Key actors in UN environmental governance: influence, reform and leadership

  • Steinar Andresen
Original Paper


In the introductory article it was concluded that the effectiveness of the UN environmental institutions studied was quite low. Key actors, especially the US and the EU, play a considerable role in explaining the course of development in these institutions. However, this does not mean that these processes are mainly state-driven as a number of other factors matter. The potential for reform and increased effectiveness is limited as the main actors, the US the EU and G-77/China have very different interests and perceptions as to the future directions of these institutions.


UN environment Institutions The US The EU China Norway 



Commission for sustainable development


Environmental management group


Global ministerial environment forum


Japan, US, Canada, New Zealand (Other states have later become affiliated)


Multilateral environmental agreements


Official development assistance


State environmental protection administration


United nations convention on environment and development


United nations framework commission on climate change


United nations environmental organization


United nations environment programme


World commission on sustainable development


World environment organization


World summit on sustainable development


  1. Andresen, S., & Rosendal, K. (forthcoming). The role of the United Nations environmental programme in the co-ordination of multilateral environmental agreements. In F. Biermann, B. Siebenhuener, & A. Schreyogg (Eds.), International organisations in global environmental governance (pp. 119–136). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Brenton, T. (1994). The greening of Machiavelli: The evolution of international environmental politics. London: RIIA/Eartscan.Google Scholar
  3. Chasek, P. (2007). US policy in the UN environmental arena: Powerful laggard or constructive leader? (This issue).Google Scholar
  4. Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) (2007). Summary of the 24th session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Forum. ENB 16(60), 12 February.Google Scholar
  5. Earth Negotiation Bulletin (ENB) (2007). Fifteenth session of the commission on sustainable development––summary and analysis, ENB 5(254), 2.Google Scholar
  6. Heggelund, G., & Bruzelius E. B. (2007). China and UN environmental policy: Institutional growth, learning and implementation. (This issue).Google Scholar
  7. Heggelund, G., Andesen, S., & Ying, S. (2005). Performance of the Global Environmental Facility in China: Achievements and challenges as seen by the Chinese. Special issue on international agreements, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5(3), 323–348.Google Scholar
  8. Hovi, J., Skodvin, T., & Andresen, S. (2003). The persistence of the Kyoto Protocol: Why other Annex 1 countries move on without the United States. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ivanova, M. (2007). Designing the United Nations Environment Program: A story of compromise and confrontation. (This issue).Google Scholar
  10. Ivanova, M. (2005). Can the anchor hold? Rethinking the United Nations environment programme for the 21st century. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Kaasa, S. (2007). The UN Commission on Sustainable Development: Which mechanisms explain its accomplishments? Global Environmental Politics, 5(3) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  12. Lightfoot, S., & Burchell, J. (2004). Green hope or greenwash? The actions of the European Union at the world summit on sustainable development. Global Environmental Change, 14(4), 227–244.Google Scholar
  13. Najam, A. (2005). Developing countries and global environmental governance: From contestation to participation to engagement. Special issue on international agreements, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5(3), 303–321.Google Scholar
  14. Najam, A., Papa, M., & Taiyab, N. (2006). Global environmental governance: A reform agenda. (IISD––International Institute for Sustainable Development).Google Scholar
  15. Rosendal, K. (2007). Norway in UN environmental policies: Ambitions and influence. (This issue).Google Scholar
  16. Skodvin T., & Andresen, S. (2006). Leadership revisited. Global Environmental Politics. Special Issue: The Negotiations and Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements, 6(3), 13–28.Google Scholar
  17. Vogler, J., & Hannes, S. (2007). The European Union in global environmental governance: Leadership in the making? (This issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fridtjof Nansen InstituteLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations