In the face of escalating environmental crises, the call for a revitalized Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF) has never been more urgent. This spring, a pivotal meeting in Oslo, Norway, highlighted the necessity for reform within the United Nations as it marks its 80th anniversary. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide and UN Under-Secretary-General for Policy Guy Ryder outlined the UN80 initiative, which aims to streamline operations and enhance the UN’s relevance in an increasingly complex world. However, amidst the financial constraints facing the UN, there are growing concerns that this initiative may lead to a reduction in essential environmental efforts rather than a strengthening of commitments.
The UN80 initiative represents a system-wide push, as articulated by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, to create a more effective UN equipped to tackle future challenges. Yet, as many observers note, the precarious financial situation of the UN’s various bodies raises alarms about the potential downsizing of vital environmental activities. This moment prompts a critical examination of the history and structure of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the potential benefits of re-establishing the GMEF to address urgent global environmental issues.
The GMEF was originally conceived to provide continuous political decision-making in response to the growing complexity of environmental challenges. Established in 2000 during a special session in Malmö, Sweden, the GMEF brought together 73 environment ministers, marking a significant moment for international environmental governance. The resulting Malmö Declaration underscored UNEP’s role as a leading global entity addressing environmental challenges, emphasizing the necessity for collaborative action among stakeholders.
Despite the increasing complexity of environmental issues, UNEP’s authority has been constrained by its status as a programme under the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Changes to UNEP’s structure require approval from the UNGA, which significantly limits its ability to adapt and respond to evolving challenges. The GMEF was initially created to address this gap, providing a platform for high-level political engagement outside the biennial meetings of the Governing Council.
Over the years, as environmental problems intensified, the need for ongoing dialogue and strategic collaboration became evident. The GMEF’s third meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, in 2002, further highlighted this necessity, drawing nearly 100 ministers and facilitating discussions that set the stage for the World Summit on Sustainable Development later that year. At this meeting, the importance of annual high-level environmental conferences was recognized, leading to the proposal for GMEF gatherings in odd-numbered years, thereby ensuring consistent engagement on pressing environmental issues.
However, the transition to the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) in 2014, which convenes every two years, resulted in a loss of the continuity that the GMEF had established. This gap in regular high-level engagement has coincided with a surge in environmental crises, making the case for a revival of the GMEF even more compelling.
Reinstating the GMEF would not only restore the continuity of political engagement but also enhance UNEP’s role as a facilitator of high-level discussions on critical environmental issues. By combining the GMEF with UNEA, we could create a robust framework for addressing the intertwined challenges of pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change, collectively referred to as the Triple Planetary Crisis.
The proposed agenda for the revived GMEF would focus on key thematic priorities aligned with the UN’s Medium-Term Strategy and Programme of Work. It could serve as a venue for the three established clusters of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to convene, fostering synergies and collaborative approaches to shared challenges. With the backing of scientific bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the GMEF would be well-positioned to inform discussions and enhance decision-making processes.
Moreover, the GMEF could address systemic issues within the international environmental governance framework, such as financial inefficiencies and inconsistencies in legal systems. By focusing on a common agenda, member states could align their priorities and actions, leading to more coherent and effective responses to environmental crises.
The potential revival of the GMEF presents an opportunity for UNEP to reclaim its position as the preeminent global environmental organization. Yet, this ambition is constrained by the ongoing challenges of funding and political authority. UNEP’s efficacy is hampered by its status as a programme under the UNGA, limiting its ability to coordinate and lead effectively in the face of urgent global issues.
The UN80 initiative could serve as a catalyst for overcoming these challenges, enabling UNEP to build on the work of previous leaders and expand its influence in global environmental governance. By focusing on cohesive approaches to the Triple Planetary Crisis, the GMEF could facilitate meaningful progress toward achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
As we look toward the future, the re-establishment of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum could be a critical step toward revitalizing global environmental leadership. With the world facing unprecedented environmental challenges, it is essential to foster high-level political engagement and collaboration to protect our planet for future generations. The vision of a stronger UNEP is within reach, and now is the time to seize the opportunity presented by UN80 to make that vision a reality.
