Reviewing Proposals for a World Environmental Organisation

• Author: John Whalley,Magnus Lodefalk
• Date: 01 May 2002
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9701.00452
• Published date: 01 May 2002

Reviewing Proposals for a World

Environmental Organisation

Magnus Lodefalk and John Whalley

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

IN the aftermath of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, various calls were made

for new global arrangements in the environmental area and during the last

year in the run-up to Rio+10 five calls have been made for the founding of a

World Environmental Organisation (WEO).

1

These are documented in Table 1,

which also summarises their main features. We indicate the precursor agency on

which a WEO is to be based, whether a WEO is a coordinating agency, the

decision rule for a WEO, whether a WEO settles disputes, whether it integrates

multilateral agreements, and whether it is seen as an equal partner to the WTO. In

total we have found 17 such proposals for a WEO, ranging from shallow calls for

consideration or reorganisation of existing bodies, to a new body to be used to

elaborate global policy proposals with draft covenants.

2

Three problems with the current global environmental regime lie behind these

proposals. First, global environmental policy- and rule-making is seen as slow to

evolve, short term, patchy, badly coordinated and inconsistent.

3

Drawing

parallels to the WTO, Ruggerio argues that a ‘multilateral rules based system’

is needed not only for trade but also for the environment.

4

Second, an imbalance

is seen as existing globally between trade and the environment, both

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 601

MAGNUS LODEFALK is from the Department of Economics, Stockholm University. JOHN

WHALLEY is from the Universities of Warwick and Western Ontario, and NBER. This paper is

part of the MacArthur project on ‘World Environmental Organisation’. The authors are grateful to

project participants for their input.

1

Also called Global/International/Multilateral Environmental Organisation (GEO, IEO, MEO) or

an Earth Organisation (EO). Biermann and Simonis (1998) favour a World Environment and

Development Organisation (WEDO) with some interesting features with respect to e.g. financing

and relation to existing actors, and we have therefore chosen to include it in this paper.

2

An earlier piece on a WEO, not reviewed here, is Levien (1972).

3

See e.g. Palmer (1992), Stevens (1993), Biermann and Simonis (1998), Voynet (2000) and

European Report (2000).

4

ENS (1999).

TABLE 1

Proposals for a Possible World Environmental Organisation

Proposal Model on which Decision Coordinating Settling Integrating Integrating Equal

an Organisation Rule Agency Disputes MEAs UNEP etc. Partner

is to be Based to WTO

Palmer ILO 2/3 majority X X

1992:

IEO

Runge CEC X X

1993:

WEO

Stevens GATT X X

1993:

MEO

Esty GATT Unanimity X X X

1994:

GEO

Esty et al. As in X X X X

1998: ozone

GEO fund

Charnovitz ILO/GATT/ Possibly X

1996: IMF 2/3

GEO majority

Kohl et al. X X

1997:

GEO

Speth WTO/ X X

1997: WHO

WEO

UNEP X

1996:

WEO

Biermann As in X Cooperate X X

& Simonis ozone with WTO

1998: fund panels

WEDO

The X

Economist

1998: WEO

Ruggerio WTO Consensus X X

1999:

WEO

Jospin & WHO/ X

Voynet ILO

2000: WEO

Peterson WTO Unanimity X X X X

2000:

IEO

Tyson WTO/ X

2000: ILO

GEO

WBGU UNCTAD/WHO North- – X

2001: WTO South X X X

EO Security Council parity

Whalley & Possibly Mediate Possibly

Zissimos regarding

2001: WEO deals

602 MAGNUS LODEFALK AND JOHN WHALLEY

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd 2002