3 Content of the Courses
3.3 Annually changing special theme
Each Course has had a special theme: water (2004);50 forests (2005);51 biodiversity (2006);52
Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, Review 2006, 27–36; Tammy de Wright, ‘The Lessons from Montreal and Basel for Rotterdam and Stockholm: Ongoing Developments in (Non-)Compliance Mechanism’, Review 2007, 247–274; Sebastian Oberthür and René Lefeber, ‘The Experience of the First Five Years of the Kyoto Protocol’s Compliance System’, Review 2010, 65–94.
40 Sylvia Bankobeza, ‘Multilateral Environmental Diplomacy and Negotiations’, Review 2011, 3–18; Sylvia Bankobeza and Elizabeth Mrema, ‘International Environmental Diplomacy and Negotiations’, Review 2012, 1–14; Melissa Lewis and Katileena Lohtander-Buckbee, ‘Compliance Negotiations within the Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol’, Review 2013, 109–136.
41 Donald Kaniauru, ‘International Environmental Negotiation Blocs’, Review 2006, 3–16; Elizabeth Mrema and Ramakrishna Kilaparti, ‘The Importance of Alliances, Groups and Partnerships in International Environmental Negotiations’, Review 2009, 183–192.
42 Nicola Notaro, ‘International Environmental Negotiations and the EU: A Practical View-point’, Review 2006, 17–26; Nicola Notaro, ‘The New European Union Reform Treaty: What’s in It for EU Environmental Negotiators?’, Review 2007, 65–75.
43 Lisa Benjamin, ‘The Role of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in UNFCCC Negotiations’, Review 2010, 117–132.
44 Lisa Benjamin, ‘Small Island Developing States in International Negotiations involving Ocean Governance:
UNCLOS, UNFCCC and the Doha Development Round of the WTO’, Review 2012, 17–45.
45 Marina von Weissenberg, ‘Coordination of National Positions in Connection with Biodiversity-related International Issues’, Review 2006, 269–280.
46 Ander Pothin, ‘National Governace in Forest Isssues’, Review 2005, 287–294; Tuomas Kuokkanen,
‘Adoption and Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements from a National Governance Point of View’, Review 2009, 21–27
47 Tim Cadman, ‘Theory and Practice of Non-state Participation in Environmental and Forest-related Decision-making’, Review 2005, 155–178.
48 Heidi Hautala, ‘The Role of NGOs and National Parliaments in International Environmental Law-making’, Review 2004, 103–108.
49 Akpezi Ogbuigwe, ‘The Role of Public Participation and Ethics in Environmental Law Implementation and Diplomacy’, Review 2007, 55–64; Olivier Deleuze, ‘The Role of Major Groups and Stakeholders in Environmental Negotiations and Governance’, Review 2009, 127–136.
50 Esko Kuusisto, ‘World Water Resources and Problems’, Review 2004, 153–164; Tuomas Kuokkanen,
‘International Law and Water’, Review 2004, 167–187; Nies Ipsen and Marko Berglund, ‘Integrated Water Resource Management: International Freshwater Agreements and National Water Policy and Law Reforms’, Review 2004, 179–188.
51 Tiina Vähänen, ‘Forest and the Millennium Development Goals’, Review 2005, 213–222; Pekka Patosaari,
‘The United Nations Forum on Forests: Building a Stronger Regime’, Review 2005, 223–230; Restricting the Import of Timber and Timber Products Harvested through Illegal Logging: A Review of Relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, Review 2005, 253–286.
52 Iwona Rummel–Bulska, ‘The Negotiating Process Leading to the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Review 2006, 39–50; Tewolde Egziabher, ‘The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: History, Content and Implementation’, Review 2006, 73–92; Ahmed Djoghlaf, ‘National Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Review 2006, 93–102; Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, ‘Establishing a National Policy Framework for Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Review 2006, 103–123;
Loretta Feris, ‘The Protection of Biodiversity-Related Traditional Knowledge’, Review 2006, 127–144; Ed
chemicals (2007);53 oceans (2008);54 environmental governance (2009);55 climate change (2010);56 synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions (2011);57 ocean
Couzens, ‘The Problem That Categorization of Species in MEAs Poses for the Protection of Biodiversity’, Review 2006, 185–216; Kuphakwenkosi Gumede, ‘The Threat to Biodiversity Posed by Alien Species Transported in Ballast Water: the 2004 Ballast Water Convention’, Review 2006, 157–164; Minna Pyhälä,
‘Marine Biodiversity Conservation with a Special Focus on the Work Carried out under the Helsinki Convention’, Review 2006, 165–184.
