Environmental politics
Building regimes
to facilitate cooperation
Process of regime building
Strengthening
Bargaining
Fact finding
Issue definition
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 IGO
 May be challenged and bargained

UNEP set up coordinating committee to
evaluate scientific research on ozone
Bargaining
 Outcomes depend on strength of coalitions
 Usually a lead group & veto group
 If consensus not reached: regime may go
ahead without key players … but will be
weak

eg Acid Rain and US veto
Strengthening





Continuous process
Science may help
“Protocol” to set targets/timetable
Convention
Review: “Conference of parties” to push
for stronger action
Ozone Depletion
 1985 Vienna Convention
 1987 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 image
 Clearly
exponential
 But 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 interests
 Divided opinions
 Divided states (North-South)
Inter-State politics
 Lead “state” emerging in EU
 Two 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 reduce
No reporting, enforcement, penalties
Reductions agreed too low to have effect!
Rules/cap needed for emissions trading
Results of COP 6 (Hague)
 November 2000
 Pronounced a failure by President Pronk
(Dutch Env)
 Canada in the
spotlight
No agreement on




Technology transfer
“best practices” in domestic policies
Compliance & enforcement
Land 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 public
opinion
 Money/taxes must be
found to compensate
South
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
 Greenpeace
 Sierra Club
 INGOs