

reflects the ideas presented and discussed rather than a consensus view of participants. 

Overarching theme: Contribution of UNEP to the preparatory process of the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development 

8. Discussion by the ministers and other heads of delegations revolved around three key points: 

first, setting the key ambitions for and expected outcomes of the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development, including its preparatory process; second, a green economy, its perceived 

risks, expected benefits and enabling conditions for its success; and, third, international environmental 

governance reform. Key challenges, risks and opportunities were presented and discussed by session 

panellists and participants. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

55

Messages for the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development 

 “It is essential to renew our political commitment to the engagements 

and principles set out in Rio in 1992.” 

9. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development should be inclusive, ensuring the 

widest possible and most diverse participation and contributions. Stakeholders’ inclusion and active 

engagement should be a key principle in the preparation and organization of the conference. 

10. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development needs to result in an assessment 

and stocktaking as to why many of the commitments of the United Nations Conference on 

Environment and Development and the World Summit on Sustainable Development have not been 

realized to their full potential. What has prevented us from moving forward on our agreements and 

how can we re-energize our political will and avoid the perception that multilateral approaches are 

increasingly associated with indecision or stalemate? 

11. Inter-agency collaboration within the United Nations system, such as through the Environment 

Management Group, is being concretely and actively pursued as a strategic element in UNEP 

preparatory activities and contributions to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development. This should be emphasized in all preparatory processes. 

“Sustainable development forms the core of the contemporary world.” 

12. The green economy should not be viewed as a substitute for sustainable development, but 

rather an instrument that can be used to accelerate economic development, contribute to poverty 

eradication and overcome increasing vulnerability related to climate change and reduced access to 

water and food – thus meeting the specific needs of countries. In this respect, we should address the 

concerns of developing countries in seeking to provide for the basic needs of their rapidly growing 

populations. 

13. On international environmental governance, the challenge for the UNEP Governing Council is 

how to move the conversation beyond the diagnosis of the problem and to begin to articulate a 

forward-looking consensus on reform objectives, with the identification of the alternative scenarios 

that need to be elaborated and ultimately negotiated in the run-up to the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development. Further, the challenge is to develop the main options for reform that have so 

far emerged into mature options. 

“There’s a need for new political commitment and leadership – and 

ministers can help to forge it.” 

14. Convergence between the perspectives of developing and developed economies should be 

actively pursued in the preparations for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 

The Conference should deliver a renewed legacy, a movement away from unsustainable production 

and consumption patterns to sustainable solutions applicable to both developed and developing 

economies. 

15. There are different views on what constitutes a green economy concept and what instruments 

might best be employed to achieve it. We should aim at reaching a common understanding of the 

green economy. 

16. The UNEP Governing Council should help to articulate a forward-looking consensus on 

international environmental governance reform objectives, with the identification of alternative 

options that need to be elaborated and ultimately negotiated at the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development. 

17. The outcome of the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Cancún, Mexico, from 29 November to 

11 December 2010, was more than a fundamental step in the consolidation of a long-term climate 

regime: it also reaffirmed, and provided a fresh example of, renewed political commitment to 

international cooperation, cooperation that, by harnessing synergies and collaboration between the 

members of the United Nations system and all stakeholders, can lead to consensus on critical emerging 

issues. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

56

Sub-theme I: Green economy: benefits, opportunities and challenges of a 

green economy transition 

18. As Governments approach the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the 

world faces numerous environmental challenges such as water scarcity, ecosystem vulnerability and 

climate change. A consumptive economy can exacerbate such environmental problems while also 

failing to deliver social equity. In this regard, when considering the cost of achieving a green 

economy, measuring the cost of inaction is useful in placing the cost of action into context. 

19. Countries are confronted with growing scarcity and degradation of natural resources. Future 

economic growth will be conditioned on this reality and a green economy can help to address this 

challenge. Likewise, poverty eradication is the key to a green economy transition given the direct link 

between poverty and resource degradation. 

20. There are numerous success stories illustrating the successful transition to a green economy at 

the national level; countries can learn from the success of others. Nonetheless, it is important to 

acknowledge that countries face varying national contexts and that each country must pursue its own 

path towards a green economy. The green economy and sustainable economic development are two 

sides of the same coin: economic, environmental and social progress are prerequisites for a green 

economy. 

21. During the ministerial consultations a number of things were identified as important elements 

in a transition to a green economy. They included coordination, technology development, diffusion 

and transfer, capacity-building and new and additional financial resources, particularly in the case of 

developing countries. Social dialogue, including multi-stakeholder participation, was also discussed as 

an important element. Education, communication and awareness-raising, including for consumers and 

producers, were seen as important in achieving the social change that is needed to achieve the 

transition to a green economy. 

Challenges 

22. Some representatives indicated that there was no a clear understanding of the concept of the 

green economy in their countries. A common understanding of a green economy should therefore be 

developed through partnerships between Governments, international organizations, civil society, 

including major groups such as women and young people, and the private sector. Sustainable 

consumption and production (including the 10-year framework of programmes) should be considered 

as a critical element for supporting a transition to a green economy.

“We need to move from protecting environment from business to using 

business to protect the environment.” 

23. A significant number of countries expressed concerns about trade barriers, saying that the 

implications of the green economy for international trade needed to be discussed in an honest and open 

manner. It was imperative that nations should not be locked out of markets under the pretext of 

greening. 

24. Representatives said that global markets could be harnessed for clean products, goods and 

services, and that the role of trade was key. The World Trade Organization had a role and procedures 

for dealing with relevant concerns. Developing countries were encouraged to adopt green economy 

strategies, but it was recognized that many would hesitate if they felt that they were being denied entry 

to markets. 

25. For technology transfer to be successful it should also include the transfer of know-how: the 

transfer of technology without skills would create a dependency that would not allow for true 

development. Uncertainty with respect to intellectual property rights still hangs over technology 

transfer and technical assistance. Understanding and addressing the difficulties with technology 

transfer can help countries to overcome risks and fears of protectionism. 

26. Priority investments should be made in areas that foster natural capital and decouple 

consumption from economic growth. Public and private finance both played important roles in a green 

economy, although there are different views regarding their respective contributions. 

27. The discussion of how to finance a transition to a green economy should include the 

consideration of innovative financing mechanisms, including new financing vehicles to spur 

investment and facilitate the transfer of technology. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

57

28. Developing countries require support from developed countries in the transition to a green 

economy; financing to allow developing countries to leapfrog to a green economy is paramount and, in 

particular, procuring investment capital for technology or infrastructure is often the underlying 

challenge. 

Benefits and opportunities 

29. The green economy holds the promise of securing the livelihoods of millions of people, and 

can help countries leapfrog in achieving patterns of sustainable consumption and production, cleaner 

technologies and infrastructure. 

“The next step should be not why, but how; not when, but now; not who, 

but all of us.” 

30. The UNEP Green Economy Report provides a good source of information for further 

discussions on green economy. 

31. Current economic indicators, including GDP, are insufficient to measure human well-being 

and importantly fail to value natural capital. It will not be possible to overcome the challenges 

associated with biodiversity loss without understanding its economic value. 

32. Reliable indicators are critical for effectively measuring and tracking progress. Useful lessons 

in measurement and reporting can be learned from the private sector. In addition, green criteria need to 

be more effectively incorporated into investment decision-making and funding programmes. 

33. Countries should consider developing green economy strategic plans or roadmaps. Successes 

in, and challenges and obstacles to, the implementation of such plans could be reviewed on an annual 

basis. Finally, there is a need for further data collection and the establishment of baselines to enable 

the effective evaluation of progress towards a green economy. UNEP should contribute to this in 

collaboration with other international institutions. 

34. Certain policies may require coordination at the regional or international level to avoid 

concerns about competitiveness that could constrain action by individual countries acting alone. 

35. Technical cooperation and partnerships with international involvement are key to the ability of 

developing countries to build their capacity. Developing countries need and welcome international 

support from organizations such as UNEP. 

Messages on a green economy 

36. The green economy needs to be seen in the context of sustainable development and poverty 

eradication, as one of the means to achieve sustainable development. Countries should consider a 

common understanding outlining certain key principles and elements of a green economy; thus a green 

economy should promote resource efficiency, should make use of cleaner technologies, should 

produce less carbon and less pollution and should reduce environmental risks. 

“It’s time to work together to build best practices in a green economy.” 

37. There is no single model of green economy for all countries. Each country may pursue its own 

green economy path, depending on national circumstances. A green economy will mean different 

things to different countries and how a country implements a green economy will depend on the 

specific natural resources and capacity of the country. 

38. Partners have a role to play and should be involved in a social and multi-stakeholder dialogue 

on the green economy, including groups such as the scientific community, labour, consumer groups 

and minority groups. The private sector has already made good advances in areas such as cleaner 

production and can support the sharing of best practices between industry sectors and countries. Civil 

society, women in particular, will be critical in shaping and enabling green economy strategies and 

plans. 

39. UNEP should continue to play an active role in developing and implementing the green 

economy concept and continuing to act as a facilitator for countries interested in moving towards a 

green economy. UNEP should also continue to play an active role in the United Nations Conference 

on Sustainable Development process, building on its experience and the knowledge generated from its 

recent green economy report. 

40. Finally, as Governments approach the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 

Development it is critical that they have a clear understanding of the concept of the green economy 

and possible strategies for achieving a green economy in their own countries. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

58

41. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development presents an opportunity to 

recommit to building economies that enhance social equity and human well-being while reducing 

environmental risks and ecological scarcity. 

Sub-theme II: International environmental governance 

“Today we have reached what is undoubtedly an important crossroads. We 

don’t have a choice with a population approaching 9 billion to carry on with 

business as usual.” 

42. Participants highlighted the historical evolution of international environmental governance and 

considered form and function and the strengthening of existing structures, along with the options set 

forth in the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome. They also considered the interaction between local, regional 

and international policies and structures and civil society. 

43. The work of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High-level Representatives on 

International Environmental Governance established under Governing Council decision SS.XI/1 was 

broadly welcomed and its outcome document – the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome – was said to be an 

important input to the work of the preparatory committee for the United Nations Conference on 

Sustainable Development. 

“We need to advance to an age that has learned to think at a planetary scale.” 

44. Reform of international environmental governance is linked to, but not in competition with, 

the institutional framework for sustainable development. In fact, it is clear that if we want to achieve 

advancements in the implementation of sustainable development we must raise the environmental 

pillar of sustainable development to the level of the other two pillars. 

45. The current system of environmental governance needs urgent and real reform as opposed to 

cosmetic reform. Horizontal integration is needed at the international, regional and national levels. 

46. Reform is also needed at the national level. Development will not be sustainable unless 

Governments invest in science and innovation, enhance resilience and human capacity, take country 

ownership of domestic sustainable development, promote transparency and inclusiveness and measure 

progress. 

47. Financing for sustainable development needs to be linked to targeted outcomes and should be 

owned at the national level. To close the implementation gap, it is necessary to strengthen the financial 

architecture, including by improving the coherence and flow of financial resources and access to them. 

48. International environmental governance provides a bridge between the green economy and the 

institutional framework for sustainable development, which are the two themes of the United Nations 

Conference on Sustainable Development. 

49. In addition to focusing on institutional reform there should be a focus on processes, i.e., 

cooperation and coordination mechanisms between institutions. 

50. Any reforms should be underpinned by considerations of equity, solidarity, fairness, 

environmental justice and poverty eradication. Participation and public accountability are essential to 

governance. 

51. Identified options for institutional reforms need further analysis through a transparent and 

participatory process before they can be acted upon. 

Challenges 

“We need to take responsibility, make decisions and stop running in circles.” 

52. Of the three pillars of sustainable development the environmental pillar is the weakest. 

Environmental governance is determined by national priorities and the strength of the environmental 

and social pillars in the United Nations system reflects the priorities that Governments have placed on 

these issues. Weaknesses are not just experienced at the international level but equally at the national 

level, where structures exist but are not necessarily harmonized. 

53. While many policies exist, their effective implementation is often hampered by a lack of 

financing and capacity, particularly in developing countries. Access to sufficient funding remains a 

key component of helping developing countries in particular to address the challenge of achieving a 

coordinated approach to sustainable development. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

59

54. Forums should be created that allow the discussion of cross-cutting issues, as environmental 

bodies currently act in isolation from one another. Special attention should be given to the role of 

women in international environmental governance, both because of the extent to which women in poor 

communities are vulnerable to environmental change and because of their role as custodians of natural 

resources such as water. Development of a common understanding of the meaning of sustainable 

development governance is important. 

Benefits and opportunities 

“UNEP should transform itself into an institution that acts.” 

55. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development is the appropriate venue in which 

to consider broader and system-wide reforms of international environmental governance. The 

Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome of the UNEP-led Consultative Group should certainly be an input into the 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development process. 

56. There is a desire to strengthen processes at the regional level for the consideration of 

international environmental governance. The regional preparatory meetings for the United Nations 

Conference on Sustainable Development represent an opportunity to enhance consideration of the 

regional dimension of governance reform. 

57. A “one United Nations” approach at the country level affords important opportunities for 

strengthened national-level action. Involvement of all agencies with environmental mandates in the 

reform debate will increase ownership and effectiveness. 

58. Local and regional authorities are critical in the implementation of agreed national 

commitments and are accountable to national Governments. Enhancing their involvement can be 

considered to be an element in international environmental governance reform and can be achieved, 

among other means, through drawing on existing models from other international arenas. 

59. A good example of improved interlinkages is the synergies process of the chemicals and 

wastes multilateral environmental agreements, which is being implemented at the level of the 

secretariats and at the national level. The process should be tailored to the specific circumstances and 

characteristics of the institutions involved. 

60. Given that the traditional mechanisms for obtaining funding for the environment are 

insufficient, there is an opportunity to rethink the manner in which fundraising for international 

environmental governance is accomplished and how it can be further improved. 

61. Sustainable development is about people’s lives and civil society therefore has a crucial role to 

play in the move towards sustainable development. Civil society can help inform the international 

environmental governance reform process and help strengthen the long-term ability of institutions to 

adapt to changing environmental and social circumstances. 

62. The participation of civil society, including business, should reflect our modern age and should 

conform to the standards of the twenty-first century. 

Messages on international environmental governance 

“We have to lay the structural foundations now for the future.” 

63. Strengthening the environmental pillar, through a decision taken at the United Nations 

Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, is important so that it is in balance with the social 

and economic pillars. 

64. Strengthening UNEP alone may not be enough. The Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome provides 

options for strengthening the environmental pillar, including the following options for broader reform: 

(a) Enhancing UNEP; 

(b) Establishing a new umbrella organization for sustainable development; 

(c) Establishing a specialized agency of the United Nations; 

(d) Reforming the United Nations Economic and Social Council and the Commission for 

Sustainable Development; 

(e) Enhancing institutional reforms and streamlining existing structures. 

The challenge is to develop a main option of reforms that have so far emerged into a mature option. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

60

65. We should continue to make progress in the multilateral system. The implementation of the 

decisions adopted at the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun were welcomed as a fundamental step in the 

consolidation of the long-term climate regime and as confirmation of the importance of multilateral 

negotiations. These decisions require participation from all stakeholders. 

66. Some countries indicated that access to information and environmental justice was 

fundamental in decision-making today. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation 

in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) was 

mentioned in this context as an example. 

67. For the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be successful we need 

greater clarity on the sustainable development framework and a better vision of what we want to 

achieve. 

68. Efforts to strengthen international environmental governance should be about more than 

rationalization of fragmentation and seeking efficiencies. Instead it should be about re-envisaging and 

even dreaming about what is required institutionally for environment and sustainability and how to put 

it in place. 

69. A peer review approach was strongly supported by some as an effective way to measure 

implementation. 

70. Environment ministers should commit themselves to working at the national level, and with 

other ministers, to ensure that their voice is strong and included equally in the discussions on the 

institutional framework for sustainable development. 

UNEP and the nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable 

Development 

71. Participants at the ministerial lunch on the contribution of UNEP to the nineteenth session of 

the Commission on Sustainable Development examined the themes of the Commission’s current 

implementation cycle (transport, chemicals, wastes, mining and the 10-year framework of programmes 

on sustainable consumption and production) as they related to the UNEP programme of work and 

explored policy options for the session, with a focus on the 10-year framework of programmes, 

favouring its possible adoption at the session. 

72. UNEP was recognized for its contribution to the Marrakech Process and its role in supporting 

the development of a 10-year framework of programmes was underlined. UNEP was further requested 

to play an active role in the implementation of the 10-year framework of programmes in the future. 

The ministerial lunch further enriched the dialogue between the ministers and other heads of 

delegation and assisted in identifying ways for UNEP to continue to support the sessions of the 

Commission on Sustainable Development. A complete summary of the ministerial discussions and 

recommendations on the10-year framework of programmes is set out in appendix I. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

61

Appendix I 

Messages from the ministerial lunch on UNEP and the nineteenth 

session of the Commission on Sustainable Development 

Challenges 

73. While political commitment to sustainable consumption and production has steadily increased 

since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and the World 

Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, actions have often been fragmented. 

74. Effective decoupling of economic growth from resource use and environmental degradation is 

needed to secure a better quality of life while minimizing resource use. 

75. A major shift to sustainable consumption and production requires endorsement at the highest 

political level and a stronger commitment to working together through a common vision under an 

ambitious and well structured framework of action for sustainable consumption and production. 

“The time has come for action in support of sustainable 

consumption and production, and this requires a well-structured 

framework, including a life-cycle approach in the various sectors.” 

76. An effective, transformative change to sustainable consumption and production patterns 

requires formal and strengthened cooperation and coordination at the global, regional and national 

levels and strategic channelling of resources. 

Benefits and opportunities 

77. The nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development presents an 

opportunity to contribute in a significant way to sustainable development through the development of 

a strong and ambitious framework for action on sustainable consumption and production – the 10-year 

framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production. 

78. The two themes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development are closely 

linked to the five themes of the Commission on Sustainable Development’s nineteenth session, which 

all contribute to sustainable development. The adoption of a 10-year framework of programmes on 

sustainable consumption and production at the nineteenth session would represent a critical 

contribution to the Conference and would be a key milestone in advancing the green economy and 

sustainable development. 

79. In line with its mandate to enhance sustainability in its various programmes, UNEP has 

developed broad experience and expertise in supporting the design, development and implementation 

of sustainable consumption and production approaches, practices and policies, working with a range of 

stakeholders and in close collaboration with other United Nations agencies such as the World Tourism 

Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the 

United Nations Industrial Development Organization in a variety of areas related to sustainable 

consumption and production. This includes co-hosting the secretariat of the Marrakech Process 

alongside the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and cooperating with the 

Marrakech Process task forces in developing tools, methodologies and guidelines for specific areas of 

sustainable consumption and production. 

80. All of these activities are relevant to the 10-year framework of programmes, and its potential 

prioritized programmes could build upon this experience in areas such as sustainable tourism; 

agri-food; sustainable buildings and construction; sustainable public procurement; mainstreaming 

sustainable consumption and production into planning and development strategies; consumer 

information; education and awareness raising; waste management, transport and resource-efficient and 

cleaner production. 

Messages from the session on the nineteenth session of the Commission on 

Sustainable Development 

81. Progress related to each of the five themes of the nineteenth session of the Commission on 

Sustainable Development has been different, but all feature various good practices that could be 

replicated and scaled up. We should consolidate and scale up what has been achieved so far at global, 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

62

regional and national levels to promote the programme on sustainable consumption and production 

and extend it to as many countries and partners as possible. 

82. The nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development is the culmination of 

over seven years of consultation and international cooperation to advocate the importance and 

feasibility of sustainable consumption and production, notably through the Marrakech Process. It is 

now time to advance with the development and endorsement of the framework at the nineteenth 

session. 

83. An ambitious 10-year framework of programmes that goes beyond the status quo and will 

contribute in a meaningful way to achieving sustainable patterns of consumption and production in all 

countries is needed and should be concluded at the nineteenth session. 

84. The 10-year framework of programmes should be based on a common vision deriving from the 

Conference on Environment and Development and the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit 

on Sustainable Development; it should contribute to the Millennium Development Goals and enhance 

the poverty and environment nexus. 

85. The 10-year framework of programmes should contain a common vision, and agreed goals and 

objectives, to steer programmes and related initiatives and activities under the framework. The 

framework could, building on experience with the Marrakech Process and the Strategic Approach to 

International Chemicals Management, consist of two parts: 

(a) Policy options (vision, function, institutional structure, criteria and guidelines) for 

programmes as an open list based on agreed criteria; 

(b) A solid and efficient institutional structure that builds upon existing expertise and uses 

and optimizes existing structures at the local, national, regional and global levels while involving all 

relevant stakeholders at all levels. Such a structure could include: 

(i) Coordination mechanisms at all levels: 

a. High-level international forum, allowing for engagement of all stakeholders, 

for taking strategic decisions and reviewing progress; 

b. Regional coordination, creation and/or strengthening of sustainable 

consumption and production centres of expertise and engagement of existing 

regional forums, roundtables and networks on sustainable consumption and 

production in the regions; 

c. National coordination, through national focal points and inter-ministerial task 

forces; 

d. Local engagement, to engage and empower cities as important actors in the 

delivery of sustainable development; 

 (ii) Supporting arrangements for the 10-year framework of programmes, such as: 

a. Interagency collaboration mechanism to engage relevant United Nations bodies 

actively; 

b. Secretariat for support and coordination, hosted by one lead agency, based on 

proven experience and comparative advantage, ensuring quick delivery, 

efficiency and accountability; 

c. A focus for resource mobilization through a dedicated trust fund for new and 

additional resources, including voluntary contributions, coupled with the 

reallocation of existing funds towards sustainable consumption and production. 

86. The 10-year framework of programmes should be flexible, adaptable to different needs, 

contexts, priorities and capacities of developing and developed countries. Programmes should address 

cross-cutting themes that contribute to the enabling policy framework for sustainable consumption and 

production. 

87. Initial programmes for the 10-year framework of programmes could be identified, taking into 

account regional priorities, sectors or areas which have the most negative environmental impacts and 

areas in which we can build on existing activities, such as those of the Marrakech Process task forces. 

The framework should be flexible enough to accommodate new programmes at a later stage, in 

particular in response to emerging issues. 

88. Efforts should no longer be dispersed and we should build on current experience and expertise, 

such as that of UNEP. The need for a stable and solid institutional structure, drawing lessons from the 

Marrakech Process, its regional achievements and task forces, calls for the active support of UNEP, 

which should take the leading role in the implementation of the 10-year framework of programmes. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

63

89. If so required by the Commission on Sustainable Development, UNEP should support the 

development and subsequent implementation of the framework, including through the coordination of 

its institutional arrangements, drawing on its accumulated experience, expertise and partnerships in 

supporting the development and implementation of sustainable consumption and production policies, 

guidelines, tools and methodologies and in coordinating similar institutional frameworks. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

64

Appendix II41

Summaries of the ministerial round-table discussions on the green 

economy 

Session: Roundtable 1 – Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian 

Co-Chair: H.E. Dr. Terezya P. Luoga Huvisa, Minister of State, Vice-President’s Office, Tanzania 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: H.E Dr. Rashid Ahmad Bin Fahad, Minister of Environment and Water, 

United Arab Emirates

Major points of discussion 

• The world is facing numerous environmental challenges, such as water scarcity, 

ecosystem vulnerability and climate change. 

• Numerous examples of multilateral, regional and bilateral regulatory frameworks to 

address environmental challenges exist, but they are failing to stop environmental 

degradation. 

• A green economy will mean different things to different countries and how a country 

implements a green economy will depend on the specific natural resources and capacity of 

the country. 

• Implementation of a green economy requires coordination, technology development and 

diffusion, capacity building, and additional financial resources, particularly for developing 

countries. 

• There are numerous success stories where a green economy transition is successfully 

taking place at the national level and countries can learn from the successes of others. 

• Green economy and development are two sides of the same coin – one needs economic, 

environmental and social progress in order to have a green economy. 

• Poverty reduction is critical to a green economic transition because of the direct link to 

natural resource degradation. 

Challenges 

• Lack of an agreed definition for a green economy could frustrate international efforts to 

make the transition. The definition of a green economy should be developed through 

partnerships between governments, international organizations, civil society (e.g. women 

and youth groups), and the private sector (e.g. corporations and trading companies). 

• The transition to a green economy should not serve as a trade barrier and UNEP has an 

important role to play in this regard. Green economy measures that are unilateral in nature 

should be discouraged. 

• For technology transfer to be successful it should include the transfer of know-how; 

without such a transfer in skills there will be a certain dependency created which is risky 

because it fails to allow for true development. Uncertainty with respect to intellectual 

property rights still hangs over the issue of technology transfer and technical assistance. 

Understanding the difficulties in technology transfer and addressing them can help 

countries overcome risks and fears of protectionism. 

• Developing countries require support from developed countries in the transition to a green 

economy; the issue of financing to allow developing countries to leap-frog to a green 

economy is paramount and, in particular, making the first capital investment in technology 

or infrastructure is often the underlying challenge. The financial crisis makes it difficult 

for developed countries to finance a green economy transition. 

• Only through concerted action will countries be able to address the trade, technological 

and financing challenges highlighted by countries. 

 

41 The appendix has not been formally edited. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

65

Opportunities 

• National green economy strategic plans or roadmaps could be developed and reviewed on 

an annual basis in order to reflect on successes, challenges and obstacles to the transition. 

• Innovative financing mechanisms to support a green economy should be explored, 

including their potential establishment to facilitate the transfer of technology. Priority 

investments should be made in areas that foster natural capital and decouple material 

intensity from economic growth. 

• Providing practical guidance to governments in the support of a green economy could be 

useful. Each country will have to create a tailor made green economy solution and share 

best practices with other countries. 

• Communicating the importance of green economy measures to decision-makers has 

proven beneficial in the transition. 

• The greening of cities will be essential in order to achieve a green economy given the 

importance of cities in terms of both environmental impact and economic growth. 

Municipal governments often depend on national policy makers to set the right enabling 

framework and create the necessary incentives to ensure the greening of cities. 

• Investing in human capital and education, such as university courses that focus on issues 

related to a green economy (e.g. environmental economics), could provide an important 

opportunity to support a green economy. 

• Rio+20 offers the possibility of moving forward on green economy issues and 

governments could consider what concrete outcomes they would like to see (i.e. what 

tools are needed for the transition, what can be learned from the success stories, etc.) 

High-level political messages from the session 

• A development model that has traditionally focused on the exploitation of natural 

resources is a cause of much of our current environmental challenges. There is a need for 

a new kind of economy that takes into consideration the degradation of resources. 

