Understanding UNEP: Myths and realities in global environmental governance

Traditionally viewed as local concerns, environmental problems have come to exemplify the interconnectedness of the contemporary world. As states recognize their inability to address critical environmental problems single-handedly, they have empowered international organizations to ensure effective collective action. In 1972 the architecture for global environmental governance took shape as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established as the core, or "anchor institution" for the global environment. While envisioned at the time of its creation as a flexible and lean mechanism to effectively address global environmental concerns, UNEP has not delivered as expected. Despite significant achievements, UNEP has fallen short in serving as the core in a web of international organizations with environmental responsibilities. In this study, I explain why this is the case, what the implications have been, and what could be done about it.; I contest the traditional wisdom about the functions and dysfunctions of UNEP, review the historical development of the organization, and assess its performance based on what I term the "means and capabilities" framework of organizational performance. Two traditional explanations of the dysfunctions in global environmental governance and UNEP in particular have been advanced: (1) UNEP was designed to be ineffective; and (2) UNEP was overwhelmed by the magnitude of the challenge. Through a historical analysis of the materials that document UNEP's creation I show that the first theory is simply a myth. UNEP was not constructed as a weak and ineffective agency but was expected to grow into its mandate as it proved its effectiveness. While the second theory holds significant merit, the same fundamental forces are likely to have weakened international organizations in more than just the environmental domain; yet environmental governance is relatively much weaker than in other areas such as global health. Through analysis of systemic and organizational factors, I show that the interaction between UNEP's "means" and "capabilities," i.e., between its design, leadership, and location, is critical to its performance. This explanation carries significant policy implications. It reveals several core limitations within the organization and implies that measures to address them are not only possible but necessary.