Environmental politics Building regimes to facilitate cooperation

Process of regime building Issue definition Fact finding Bargaining Strengthening

Issue definition §Agenda created: l by one+ states Sweden & acid rain 1972 l by an IGO UNEP (UN Environmental Program) and Ozone Depleting Substances 1977) l by NGOs In UN Preparatory Commission for UN Conference on Environment & Development

Fact finding §Sometimes coordinated by IGO §May be challenged and bargained l 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 l 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 l “far-reaching restrictions” l “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: Montreal9th review l celebrating 10th anniversary l but 1996 Antarctic hole bigger than ever l focus on illegal trade in ODS l worries about underfunding l crediting UNEP ex-Pres Tolba §1999 Beijing

In favour of ozone regime §Solutions, described in simple terms l cut cfc production §Clear compliance mechanisms l monitor production and trade 1/5 CFC trade in black market in 1995 §Effective leadership l Tolba §External shocks or crises l Image of ozone layer + cancer rates

“warming” /climate change §A weaker image §Clearly exponential §But proof of human cause?

Climate regime? §No simple solutions l CO2 emissions linked to overall economic activity l 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” l COP 3 §Global climate, but sovereign interests §Divided opinions §Divided states (North-South)

Inter-State politics §Lead “state” emerging in EU §Two veto coalitions: l LDCs [especially India & China] l JUSCANZ Japan, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

Internal state politics §Bureaucratic divisions l US EPA US EPA l Canadian Dept of Env Canadian Dept of Env l Opposed by Departments of Industry, Trade, etc. §Federal divisions l Alberta and “voluntary” corporate code

Main Results of COP 3 Kyoto §industrialized countries to cut by 5.2% from 1990 levels between §National targets differentiated +8 for Australia, -8 for Europe §Trading in emissions credits allowed §Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) l 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 l [LULUCF] l The “carbon sinks” argument §See the IISD website on COP 6 and othersIISD website

Have to hope science is wrong §Or put faith in public opinion §Money/taxes must be found to compensate South

Links: this ppt politics.ppt politics.ppt §UNEP l conventions conventions §WMOWMO l World Meteorological Org §IPCCIPCC l intergovernmental panel on climate change §WWFWWF l World Wildlife Fund §GreenpeaceGreenpeace §Sierra ClubSierra Club

§INGOs