Lessons learned

The experiences from the process on enhancing synergies among the Basel Conven-tion on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal,³² Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent³³ and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants³⁴ are useful when devising further strat-egies on the reform of IEG and when deciding on how to proceed in the clustering of MEAs. The synergies process among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conven-tions is also one of the few IEG to have produced results and concrete outcomes.³⁵

sentatives on International Environmental Governance, Nairobi, Kenya, 7–9 July 2010’, 20 July 2010, available at <http://www.rona.unep.org/documents/partnerships/IEG/Co-Chairs_Summary.pdf> (visited 9 December 2012).

29 UNEP GC, Twenty-sixth session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, Nairobi, 21–24 February 2011, ‘International Environmental Governance’, available at <http://www.

environmentalgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/UNEPGC.26CWL.4Add.1.pdf> (visited 9 December 2012).

30 Three preparatory meetings were held. Prepcom II was held in March 2012. See Rio+20, ‘2nd Prepara-tory Committee Meeting UN Conference on Sustainable Development, 7 Mar 2011 – 8 Mar 2011, New York, USA’, available at <http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&type=13&nr=28&menu=24>

(visited 9 December 2012).

31 The Conference had two focal themes, these being a green economy in the context of sustainable develop-ment poverty eradication; and the institutional framework for sustainable developdevelop-ment. See Rio+20,

‘Themes of the Conference’, available at <http://www.uncsd2012.org/about.html> (visited 9 December 2012).

32 Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Basel, 22 March 1989, in force 5 May 1992, 28 International Legal Materials (1989) 657, <http://www.basel.

int>.

33 Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, Rotterdam, 11 September, 1998, in force 24 February, 38 International Legal Materials (1999) 1, <http://www.pic.int>.

34 Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Stockholm, 22 May 2001, in force 17 May 2004, 40 In-ternational Legal Materials (2001) 532, <http://www.pops.int>.

35 For an earlier consideration of this cluster, see Kerstin Stendahl, ‘Enhancing Cooperation and Coordina-tion among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm ConvenCoordina-tions’ in Tuula Kolari and Ed Couzens (eds), International Environmental Law-making and Diplomacy Review 2007 University of Joensuu – UNEP Course Series 7 (University of Joensuu, 2008) 127–141.

65 Kerstin Stendahl The process was launched in 2006 at the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm convention where a decision was taken to launch a process on synergies among the three conventions if the other conventions, Basel and Rot-terdam, were to agree to such a process.³⁶ The wording of the decision was key and much effort went into balancing it in such a way that it would not impinge on the autonomous decision-making of the conferences of the parties of the conventions.

The decision reads:

… [the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Conventions] suggests the establishment of an ad hoc joint working group as a possible way forward and invites the Conferences of the Parties to the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions to consider that option and, in the event of their endorsement, agrees to its es-tablishment. It is suggested that the working group consider the supplementary report referred to in paragraph 2 of the present decision and prepare joint recom-mendations on enhanced cooperation and coordination among the three conven-tions at the administrative and programmatic levels to be forwarded to the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties to each convention.³⁷

The Basel and Rotterdam COPs then passed decisions to the same effect and an ad hoc joint working group among the three Conventions was set up to propose options for enhancing synergies among the three Conventions.³⁸ The AHJWG met three times: in March and December 2007 and in March 2008. The AHJWG recommen-dations were adopted by the COPs and the extraordinary simultaneous meetings of the COPs of the Rotterdam, Basel and Stockholm Conventions in 2009 and 2010.³⁹ An innovation emanating from the AHJWG was the organizing of the ExCOPs, extraordinary simultaneous meetings of the COPs of the three Conventions. This meant simultaneous plenary sessions; an open-ended joint working group (OEJWG) of the three COPs prepared draft decisions on the substantive issues. Contact groups on joint activities were set up to deliver on issues such as joint management and the review mechanism.

The result was an omnibus decision adopted simultaneously by the COPs of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions in plenary, which addressed joint activities (national, on the ground), joint services in the secretariats, joint

manage-36 Report of the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants on the work of its second meeting, UN Doc. UNEP/POPS/COP.2/30 (2006), Annex I, Decision SC-2/15

‘Synergies’.

37 Ibid. para. 6.

38 Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Move-ments of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal on its eighth meeting, Annex I, Decision VIII/8 (2007);

Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade on the work of its third meeting, Decision RC-3/8 (2006).

39 On the work of the AHJWG, see, for example, Stendahl, ‘Enhancing Cooperation’, supra note 35.

66

Clustering of MEAs – Lessons Learned, Rio+20 and Beyond

ment of the secretariats, synchronization of budget cycles, joint audits and review of the synergies arrangements.

The way the omnibus decision was taken – through the convening of three COPs simultaneously – and the issues it addressed makes it unique in the history of inter-national environmental negotiations. There are many factors contributing to this success story. Firstly, the process was very much a country-driven process, driven by needs identified by countries and with countries in the driver’s seat. The ad hoc joint working group had a regionally balanced, convention-specific representation, with three government officials per region per convention: 3 x 5 x 3 = 45 members. Also the AHJWG Co-Chairs each represented a convention and region – Chile (Stock-holm), China (Basel), and Finland (Rotterdam). The Co-Chairs were engaged, com-mitted and took it upon themselves to allocate the time needed for the process to succeed. The Convention Secretariats facilitated and serviced the meetings and work of the group, but were not members of the group. Neither UNEP nor other UN entities were part of the group but served the discussions as experts (resource per-sons).

It was a trust- and confidence-building process. It showed that any such process should be undertaken over a period long enough to establish trust as synergies nego-tiations are heavily laden with ‘turf-battles’ at all levels, and must deal with inherent fears that there will always be ‘someone on the losing side’ when synergies are sought.

Looking at the process from the level of facilitating national implementation helps.

The informal (even ‘chatty’) nature of the AHJWG also helped to create a construc-tive atmosphere. In order to secure trust in the group, there were no negotiations before the AHJWG’s third and last meeting. In addition, at the last stretch, the COPs trusted the group’s recommendations so that the package was not opened during the three specific COPs’ deliberations. Simple logistical facts were also beneficial: all three Convention Secretariats were located in the same building in Geneva, except for the FAO part of the Rotterdam secretariat which is in Rome. Consequently, it was easi-er for a joint Executive Secretary to start working with (almost all) staff in the same place. An additional beneficial factor was that there were only two host institutions involved: UNEP and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).⁴⁰

Admittedly, the reforms made up to date have been mainly administrative in nature.

The most concrete outcomes of the process are a joint head, a joint secretariat based on a matrix structure servicing the three conventions, joint formats for budgets, and joint parts of the budgets henceforth. The next step in the synergies work will need to focus on national and regional joint life-cycle implementation; and there already are budding thoughts about the issue to be realized through joint parts of work-programmes and budgets.

40 See <http://www.fao.org/>.

67 Kerstin Stendahl A very important part of making this process a success has been the attention paid to selling the idea, through outreach and leg-work, talking with the Parties and as-sessing their needs. Regional workshops and briefings were held on a regular basis in Geneva, Nairobi, New York as well as hosted in other places.⁴¹