Implementation of MEAs The 2001 UNEP report, entitled International Environmental Governance: Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)9

, I

which is derived from information submitted by twenty MEA Secretariats, provides a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of existing MEAs and puts forward recommendations and options for improving international environmental governance.

The existence of a comprehensive strategy, including objectives, priorities, specific activities, timetables, identification of partners, involvement of stakeholders, and budgets for implementation of an MEA, are often critical factors that bear on the effectiveness of an MEA.

II

The best approach for enhancing international environmental governance may be to focus on coordination among MEAs on substantial grounds and aim at “gradual improvements based on an analysis of needs and global benefits, rather than on new mechanisms that may not be practical to operationalize in the short term”9, para. 142&149

.

In order to increase the effectiveness of the implementation of existing MEAs, some cross-cutting priorities relevant to many MEAs include9, p.12–13

:

• strengthening the capacities of parties or member states to meet their obligations or responsibilities under MEAs;

• enhancing membership of governments; • public education and awareness; • strengthened scientific basis for decision-making; • strengthened international partnerships; • mobilizing additional resources for implementing their respective MEAs;

• provision of financial assistance to Parties or member states related to transfer of technologies;

• the development and use of indicators; • compliance and monitoring of implementation of the convention; and,

• enhanced participation of civil society. 28 PROTECTING ARCTIC BIODIVERSITY

There is need for closer cooperation between the core environmental conventions particularly for those MEAs within the cluster of biodiversity-related conventions. More work and greater attention needs to be directed at the harmonization of national reporting among MEAs11,12

.

Steps are being made in this direction. There are cooperative activities and joint programmes of work in areas of common interest amongst biodiversity-related MEAs – e.g., on migratory species (between the CBD and CMS, and between CMS and Ramsar) and on protected areas (between the CBD, WHC, Ramsar, and CMS). CBD and UNFCCC are cooperating through the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions, while CBD, CITES, CMS, Ramsar and WHC cooperate through the Biodiversity Liaison Group.

There is an increasing global effort to integrate biodiversity measures with climate change considerations. In 2009 the CBD Conference of the Parties (COP) Decision IX/1613

urged

parties to enhance integration of climate change considerations into their implementation efforts in relation to biodiversity. Also in 2009, the G8 Environment Ministers agreed in the Carta di Siracusa on Biodiversity to put in place measures “for climate change adaptation of natural and managed ecosystems, since spontaneous adaptation is not expected to be sufficient to reduce the impacts on biodiversity at all levels, or on vulnerable ecosystems, for long-term human well-being”14

. A European

Commission (EC) White Paper includes actions to address biodiversity loss and climate change in an integrated manner (see 15

), and many organizations and agencies, such as the European Environment Agency, are working on biodiversity and climate change indicators.

One example of efforts towards synergies between MEAs is the TEMATEA Project on Issues-Based Modules (www. tematea.org), which is a tool developed for streamlining the implementation of a number of biodiversity-related conventions and to promote coherence and synergies between MEAs at both the national and international level.