• There is a need for a global perspective in terms of a green economy. Making the 

transition in a developed country (e.g. switching to more fuel efficient cars) should not 

hinder the transition in developing countries (e.g. exporting used less fuel efficient cars in 

developing countries). 

• Given the current fiscal crisis more focus should be placed away from the public sector 

financing and consider innovative ways to stimulate private financing. It is important to 

turn to business for moving towards a green economy. 

• Civil society, and women in particular, should be included in shaping and enabling green 

economy strategies and plans. 

• UNEP should actively support developing country efforts in a green economy transition. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

66

Session: Roundtable 2 – English, French 

Co-Chair: H.E. Mr. Amedi Camara, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, 

Mauritania 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: H.E. Ms. Doris Leuthard, Federal Counsellor, Head of the Federal Department 

for Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, Switzerland 

Major points of discussion 

• It is important to promote a greater understanding of the concept of green economy, in 

order to enable policy makers and experts to engage in a more informed manner in policy 

discussions and the articulation of possible strategies. 

• In the context of discussions on the green economy, a fundamental question that arises is 

whether the approach to development that contributes to pollution and environmental 

degradation can be pursued into the future. 

• A better understanding of the importance of the environment to the economy will be 

critical to move forward a green economy transition. In this regard, the valuation of 

ecosystems and their contribution to wealth creation, drawing on the approach of The 

Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study, the World Bank/UNEP Wealth 

Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystems (WAVE) project and other studies are valuable 

experiences and approaches to consider. 

• It is important to acknowledge the different national contexts, and that each country may 

pursue its own pathway towards a green economy. 

• Government policies (e.g. regulations and targets on clean energy) can provide the right 

orientation and incentives that will motivate further action by the private sector and other 

actors. 

• At the same time, government policies (top-down) should be combined/complemented 

with community-level (bottom-up) initiatives and social innovation. 

• Promoting social dialogue, including multi-stakeholder participation, can be an important 

element of a green economy transition. 

• Education, communication and awareness-raising, including for consumers and producers, 

are essential for social change that is needed to achieve a green economy transition. 

• There is a need for further data collection and assessment of the baseline in order to enable 

an effective evaluation/measurement of the progress towards a green economy. 

• There are many successful country examples, which can be documented to facilitate a 

sharing of international experiences. 

• UNEP should play an important role in the process towards Rio+20, building on the 

experience and knowledge already generated. 

Challenges 

• The lack of implementation, including, insufficient financing is one of the main reasons 

for limited progress in achieving sustainable development. 

• Private sector financing can play a role, but it needs to be facilitated by more effective 

market-based mechanisms. 

• Governments and corporations should promote sustainable forms of investment and 

business practices not only in their own countries, but also in other countries where they 

operate. 

• The green economy should not only focus on promoting investments, but also address 

issues of fair distribution of benefits and access to resources (considering approaches such 

as the Access and Benefit Sharing regime under the CBD). 

• There is a need to be careful of the “rebound effect” so that gains in resource efficiency 

are not lost due to increased consumption. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

67

• Certain policies may require coordination at regional or international level, in order to 

avoid concerns about competitiveness which may constrain action by individual countries 

acting alone. 

Opportunities 

• The UNEP Green Economy Report provides a good source of information to inform 

further discussions on green economy. 

• When considering the cost of achieving a green economy, measuring the cost of inaction 

can contribute to putting into context the cost of action. 

• Regional and sub-regional institutions can play an important role in promoting a green 

economy transition. 

• Sustainable Consumption and Production should be considered an important pillar in the 

transition towards a green economy. 

• The experience with the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (such 

as the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention) offers valuable lessons of a transition 

towards more sustainable production and consumption of resources and technologies. 

High-level political messages from the session 

• Green economy needs to be seen in the context of sustainable development, and as one of 

the means to achieve sustainable development. 

• There is still an incomplete understanding of the concept of green economy among 

countries. Further discussions are needed to bridge the different levels of understanding. 

• There may not be a need to agree on one single and common definition of a “green 

economy”, but rather a common understanding outlining certain key principles of a green 

economy (e.g. resource efficiency, clean technologies, low-carbon, less pollution etc). 

• It is important to take a step-by-step approach to promoting a green economy transition 

that allows to build upon the different national contexts. 

• The UNEP Green Economy Report provides an excellent basis for the further 

development and implementation of the concept of Green Economy. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

68

Session: Roundtable 3 – English, Spanish 

Co-Chair: H.E. Mr. Mohammed Hasan Mahmud, Minister for the Environment, Bangladesh 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: H.E. Ms. Graciela Muslera, Minister of Housing, Land Planning and 

Environment, Uruguay 

Major points of discussion 

• There was agreement that business as usual is clearly not sustainable, nor equitable. 

• Some scepticism was expressed on the definition and whether the concept of green 

economy can be implemented immediately. On the other hand, there were very positive 

views on the role it can and is playing with national examples provided of green economy 

in practice. 

• Concerns were expressed about possible negative impacts and transitional costs of green 

economy concepts. 

Challenges 

• Need for better understanding of the concept of green economy. 

• Market-based instruments may not be the best for all economies: in some cases public 

finance should play the principle role. 

• Concerns that implementing green economy may bring new trade barriers. 

• Green economy concepts and tools need to cater also for poor communities and fragile 

ecosystems. 

• Concerns about the results and implications of methods of economic valuation of 

environmental costs, which may undervalue poorer country resources. 

• Additional resources are needed for some countries to transition to the green economy in 

the context of sustainable development. 

• Water resources, including proper pricing and transboundary aspects, should be 

considered as a priority. 

• The transition costs must be addressed, including who bears the costs of pricing changes. 

• Strong political will is needed ... but also a cultural shift. 

• Consumption patterns must also change. 

• The role of education should not be underestimated. 

Opportunities 

• Presents the opportunity to fully internalize environmental costs across sectors, including 

by providing tools for environmental ministers to engage their counterparts from finance, 

planning and sectors to implement measures. 

• Harmful subsidy removal should cover the fisheries and agricultural sectors. 

• Carbon pricing presents powerful incentives for implementing the green economy. 

• The green economy approach is intimately linked with the Rio Principles, providing a 

practical way to implement them and contribute to sustainable development. 

• The growth in environmental technologies sector presents an important way to build 

coalitions in favour of the green economy. 

• Need to address both the demand side (through subsidies and taxes) and also supply side 

(labelling). 

• The role of indicators is key for measuring progress. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

69

• Some sectors can be ‘engines’ for green economy – e.g. renewable energy, while others 

should be addressed later. 

• Transparency, building public awareness about costs and benefits, participatory decisionmaking are key to the success of green economy measures. 

• UNEP was called on to: 

• help advance work on setting the price on natural resources and ecosystem services; 

• help operationalize the green economy concept by making proposal for moving forward; 

and 

• continue to be a facilitator for all countries to move towards a green economy. 

