Nowadays, international environmental negotiation has become one of the most substantial and widespread forms of international communication in the realm of international environmental governance and an invaluable tool for handling and offering mutually beneficial solutions to large-scale transboundary environmental problems.[1] Negotiation in the environmental context is viewed as a process for mitigating the uncertainty and reducing the complexity which are inherent in any global or regional environmental problem. More importantly, it constitutes a tool-technique through which international environmental conventional regimes are prepared, constituted and managed.[2]
On the other hand, it should not go unnoticed that one of the overarching characteristics of modern international environmental negotiations is its own complexity.[3] This is exemplified by the fact that multilateral environmental negotiations are composed of a wide range of interdependent issues, involve a considerable number of parties (nation-states, intergovernmental bodies and non-governmental organizations, scientific community, industry and business groups), and generate multiple roles to be selected by parties that differ in nature (drivers, conductors, defenders, brakers, and cruisers).[4] Additionally, the way international environmental negotiations unfold is influenced by an array of multifaceted factors inextricably linked to the content, nature and dynamics of the negotiated issue, the structure and the procedures of the negotiating process, the diverse stakes associated with the issue under negotiation, and the actors’ perceptions, interests and values. In parallel, the evolving nature of an international environmental negotiating process along with the rapid changes in the negotiating context and actors’ positions and perceptions, are likely to increase the level of unpredictability and uncertainty on the part of the negotiators.
It goes without saying that the complex and complicated nature of contemporary international environmental negotiations create enormous problem of comprehension and adaptation for the negotiators of multilateral environmental agreements (MEA). This has, of course, a serious impact on the quality of the established international environmental conventional regimes. In fact, the management of the increased complexity embedded in environmental negotiations tends to be more than ever imperative. This, in turn, means that international environmental negotiators should be continuously equipped with the necessary and appropriate educational, training and problem-solving capacity tools for coping with the variety, complexity and uncertainty inherent in international environmental negotiations.
Improving and enhancing the knowledge base, expertise and competence of those who are actively engaged in international environmental negotiations, necessitates the strengthening of existing research programmes on negotiations, the development of new innovative educational trainings along with the production of comprehensive publications on key theoretical and practical aspects of international negotiations. In particular, “brainstorming” tools such as educational seminars, workshops, simulations and published materials should focus on training and educating environmental negotiators on issues of paramount importance for international negotiations, including the stages of negotiating international environmental conventional regimes, the function and the role played by the institutional mechanisms under the auspices of which environmental negotiation process is taking place, as well as techniques, negotiating styles and leadership skills for developing successful negotiation strategies and reaching effective compromises and mutually beneficial agreements.
Within this context, UNEP, already in 2007, usefully published, a practical guide for international negotiators entitled Guide for Negotiators of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. The cardinal aim of this Guide was to help MEA negotiators broaden their knowledge and expand their experience on a wide range of issues inextricably linked to the nature and dynamics of international environmental negotiations, and better understand the process of negotiations of MEAs in all its stages.
UNEP’s Guide composed of six main chapters. The first chapter provided an overview of the distinct characteristics and elements of the negotiating stages leading to the formation of international environmental agreements (MEA).[5] The described stages comprised pre-negotiation, negotiation, adoption and signature, ratification and accession, entry into force, implementation and the stage of adapting the MEAs provisions to changing circumstances (i.e changes in science, knowledge, new information generated from innovative technological developments). The second chapter drew attention to the key steps to be taken by national delegations in preparing themselves for negotiations, including the development of national positions, the composition of the negotiating team and the collection of key materials such as briefing notes and introductory statements.[6] In its third chapter, the Guide explored the role played by country negotiating coalitions in negotiations, and identified the varying forms that they may take (regional and issue-specific interest groups, power-based and institutionalised coalitions).[7]
Furthermore, the fourth chapter referred to the main working procedures for the negotiating process, highlighting the function undertaken by the plenary and the various subsidiary and working groups established for the purpose of addressing specific issues, the different forms of the expected negotiating outcomes (i.e. resolutions, recommendations, statement of the Chairperson, formal decision), and practical linguistic issues like the language and terminology used in negotiating sessions. The same chapter shedded light on the basic charismatic characteristics of an effective and successful environmental negotiator and usefully explained the two core negotiating strategies, namely the distributive and the integrative negotiating strategies.[8] Of particular importance is also the fifth chapter of the Guide which analysed the way by which a negotiating text should be prepared and drafted, offering, in parallel, useful tips for the strategies to be followed by negotiators during the drafting session of a negotiation.[9] Finally, the Guide devoted its last chapter to the issue of preparing the mission reporting of a negotiating session, providing the reader with some advices on how delegations can draft understandable and comprehensive reports.[10]
Following the example of UNEP and in an effort to contribute meaningfully to the further education and training of international environmental negotiators, the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) recently circulated, (19 August 2011) a new publication on international environmental negotiations, entitled Help for MEA Negotiators Who Encounter Problems. In this Guide, FIELD seeks to assist negotiators engaged in the formation and operation of MEAs to deal with difficult situations likely to arise in their negotiations. The Guide offers a comprehensive overview of the main components of the international negotiating process, suggests practical approaches that may be helpful in some difficult situations and addresses some legal questions.
More specifically, the Guide is divided into two parts. The first part provides a coherent summary of the core elements of international negotiations, leading to the formation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA).[11] In particular, emphasis is placed on the description of the pre-negotiation phase where countries formulate their national negotiating positions, on the role played by the Chair and the Bureau in directing negotiations, on the importance of establishing negotiating groups (country groups), on the function and the role of the Plenary, the Conference of the Parties (COP) and different negotiating groups, including working groups, drafting and contact groups as well as informal negotiating groups. In addition, it refers to the key aspects covered by the rules of procedure, including the elections of officers, such as Chair and rapporteur, the role of the secretariat, the role of observer, and the conduct of business. It also provides a general overview of the main characteristics of the two prominent negotiation theories, the distributive negotiating model (competitive, win-lose situations) and the integrative negotiating model (collaborative, win-win situation) respectively.
The second part of the FIELD’s Guide draws attention to a number of problematic situations that a negotiator might encounter in international environmental negotiations. These include [12] : (i) incomplete understanding on the part of negotiators of the rules of procedures and/or the issues under negotiation; (ii) uneven domination among countries participating in the diverse negotiating group meetings (working, country, contact and drafting groups); (iii) lack of adequate support to some negotiators country positions; (iv) incomplete knowledge of the rules of procedures and ineffective management of the negotiating discussion by the Chairs of the plenary and working groups; (v) efforts by negotiating parties to hold back or even break down negotiations, and sudden and unexpected modification of parties positions to already agreed negotiating texts; (vi) hostile and unfriendly media coverage of national negotiating positions; (vii) proposed negotiating texts unacceptable to some negotiating parties.
The importance of this section of the Guide lies in the provision of a number of meaningful tips and advices along with substantial possible approaches and options to deal with the above-mentioned problematic situations.
In the final analysis, it seems reasonable to assume that the aforementioned guides provide environmental negotiators with a useful conceptual framework and practical advices for professional and personal development in environmental negotiations. There is, however, no doubt that publications for negotiators on the complex issue of international environmental negotiations do not suffice by themselves to create well-prepared, effective and successful environmental negotiators. International institutions, national governments and research institutes should continue to invest on establishing educational and training schemes and producing materials which enhance and refine the competence and knowledge of those who are actively involved in negotiations in the environmental context. The Guides produced by UNEP and FIELD move in this direction, offering additional invaluable tools in the hands of MEA negotiators who are constantly faced with multifaceted challenging issues and problematic situations.
Endnotes
- For a seminal reference to the meaning, purpose, theories and main components of international environmental negotiations, see Susskind, L. E. (1994) Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective Global Agreement’s, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press; Kremenyuk, V.A (2002) International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches and Issues, Jossey–Bass Publishers; Timoshenko, A. (2003) Environmental Negotiator Handbook, Kluwer Law International; Raftopoulos, E., McConnell, M.(eds) (2004) Contributions to International Environmental Negotiation in the Mediterranean Context, Sakkoulas–Bruylant; Nikolaev, A.C (2007) International Negotiations: Theory, Practice and Connection with Domestic Politics, Lexington Books.
- See, Raftopoulos, E., McConnell, M.(eds) (2004), op. cit., p. 3.
- It should be argued that complexity is a characteristic inherent in any kind of international multilateral negotiation.
- See, Zartman, I.W (1994) International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the management of complexity, Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 4-7.
- UNEP: “Guide for Negotiators of Multilateral Environmental Agreements”, UNEP 2007, pp. 10-19.
- Ibid., pp. 20-22.
- Ibid., pp. 23-33.
- Ibid., pp. 34-44.
- Ibid., pp. 45-49.
- Ibid., pp. 50.
- FIELD: “Help for MEA Negotiators Who Encounter Problems”, 2011, pp. 1-6.
- Ibid., pp. 7-23.
About the author
Alexandros Kailis
Ph.D Candidate, Research and Organization Group, MEPIELAN Centre, Panteion University of Athens, Greece, f. Policy Officer in the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
-
Alexandros Kailis#molongui-disabled-link
-
Alexandros Kailis#molongui-disabled-link
-
Alexandros Kailis#molongui-disabled-link