UN80: Toward Clustering Climate Conventions

Harnessing the power of wind, wind turbines offer a clean and sustainable source of energy.

Over the past decades, international governance of environmental challenges has evolved from isolated treaties addressing specific issues into a complex web of multilateral agreements aimed at fostering sustainable development and environmental integrity.

Early efforts, such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, laid foundational principles emphasising environmental protection within a broader development agenda. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit marked a significant milestone, culminating in key agreements including Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Forest Principles. The Summit also paved the way for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and initiated negotiations for the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

These agreements collectively reflect a holistic approach to interconnected challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate change, and land degradation, aligning scientific insights with emerging political priorities. However, sector-specific mandates have resulted in fragmented governance, characterised by overlapping responsibilities, divergent institutional arrangements, and separate financial mechanisms, which challenge holistic solutions.

The discussion around UN Reform on the occasion of UN80 opens opportunities for clustering major environmental agreements, as suggested by experts like Felix Dodds and Chris Spence. UNEP has identified climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution (including chemicals and waste) as critical areas demanding integrated attention.

The UNFCCC, established in 1992, has evolved through successive negotiations, including the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015), introducing mechanisms like the Conference of the Parties (COP) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to support mitigation and adaptation efforts. Experts suggest that placing UNFCCC under UNEP could facilitate clustering with the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol, fostering greater coordination between climate and ozone protection frameworks.

Lessons from the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions—successfully clustered under UNEP—demonstrate the benefits of integration, including operational efficiency, scientific coherence, and policy alignment. Clustering could also enhance collaboration among scientific platforms like IPCC, IPBES, and the proposed Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution (ISP-CWP), improving evidence-based policymaking.

Despite these opportunities, institutional barriers, fragmented funding streams, and siloed approaches continue to limit comprehensive action. Reinstituting mechanisms like the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF) could facilitate higher-level dialogue, streamline decision-making, and bridge sectoral divides for integrated environmental governance.

Addressing the triple planetary crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution—requires a strategic shift toward institutional integration, coordinated financing, and strengthened scientific-policy linkages. Clustering environmental conventions under a unified umbrella could help achieve more efficient and impactful global environmental action.