High-level political messages from the session 

• Green economy concept /approach offers the opportunity to address environmental issues 

across sectors. 

• A mix of policy tools is needed. 

• There should be flexibility in implementing green economy measures to cater for 

individual national circumstances and situations. 

• Goal for Rio2012 is to provide support at the highest level (heads of state) to address 

environmental sustainability as an economic priority, in the context of sustainable 

development. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

70

Session: Roundtable 4 – English 

Co-Chair: H.E. Mr. Gusti Muhammad Hatta, Minister of State for the Environment, Indonesia 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: Mr. Jochen Flasbarth, President, German Environment Agency

Major points of discussion 

• Green Economy is not an alternative to sustainable development, but a tool for its 

advancement. The social aspect of the green economy is key. 

• Countries need to focus on national solutions, learning from and supported by 

international partners. 

• Building local green markets need to be complemented by improved access to foreign 

ones. 

Challenges 

Concept and scope 

• We need to adapt the approach to varying country circumstances, for example not 

forgetting the “blue” economy - communities that rely on coastal resources. 

• The distinction between green and brown can be misleading. It is rather about a 

continuum. 

• Institutional reform under the green economy umbrella can serve to ensure that the three 

pillars of sustainable development work more in tandem. 

• The green economy may be a new paradigm to many, but many countries are going ahead 

and introducing national green economy plans. 

• The green economy agenda can cover a broad set of issues. Efforts to create short term 

economic growth and jobs are politically pressing. The green economy report shows the 

important long term perspective. 

International dimension 

• We have an opportunity to step up the agenda, building a local and global economic 

system that supports sustainable development. 

• Green economy should not result in protectionism. Green markets should be 

non-discriminatory. UNEP can help ensure that for example intellectual property right 

concerns do not hinder trade and investment. 

• We need to harness global markets for clean products, goods and services. 

• Business also faces a transnational dimension, such as global value chains. Different 

standards and capacity between countries lead to fragmentation and breakdown in the flow 

of communications along these chains. 

• The WTO has a recognised role and procedures to deal with trade concerns. 

Measuring progress 

• Countries need to elaborate appropriate indicators to measure progress. It is good to see 

that UNEP is collaborating with OECD on this. 

• The need for robust and transparent information to which citizens can have access is 

fundamental. 

• For business the term green economy is a policy term for which there exists as yet no set 

of financial measures to define exactly what it is. The definition of relevant indicators is 

still incomplete. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

71

Opportunities 

Social dimension 

• Will this growth trickle down to poor communities? How can this create economic 

opportunities and also act as social enabler? 

• The recent TEEB reports have shown severe impact on the poor, and underlined the 

opportunities that exist in capturing the value of their dependence on ecosystem services. 

• Introducing decent employment is fundamental. The transition requires not only 

investment but also social safety nets, considering possible job losses in the transition. 

National country programmes 

• Goals can be set for what can be achieved at national level in timeframes of for example 5 

years. National roadmaps with timelines can be developed, supported by UNEP and other 

agencies. 

• National country programmes include items such as education and capacity building, 

support for dealing with upfront investment costs, as well as the phased removal of 

subsidies. 

• Each country can adopt a toolkit or range of policy options that suits its national 

conditions. Countries need to focus on national solutions. 

• The sharing of case studies can help countries identify their strategies. These can include 

the use of standard metrics and introduction of targeted educational programmes. 

Market opportunities 

• Real economic opportunities exist in reducing waste of resources, such as high level of 

energy lost due to building energy inefficiency. UNEP can support the carrying out of 

energy audits and provision of technical expertise. 

• Questions of affordability and competition are important. Consumers will be led by price, 

so how do we make green products and economies competitive? 

• Pro-active companies suffer from free riders who do not follow greener standards. 

• The experience of renewables shows how competition has helped the technology to 

become more affordable. Sustainable public procurement can support the creation of new 

markets. 

• Certification and labelling schemes can be costly to local producers. If consumers in 

import markets are not willing to pay a premium, exporting producers struggle to get 

market access. 

• Labelling schemes can provide a strong case for mutual support between suppliers and 

buyers in the value chain. 

• The green economy needs cleaner technologies and production, which requires green 

technologies that are affordable and that do not serve as barriers. 

High level messages from the session 

• Rio+20 challenges us to consider a framework that includes the right mix of different 

policies, values and approaches. Recognise at the same time the value of a national 

toolbox approach. 

• UN and other agencies need to collaborate in this field. Recent and forthcoming reports by 

UNEP, OECD and others can promote convergence. There are also inevitable differences 

in approach, such as in addressing the global poverty agenda, social and labour market 

policies. 

• Relevant ministries need to be engaged in the debate, complementing their national 

engagement with international forums where environment, finance and other ministries 

can meet. 

• We need to involve all partners in a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the green economy. 

The private sector can support sharing of best practices between industry sectors and 

countries. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

72

Appendix III42

Summaries of the ministerial round-table discussions on 

international environmental governance 

Session: Roundtable 1 – Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian 

Co-Chair: H.E. Mr. Andreas Carlgren, Minister of Environment, Sweden 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: H.E. Mr. Taulant Bino, Vice-Minister of Environment, Albania

Major points of discussion 

• The need for strengthening/reforming the international environmental governance system 

within a reformed institutional architecture for sustainable development was reiterated. 

• The work of the Consultative Group of ministers and high-level representatives 

established under Governing Council decision SS.XI/1 was highly welcomed and its 

outcome document – the Nairobi-Helsinki outcome - was considered an important input to 

the consideration by the preparatory committee of the UN Conference on Sustainable 

Development in 2012. 

• The nexus between environmental changes and development were stressed and the need 

for considering the reform of international environmental governance within the 

sustainable development context underlined. 

• General agreement was voiced that UNEP needs to be strengthened and that incremental 

reforms should be embarked upon, especially those which can be achieved within the 

existing mandate of UNEP. Some felt that a strengthened UNEP could take the form of a 

specialized agency, while others did not support the establishment of such a new 

institution. Reform may also need to include consideration of other institutions than 

UNEP. 

• It was felt that the identified options for institutional reforms need further analysis through 

a transparent and participatory process before they can be acted upon. 

Challenges 

• The world is faced with a gap between environmental challenges and its response to those 

challenges which are threatening to undermine human well-being, especially for the poor 

and vulnerable in society. 

• While many policies exist, their effective implementation is often hampered by lack of 

financing and capacity, particularly in developing countries. 

• The current process of international environmental governance reform should include 

broad stakeholder participation, which can bring fresh ideas to the debate and facilitate a 

more equitable and sustainable governance system in the long-term. 

Opportunities 

• The Rio+20 Conference could provide a good opportunity and framework for changing 

the current international environmental governance system, but even if reforms were not 

achieved there and then, Rio+20 would also represent an opportunity to set the world on to 

an informed path of reform. 

• There is a need to strengthen processes at the regional level for consideration of IEG and 

the regional preparatory meetings for the UNCSD represent an opportunity to enhance the 

consideration of the regional dimension of governance reform. 

• Enhanced coordination in the UN system can mobilize both capacity and resources and 

promote synergies in a manner which can help speed up action such as for the Cancun 

outcome. 

 

42 The appendix has not been formally edited. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

73

• A One UN approach at the country level represents an important opportunity for 

strengthened action at the national level. 

• Local and regional authorities are critical in implementation of agreed national 

commitments and they are accountable to national governments. Enhanced involvement 

can be considered an important element of IEG reform, inter alia, by drawing on existing 

models from other international arenas. 

• The involvement of major stakeholders, such as children, youth groups and academia can 

inform the IEG reform process and help strengthen the long-term ability of institutions to 

adapt to changing environmental and social circumstances. 

High-level political messages from the session 

• There is a gap in our response to environmental challenges. The current system of 

international environmental governance is too costly, too fragmented, too time-consuming 

and inefficient. There must be more delivery and less administration. 

• The world needs an environmental governance system with institutions in authority and an 

authority which is accountable to deliver. 

• The implementation of the Cancun Agreements adopted at the sixteenth session of the 

Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change is welcomed as a fundamental step in the consolidation of the long-term climate 

regime, which confirmed the importance of multilateral negotiations. The agreement 

requires an immediate and renewed effort of international cooperation which promotes 

synergies and collaboration within the United Nations system, with participation of all 

stakeholders. 

• The financial architecture needs further strengthening and possibly some soft 

coordination, in order to address the prevailing implementation gap. 

• Special attention needs to be attributed to the role of women in international 

environmental governance, both because of the extent to which women in poor 

communities are vulnerable to environmental change, but also because of their role as 

custodians of natural resources such as water. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

74

Session: Roundtable 2 – English, French 

Co-Chair: H.E. Ms. Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: H.E. Mr. Tiemoko Sangare

Major points of the discussion 

• Conceptualizing environment as a pillar versus as cross-cutting and foundational. 

• There are limits to the current architecture and there is a need for strengthening and 

change. 

• It is imperative to consider the institutional architecture not only at the global level but 

also at the national, local and community levels: To ensure the transmission of knowledge 

and approach to all levels. 

• Any reforms should be underpinned by consideration of equity, solidarity, fairness, 

environmental justice and poverty eradication. 

• There is a need for a common inclusive forum/organization to consider the environment at 

a global level: Issue of universal membership. 

• Issue of fragmentation of governance: Including MEAs. 

• Issue of participation and public accountability as essential to governance. 

• Consideration of 5 options: Variety of opinions expressed, yet main discussion around 

option 1 and 3, while some added elements of option 5 to either option1 or option 3. 

• Proposal that UNEP is tasked with doing an additional analysis showing the option it sees 

as most feasible for UNEP. 

Challenges 

• Assignment and mobilization of resources 

• Issues of efficiency as curtailed by fragmentation 

• Questions of mandate and authority 

• Equity and solidarity at the global level 

• Capacity gaps, knowledge gaps 

• Low visibility of UNEP 

Opportunities 

• Rio+20: the moment in history after long debate and much analysis to strengthen UNEP 

• Consider closely each option, what it can offer and how: What can be achieved by 

different options: example; 

 option 1: Enhancing UNEP: can be done through “simple” GA resolution 

 while option 3: Establishing a specialized agency/WEO: requires new treaty and a 

ratification process. 

• Significant progress on IEG through the Nairobi-Helsinki process in terms of analysis, 

discussion and to identify areas of convergence among countries on the options: Decision 

about to be passed by GC26. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

75

High-level political messages from the session 

• There is broad agreement that the current system is not sufficient for the environmental 

and sustainability challenges at hand, and that this necessitates efforts to strengthening 

IEG. (Some delegations favored enhanced an UNEP; others favored the establishment of a 

World Environment Organization, while some saw points of convergence between these 

two options. Additionally, some delegations favored a combination of specific options, for 

example to combine options 1 and 5, or options 3 option 5.) 

• The efforts to strengthen IEG should be about more than rationalization of fragmentation 

and seeking efficiencies. Instead it should be about re-envisioning and even dreaming 

about what is required institutionally for environment and sustainability and putting this in 

place. 

• Various African delegations expressed their desire for a common African position and 

indicated that consultations towards this position are taking place (e.g. in July 2011). 

• Considerations of equity, fairness, environmental justice and commitment to poverty 

eradication have to be at the centre of efforts to strengthening IEG. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

76

Session: Roundtable 3 – English, Spanish 

Co-Chair: H.E. Mr. David McGovern, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Canada 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: H.E. Mr. Andrei Bourrouet, Vice-minister, Ministry of Environment and 

Energy, Costa Rica

Major points of the discussion 

• The current system of environmental governance at all levels is inadequate and needs 

urgent and real reform as opposed to cosmetic reform. 

• While strengthening environmental governance is essential, its interlinkages with other 

sectors is also highly important. There is a need for horizontal integration at the 

international, regional and national levels. 

• Sustainable development therefore requires reform of the entire system, including the 

economic and social pillars represented by the International Financial Institutions, other 

UN agencies, the private sector, NGOs and civil society. 

• Is the focus on reform of institutions really the most effective or should we rather focus on 

processes, i.e. the cooperation and coordination between institutions? Sustainable 

development relies on the integration of all sectors of society and in particular the 

internalization of the environment by all sectors. 

• Why is so much money spent on arms, drugs or even entertainment but when it comes to 

the environment the world experiences a sudden lack of resources? 

• A successful ministry restructuring was cited as an example. The success factors in this 

undertaking were the strengthening of its science base; the introduction and enhancement 

of compliance and enforcement mechanisms; the showcasing of the economic and 

financial feasibility of environmental regulation; and the professionalization of the staff. 

Challenges 

“Efforts are made not to take responsibility. When it comes to take decisions, we only 

run in circles.” 

• The group concurred in that there was political desire to change but that governments 

lacked the tools and knowledge. 

• Some considered the lack of finance an impediment for action. 

• Imperfections are not just experienced at the international level but equally at the national 

level, where structures are there but not harmonized. 

• Consensus among environmental institutions of the UN system is lacking and therefore 

UNEP is needed to take on a better coordination role. 

• The current IEG system is lacking implementation at the national level; hence 

architectural reform should include strengthening of UNEP’s regional presence and 

equipping UNEP with better financial means to support governments. 

• Institutional reform may involve costs, which might result in the diversion of funds from 

implementation. 

• What is sustainable development governance? We need to develop an understanding what 

this actually means. 

