mass extinction to be compared with the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years
ago, and for the increasing pollution of our environment with chemical substances,
which endanger human health and the health of our habitat.
1
A first indication of the paradox and its solution emerged in the comprehensive
evaluations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF was established as
(interim) financial instrument of the main environmental conventions resulting
from the 1992 Earth Summit, on climate change (UNFCCC), biodiversity (CBD)
and some of the various conventions on chemicals (most notably Stockholm). For
more than two decades it had been the core organization for support to developing
countries and countries with economies in transition, raising a considerable amount
of funding itself, and as a co-funding agency, an even larger amount from other
sources. The GEF is replenished every 4 years by its donors. One of the important
documents of this replenishment is an independent comprehensive evaluation of the
performance of the institution up to that time. In the fourth Overall Performance
Study (OPS4) of the GEF some elements of the micro-macro paradox were first
explored (GEF/EO 2010). Interventions financed by the GEF had started in 1992
and the 2010 Overall Performance Study was the first to be able to report on the
longer term impact of these interventions. OPS4 concluded that the processes set in
motion by GEF co-funded projects were progressing toward longer term impact,
provided follow-up actions were taken by countries and stakeholders. Nevertheless,
global environmental trends continued to “spiral downward” (conclusion 1, p. 15).
A first indication of why this was the case was provided in a calculation of the
purchasing power of GEF funds over time: the fourth replenishment of the GEF,
while nominally higher than the first replenishment, represented 83 % of the value
of the first replenishment, while at the same time funding needs had increased
dramatically (p. 16–18).
The Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF (GEF/IEO 2014) provides
more details to the same arguments. It concludes again that environmental trends
“continue to decline” (p. 10), whereas the “intervention logic of the GEF is catalytic
and successful in achieving impact over time” (p. 13). Like OPS4, the evaluation
focuses on funding levels to explain the paradox between evidence of impact and
declining global trends. This time the context is broadened and includes public
funding that leads to environmental decline. At the time of OPS5, annual commitments of the GEF had reached the level of US$ 1 billion. Overall public funding for
environmental support to developing countries had reached the level of US$
10 billion annually. However, funding needs for action on global environmental
issues “are conservatively assessed as at least US$ 100 billion annually” (p. 17).
Thus a funding gap emerges that in itself provides an explanation of the paradox.
1 Rijk, van Duursen and van den Berg (2016). Health cost that may be associated with Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals: an inventory, evaluation and way forward to assess the potential socioeconomic impact of EDC-associated health effects in the EU. University of Utrecht. They
calculate the cost in 2028 in the EU from €46 to 288 billion per year, if no action is taken. This
is just one example of a particular type of chemical substance; new chemical substances are
introduced in food and packaging every year.
16
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen
ago, and for the increasing pollution of our environment with chemical substances,
which endanger human health and the health of our habitat.
1
A first indication of the paradox and its solution emerged in the comprehensive
evaluations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF was established as
(interim) financial instrument of the main environmental conventions resulting
from the 1992 Earth Summit, on climate change (UNFCCC), biodiversity (CBD)
and some of the various conventions on chemicals (most notably Stockholm). For
more than two decades it had been the core organization for support to developing
countries and countries with economies in transition, raising a considerable amount
of funding itself, and as a co-funding agency, an even larger amount from other
sources. The GEF is replenished every 4 years by its donors. One of the important
documents of this replenishment is an independent comprehensive evaluation of the
performance of the institution up to that time. In the fourth Overall Performance
Study (OPS4) of the GEF some elements of the micro-macro paradox were first
explored (GEF/EO 2010). Interventions financed by the GEF had started in 1992
and the 2010 Overall Performance Study was the first to be able to report on the
longer term impact of these interventions. OPS4 concluded that the processes set in
motion by GEF co-funded projects were progressing toward longer term impact,
provided follow-up actions were taken by countries and stakeholders. Nevertheless,
global environmental trends continued to “spiral downward” (conclusion 1, p. 15).
A first indication of why this was the case was provided in a calculation of the
purchasing power of GEF funds over time: the fourth replenishment of the GEF,
while nominally higher than the first replenishment, represented 83 % of the value
of the first replenishment, while at the same time funding needs had increased
dramatically (p. 16–18).
The Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF (GEF/IEO 2014) provides
more details to the same arguments. It concludes again that environmental trends
“continue to decline” (p. 10), whereas the “intervention logic of the GEF is catalytic
and successful in achieving impact over time” (p. 13). Like OPS4, the evaluation
focuses on funding levels to explain the paradox between evidence of impact and
declining global trends. This time the context is broadened and includes public
funding that leads to environmental decline. At the time of OPS5, annual commitments of the GEF had reached the level of US$ 1 billion. Overall public funding for
environmental support to developing countries had reached the level of US$
10 billion annually. However, funding needs for action on global environmental
issues “are conservatively assessed as at least US$ 100 billion annually” (p. 17).
Thus a funding gap emerges that in itself provides an explanation of the paradox.
1 Rijk, van Duursen and van den Berg (2016). Health cost that may be associated with Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals: an inventory, evaluation and way forward to assess the potential socioeconomic impact of EDC-associated health effects in the EU. University of Utrecht. They
calculate the cost in 2028 in the EU from €46 to 288 billion per year, if no action is taken. This
is just one example of a particular type of chemical substance; new chemical substances are
introduced in food and packaging every year.
16
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen