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