Opportunities 

• Sustainable development is about people’s lives and therefore civil society has a crucial 

role to play in the move towards sustainable development. 

• Inclusion of the science community will greatly enhance environmental decision-making. 

• Forums have to be created that allow the discussion of cross-cutting issues, as 

environmental bodies currently act in silos. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

77

• A good example for horizontal integration is the synergies process of the chemical and 

waste MEAs, which has also been translated to the national level, although the process 

may have to be tailored towards different institutions and bodies. 

• There are sufficient resources in the system but they need to be used more effectively. 

What is needed is a more effective and coherent UN system. 

• Involvement of all agencies with an environmental mandate into the reform debate will 

increase ownership and effectiveness. 

High-level political messages from the session 

“UNEP should convert itself into an institution that acts.” 

• UNEP should be given universal membership to enable all countries participation in 

decision-making. 

• The creation of a UNEO or WEO based on UNEP would provide an opportunity to 

streamline existing bureaucratic structures and to cut down administrative costs and 

overlaps. 

• Sustainable development is not the monopoly of one single institution. It requires 

collaboration between all institutions. 

• For the Rio+20 Conference to be successful we need more clarity on the sustainable 

development framework and a better vision of what we want to achieve. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

78

Session: Roundtable 4 - English 

Co-Chair: H.E. Mr. Kenneth Darroux, Minister of Environment, Natural Resources, Physical 

Planning and Fisheries, Dominica 

Co-Chair/Rapporteur: H.E. Francis D.C. Nhema, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Zimbabwe

Major points of discussion 

• International environmental governance and the institutional framework for sustainable 

development are not in competition. In fact, it is clear that if we want to achieve 

advancements in the implementation of sustainable development we have to raise 

environment to the level of the other pillars. 

• Furthermore, international environmental governance provides a bridge between the green 

economy and the institutional framework for sustainable development, which are the two 

themes of UNCSD. 

• Although the mandate for UNEP was created in a different era, this mandate remains 

relevant up to today. As the understanding of the impacts of environmental change has 

rapidly increased over the last 40 years, we have realized that UNEP is not capable, in its 

current structure, of implementing the ambitious mandate that was set out in 1972. 

• Since Stockholm we have started to hit planetary limits to the environment and therefore 

to development. Therefore, improved environmental governance systems should be 

defining those limits and how close we are to them and set the framework for how all 

human beings are going to live on this planet. 

• Reform is also needed at the national level. Development will not be sustainable, 

regardless of a balanced approach to economy, social issues and environment, if 

governments do not invest in science and innovation, enhance resilience and human 

capacity, take country ownership of domestic sustainable development, promote 

transparency and inclusiveness, and measure our progress. 

• Financing for sustainable development and environment needs to be linked to targeted 

outcomes and should be owned at the national level. 

Challenges 

• A fundamental challenge is how to change our current value systems and begin to take 

actions to address the imbalance between the disproportionate values placed on the 

economic pillar of sustainable development compared to the environmental pillar. 

• What are the key political impediments for making these reforms? 

• A major challenge is that environmental governance is determined by national priorities 

and the strength of the environmental pillar in the UN system reflects the priorities that 

governments have placed on these issues. 

• IEG does not scale down very well. There is a missing dimension of how to make certain 

that whatever structure is decided on at the international level can be translated to the 

national level where the implementation occurs. 

• Capacity building and access to sufficient funding remains a key component of helping 

developing countries, in particular to address the challenge of achieving a coordinated 

approach to sustainable development. 

Opportunities 

• It is agreed that improvements to environmental governance are needed and that the 

system should be more efficient, effective and coordinated. However, there is still a need 

to agree on the nature of the reforms. 

• More and more national environmental problems have an international cause. A reformed 

IEG system can help national governments to understand global international change-- 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

79

and its impacts at the national level, enabling countries to be better prepared to address 

them. 

• UNCSD is the appropriate venue to consider broader reforms and system-wide reforms of 

IEG. The outcomes of the UNEP-led Consultative Group should certainly be an input into 

the Rio+20 process. 

• Given that the traditional mechanisms for obtaining funding for environment are 

insufficient, there is an opportunity to rethink the manner in which fundraising is done for 

IEG and how it is accessed. 

High-level political messages from the session 

• We cannot consider an option to maintain the ‘business as usual’ perspective. There is a 

need to modify the status quo and a need to make the structures that we have created to 

govern environment and sustainable development work 

• We need to start with strengthening the environment pillar, through a decision taken at 

UNCSD in 2012, so that it is balanced with the social and economic pillars. 

• Strengthening UNEP on its own will not provide the results that we need. A more 

coherent system needs to have clearly identified priorities for taking actions toward 

sustainable development. 

• Though the economic pillar of sustainable development has been the pillar most 

emphasized by governments, poverty still exists. Until governments prioritize the 

environment, progress will not be made. 

• Environment ministers need to commit to working at the national level, with other 

ministers, to ensure that their voice is strong and included equally in the discussions on the 

institutional framework for sustainable development. 
UNEP/GC.26/19 

80

Annex IV 

Statement by the Secretary-General 

I am pleased to greet all delegations to this session of the UNEP Governing Council and 

Global Ministerial Environment Forum. You meet in the context of preparations for the United 

Nations Conference on Sustainable Development next year in Rio de Janeiro. The world has changed 

considerably since the Earth Summit 20 years ago. Despite agreement on Agenda 21 – our blueprint 

for sustainable development – and treaties covering climate change, biodiversity and desertification, 

these notable achievements of Rio have failed to prevent the continued deterioration of the 

environmental services on which we all depend. 

It is time to upgrade our responses and institutions. We need a practical, 21st-century 

development model that connects the dots between poverty reduction, climate change, and food, water 

and energy security. To that end I have established a High-level Panel on Global Sustainability to 

make recommendations that can feed into the intergovernmental processes designed to address these 

matters, including preparations for Rio 2012. 

As environment ministers, your engagement will be crucial. But we will not generate the 

political commitment we need without bringing on board your counterparts in finance, trade and other 

arms of government. 

Sustainable development is not a purely environmental agenda; rather, it depends equally on 

three pillars: economic, social and environmental. Efforts to build a green economy can help to unite 

these elements and unlock the door to a more secure and prosperous world. However, green economy 

principles will be effective only if supported by strengthened international environmental governance 

that can catalyse cooperation, mobilize resources and prioritize actions that lead to low-carbon, 

resource-efficient growth. 

 Changing direction can bring risks. But science and economics both reach the same 

conclusion: the greatest danger is to do nothing, leaving challenges unattended and opportunities 

unrealized. Rio 2012 is a powerful opportunity to mobilize the political courage to change course 

toward a more equitable, sustainable path for all. Your deliberations this week can help to set us on 

this road. I wish you a productive meeting. 

________________