53 Shafqat Kakakhel, ‘Global Governance: Chemicals’, Review 2007, 79–90; Iwona Rummel-Bulska, ‘The Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes: Problems, Negotiations and Solutions’, Review 2007, 91–118;
Maged Younes, ‘Chemicals: the Global Context’, Review 2007, 119–126; Donald Kaniaru, ‘Managing Chemicals and Waste: Challenges for Developing Countries’, Review 2007, 143–186; Arielle Delprado,
‘Trade in Chemicals and the Protection of the Environment in CARICOM’, Review 2007, 187–201;
Sheila Logan, Brenda Koekkoek, Desiree Narvaez and Maged Younes, ‘Mercury – Searching for Solutions to a Global Problem’, Review 2007, 205–212; Michael Kidd, ‘DDT, Malaria Control and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants’, Review 2007, 213–230; Ed Couzens, ‘Chemicals and Marine Mammals’, Review 2007, 231–246.
54 Michael Kidd, ‘International Fisheries: An Overview of the International Legal Response’, Review 2008, 31–38; Albert Hoffman, ‘UNCLOS and the Resources of the Seabed in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’, Review 2008, 41–54; Marko Berglund, ‘Protection of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’, Review (2008) 55–65; Dire Tladi, ‘Marine Genetic Resources on the Deep Seabed:
The Continuing Search for a Legally Sound Interpretation of UNCLOS’, Review 2008, 65–80; Ed Couzens, ‘How the Whale Got Its Impasse’, Review 2008, 81–88; Catherine Zengerling, ‘NGOs versus European Pirates: Fisheries Agreements, IUU Fishing and the ITLOS in West African Seas’, Review 2008, 107–132; Robert Mortassagne, ‘Challenges of Policing Ports and Harbours’, Review 2008, 229–238;
Robert Wabuonoha, ‘Drafting Integrated Legislation for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Environments’, Review 2008, 187–218.
55 Louis Kotzé, ‘Towards a Tentative Legal Formulation of Environmental Governance’, Review 2009, 3–20;
Roy Brooke, ‘Environmental Governance in Post–conflict Situations: Lessons from Rwanda’, Review 2009, 45–64. Daniel Schramm and Carl Bruch, ‘Adapting Laws and Institutions to a Changing Climate’, Review 2009, 65–88; Patricia Kameri–Mbote, ‘Gender and International Environmental Governance’, Review 2009, 137–162; Donald Kaniaru, ‘National Environmental Governance: The Role of National Environmental Tribunals’, Review 2009, 163–182.
56 Tuomas Kuokkanen, ‘Perspectives within the Climate Change Regime’, Review 2010, 41–50; Harri Laurikka and Anna–Pia Schreyögg, ‘The Global Carbon Market – a Disappearing Vision?’ Review 2010, 51–64; Maria Pohjanpalo, ‘A Perspective from UN Headquarters on Climate Change’, Review 2010, 95–102; Mark Radka, ‘Technology Transfer and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’, Review 2010, 103–113; Michael Kidd, ‘South Africa’s Position on Climate Change: Fiddling while the Earth Burns’, Review 2010, 133–162; Natascha Trennepohl, ‘Brazil’s National Policy on Climate Change and the Carbon Market’, Review 2010, 163–182; Ed Couzens, ‘International Law Relating to Climate Change and Marine Issues’, Review 2010, 185–216; Niklas Hagelberg, ‘Forests’ Contribution to Sustainable Development and the Role of REDD+ as a Catalyst for a Green Economy Transformation’, Review 2010, 217–230; Aline Kühl and Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, ‘Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity with a Focus on Migratory Species’, Review 2010, 231–244; Leila Suvantola, ‘Ecosystem Services and Climate Change’, Review 2010, 245–254.
57 Marko Berglund and Wanhua Yang, ‘Compliance with Biodiversity-Related Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Potential for Synergies’, Review 2011, 35–58; Erie Tamale, ‘Global Biodiversity Trends and Synergistic Strategic Policy Responses’, Review 2011, 71–92; Peter Herkenrath, ‘How Biodiversity Synergies Support and Facilitate National Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements to Halt Biodiversity Loss’, Review 2011, 95–108; Melissa Lewis, ‘Synergies within the International Regime on Access and Benefit-sharing: Cooperation between the Nagoya Protocol and the ITPGRFA’, Review 2011, 109–122; Marina von Weissenberg, ‘Opportunities and Challenges for Establishing Synergies and Areas for Enhanced Cooperation in the Biodiversity Cluster’, Review 2011, 123–134; Marceil Yeater,
‘CITES Secretariat: Synergies Based on Species-level Conservation with Trade Implications’, Review 2011, 135–153.
Reflections on International Environmental Law-making and Diplomacy on the basis of the University of Eastern Finland – UNEP Courses on Multilateral Environmental Agreements
governance (2012);58 natural resources (2013);59 environmental security (2014)60; and climate change (2015).
During the first Course, the special theme was only one of the course modules. Since 2005, however, the special theme has been integrated in a comprehensive manner into the Course programme. Rather than dealing separately with general topics and the special theme, the idea has been to teach general topics through specific themes.
For instance, interactive sessions have been arranged taking examples from the spe-cial theme of each year.
5 Conclusions
By focusing in a specialized area of international environmental law-making and by applying an original style which combines practice and theory, UNEP and the Uni-versity of Eastern Finland have sought to develop a unique course. Over the years, a large number of topics have been covered during the Courses.
The University of Eastern Finland and UNEP have also carefully evaluated each Course and developed the following Course further on the basis of the feedback form completed by participants. The overall evaluation grade over the years has been good or very good, which is a clear indication of the value of the Course. In particular, participants have appreciated enhanced skills on MEA-related issues, relationships created across cultures and governments, and exposure to bodies of knowledge they would otherwise not have encountered. Participants have also mentioned the narrow scope of the Course content as a specific strength, providing insights to specific top-ics and ensuring the depth of coverage. Moreover, it appears that the Courses have given participants a chance to meet on neutral ground to discuss freely and even en-gaged them in viewing country positions and the world from a different perspective,
58 Michael Kidd, ‘Marine Biodiversity and Fisheries Governance: An overview’, Review 2012, 45–72;
Tuomas Kuokkanen, ‘Ocean-based Geoengineering and International Law’, Review 2012, 73–84; Niko Soininen, ‘Planning the Marine Area Spatially – A Reconciliation of Competing Interests?’, Review 2012, 85–117; Alana Malinde S.N. Lancaster, ‘An Overview of Marine Management and Ocean Governance in the Caribbean Community and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean Regions of the Caribbean’, Review 2012, 137–160; Spencer Thomas, ‘Development and Implementation of Ocean-Related Multilateral Environment Agreements in the Caribbean Region’, Review 2012, 161–167.
59 Tuomas Kuokkanen, ‘The Relationship between the Exploitation of Natural Resources and the Protection of the Environment’, Review 2013, 1–12; Sylvia Bankobeza, ‘International Agreements on Transboundary Natural Resources’, Review 2013, 13–29; Ville Niinistö and Niko Urho, ‘Future Prospects for Enhancing Sustainable Use of Natural Resources: The Role of International Environmental Governance and Finland’s Priorities after Rio+20’, Review 2013, 51–72; Seita Romppanen, ‘Promotion of Renewable Energy for Climate Change and the “Facilitative” Function of IRENA’, Review 2013, 137–156.
60 Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, ‘Understanding Environmental Security’, Review 2014; Annukka Lipponen,
‘The UNECE Water Convention and Its Support to the Management of Shared Waters: From Obligations to Practical Implementation’, Review 2014; Tuula Honkonen, ‘The Effectiveness of EU Water Directives in Promoting Transboundary Water Cooperation and Security: the Case of Finland’, Review 2014; Ed Couzens, ‘Water-related Conflict and Security in Southern Africa: the SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses’, Review 2014.
in particular through negotiation simulation exercises. Even several years afterwards participants have appreciated the Courses. They have, for instance, positively men-tioned networking opportunities, negotiation skills and contribution by the Course to their professional career.
Thus, the Course appears to be a well-balanced and structured entity which corre-sponds with the vision laid down by the organizers when they started to plan the Course way back in 2003. One important factor has been that over the years the Courses have been run with enthusiasm on the part of trainers and participants.
Moreover, over the years participants have given valuable input into further im-provement of the Course by making recommendations for the future. Again over the years, a notable feature has been the return as lecturers of former Course partic-ipants with special expertise.
This said, there are of course a number of constraints or challenges for the Course.
One weakness over the years has been that due to its limited management resources the Course has not been able to sufficiently respond to various networking oppor-tunities and to connect participants across different years. Moreover, each year the number of applications for the Course have exceeded the positions offered. While this is a sign of the continued relevance of the Course it also causes some frustration as more participants have not been able to be included.
In light of the above, it appears that it has taken many years and hard work by organ-izing institutions and by numerous individuals to create the Course and develop it further. In pondering the true value of such efforts, one can point out that the Cours-es have, in many ways, had a lot of intangible value for participants and trainers, for instance, in the creation of human capacity and imparting of knowledge. The propo-nents of similar courses might usefully, in planning the launches of these, consider the recorded experiences of the UEF-UNEP Course. In addition, the Course organizers have tried to reach a potentially unlimited pool of negotiators, practitioners, scholars and students through the publication of the International Environmental Law-making and Diplomacy Review and the Multilateral Environmental Agreement Negotiator’s Handbook. The various articles referred in the footnotes of this paper seek to illustrate the number of different topics discussed over the years.