environmental politics building regimes to facilitate cooperation

Environmental politics

Building regimes to facilitate cooperation

Process of regime building

Issue definition

Fact finding

Bargaining

Strengthening

Issue definition

Agenda created: by one+ states

• Sweden & acid rain 1972 by an IGO

• UNEP (UN Environmental Program) and Ozone Depleting Substances 1977)

by NGOs• In UN Preparatory Commission for UN

Conference on Environment & Development

Fact finding

Sometimes coordinated by IGOMay be challenged and bargained

UNEP set up coordinating committee to evaluate scientific research on ozone

Bargaining

Outcomes depend on strength of coalitionsUsually a lead group & veto groupIf consensus not reached: regime may go

ahead without key players … but will be weak eg Acid Rain and US veto

Strengthening

Continuous processScience may help“Protocol” to set targets/timetableConventionReview: “Conference of parties” to push

for stronger action

Ozone Depletion

1985 Vienna Convention1987 Montreal Protocol

“far-reaching restrictions” “precautionary principle”

Industrial countries agreed to cut CFCs in half by 1998

Agreed to freeze making and use of HCFCs by 1992

Still strengthening

1997 9th review of protocol: Montreal celebrating 10th anniversary but 1996 Antarctic hole bigger than ever focus on illegal trade in ODS worries about underfunding crediting UNEP ex-Pres Tolba

1999 Beijing

In favour of ozone regime

Solutions, described in simple terms cut cfc production

Clear compliance mechanisms monitor production and trade

• 1/5 CFC trade in black market in 1995

Effective leadership Tolba

External shocks or crises Image of ozone layer + cancer rates

“warming” /climate change

A weaker imageClearly

exponentialBut proof of

human cause?

Climate regime?

No simple solutions CO2 emissions linked to overall economic

activity can measure fossil fuel production & use

But low targets and weak compliance

Kyoto Protocol 1997

“3rd Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change”

COP 3

Global climate, but sovereign interestsDivided opinionsDivided states (North-South)

Inter-State politics

Lead “state” emerging in EUTwo veto coalitions:

LDCs• [especially India & China]

JUSCANZ• Japan, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

Internal state politics

Bureaucratic divisions US EPA Canadian Dept of Env Opposed by Departments of Industry,

Trade, etc.

Federal divisions Alberta and “voluntary” corporate code

Main Results of COP 3 Kyoto

industrialized countries to cut by 5.2% from 1990 levels between 2008-2012

National targets differentiated +8 for Australia, -8 for Europe

Trading in emissions credits allowed Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Allows companies to get credits for clean energy projects in LDCS

Lack of results

No LDCs commitments to reduceNo reporting, enforcement, penalties Reductions agreed too low to have effect!Rules/cap needed for emissions trading

Results of COP 6 (Hague)

November 2000Pronounced a failure by President Pronk

(Dutch Env)Canada in the

spotlight

No agreement on

Technology transfer“best practices” in domestic policiesCompliance & enforcementLand use, land use change and forestry

[LULUCF] The “carbon sinks” argument

See the IISD website on COP 6 and others

Have to hope science is wrong

Or put faith in publicopinion

Money/taxes must befound to compensateSouth

Links: this ppt http://plato.acadiau.ca/COURSES/POLS/Grieve/climate politics.ppt

UNEP conventions

WMO World Meteorological

Org

IPCC intergovernmental

panel on climate change

WWF World Wildlife Fund

GreenpeaceSierra Club

INGOs