Comparing Global Coordination Mechanisms on Energy, Environment, and Water

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Increasingly, coordination mechanisms are being created at the United Nations (UN) level to enhance systemwide synergies; however, there is relatively little scientific research on these bodies. Against this background, we compare the mandates, structures, and outputs of three UN coordination mechanisms, the UN Environment Management Group, UN-Energy, and UN-Water, to understand what features enhance their ability to coordinate. We conclude that there are three key design elements that possibly enhance the ability of such mechanisms to coordinate. However, although coordination mechanisms are the easiest to set up, because they create the least political upheaval and are relatively cheap, these very characteristics hinder their ability to actually steer the bodies in their sector in such a way that synergy is optimized, duplications and contradictions are reduced, and a common strategy is adopted. Such coordination bodies can contribute to agenda setting, knowledge sharing, providing a discussion forum, and bringing together stakeholders and experts.

UN–Water and its Role in Global Water Governance

“…Consequently, coordination among the different actors is difficult, but all the more essential. Other articles of this special feature have focused on the different challenges of GWG and possible institutional responses, including UN interagency coordination mechanisms (see Schubert and Gupta 2013). In 2003, UN-Water was established as such a mechanism, to coordinate UN action for achieving the water-related targets set by the Millennium Declaration, and to implement decisions concerning water that were made at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.…”

Integrative environmental governance: enhancing governance in the era of synergies

“…The UN has set up different coordination mechanisms, e.g. on energy, environment and water issues [11], and especially the conventions working on chemicals, but also the biodiversity-related conventions are taking initiatives to enhance synergies [12][13][14]. These debates among policy practitioners, however, also take place in relative isolation from the scholarly discussions.…”

Thinking about the Future of Global Water Governance

“…Existing global institutions addressing water are very weak in terms of regulation, but they are relatively good at agenda setting, sharing information, mobilizing people, and, to a certain degree, in mobilizing resources (Schubert 2010, Schubert andGupta 2013). Even if such soft governance functions, which are characteristic for many parts of the UN system, may be insufficient to address the challenges introduced above, it would be inappropriate to neglect these functions.…”

“…UN-Water is perhaps more than the sum of its individual members and, in fact, is often said to represent a significant improvement over the UN Administrative Committee on Coordination Subcommittee on Water Resources, its predecessor. Under its current "light" set-up, however, it will be unlikely to transform the water policies of its individual members to have an overarching global water agenda (Baumgartner 2010, UN-Water 2010, Schubert and Gupta 2013. UN-Water operates in the background and influences the procedures of global water governance, rather than the substance (Baumgartner and PahlWostl 2013).…”