CHAPTER 1 – THE EMERGENCE OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLITICS

1. Introduction
o Until 1980s, global environmental probs were seen as minor issues
o Now= environmental issues are viewed as internationally important both in their own rights and
because they affect other significant aspects: economic development, international trade,
humanitarian and social policy, international security …
o Global concern emerged from the expanded scientific understanding of humanity’s increasing impact
on major components of the biosphere, such as the atmosphere, oceans, soil cover, animals….
o Unilateral actions by individual countries cannot solve the problem → internat cooperation

2. Global Macrotrends
§ Global demographic, economic and environmental macrotrends describe key factors that drive global
environmental politics
§ Humanity’s stress on the environment results from 3 factors: population, resource consumption and
waste production
· Measured through the ecological footprint= measures the sum of all cropland,
grazing land, forest and fishing grounds required to produce the food, fiber and
timber we need; and the earth’s ability to absorb the wastes emitted (humanity’s
consumption vrs. Earth’s regenerative capacity, or biocapacity)
+ humanity’s annual demand had exceeded what the Earth can renew in a year since
1970s = ecological overshoot
§ Population growth and resource consumption
· Popu growth= increases demand for resources, production waste and emission of
pollution
· Projections of future population growth depend on fertility trends, which can be
affected by economic development, education, widespread disease and certain
population-related policies.
World popu is currently growing at a rate of 1.2 percent annually→ most of the
growth=developing countries, where environmental degradation and its impact on
human health is already the greatest
· Per capita consumption of natural resources has been rising much faster than
popu growth—growth in living standards
· The 12% of the world’s popu that lives in North America and Europe accounts
for 60% of private consumption spending. The richest comprise only 18% of the
world’s popu, but they use nearly half its energy

§ Natural Resources and Pollution

· Popu-growth and consumption patterns contribute to environmental degradation
by increasing stress on both natural resources (ex: fresh air, arable land and fish
stocks) and vital natural system (ex: ozone layer, climate system)
· The largest aggregate impact that humans have on the biosphere is their carbon
footprint, which has grown more than tenfold since 1960s. US & China = largest
total national carbon footprint
§ Carbon footprint: measure of the impact that activities have on climate
change. Many daily activities cause emissions of greenhouse gases,
including burning gasoline when driving, burning oil or gas for house
heating or using electricity generated from coal or natural gas.
§ More than two-thirds of the projected increase in emissions will come
from developing countries. They will remain big users of coal, the
most carbon-intensive of fuels
§ Power stations, car & trucks will be responsible for most of the increase
in energy-related emissions
· The world’s freshwater resources are under serious stress. Increased water
consumption and rising population mean that about 80% of the world’s popu now
lives in countries with high levels of threats to water security. Agricultural water
use accounts for about 75% of total global consumption, mainly through crop
irrigation
· The convergence of popu growth, rising demand for lumber and fuelwood, and
the conversion of forests to agriculture have also put increasing pressure on the
world’s forests, especially in developing countries
§ Deforestation = loss of biodiversity
o Many of the world’s major fisheries are overfished → high seas belong to no
nation
· Marine environments are also under siege from land-based sources of marine
pollution. Some of the major land-based pollutants are synthetic organic
compounds (where plastics are probably the biggest threat), excess sedimentation
from mining, deforestation, excessive nutrients from fertilizers and sewage…
· Land degradation, water shortages, increasing demands for food are combining
to create negative feedbacks. As land becomes increasingly scarce→ farmers
forced into intensive agriculture→ higher levels of irrigation and chemicals →
soil erosion and salinization, deteriorating water quality and desertification
· Soaring food prices in recent years have increased the number of people
vulnerable to starvation, severe hunger and malnutrition. Reasons for escalating
prices rising demand, changes in weather patterns, the use of food crops for
biofuels and certain agriculture policies, including subsidies in develop countries.
Changing diets, economic growth and expanding world population, and
urbanization are combining to increase demand for food and raise prices.
 Growing middle class= more demand for meat and fish (especially in India and
China)= very pollutant+ removes grains for human consumption+ food production
costs have risen (for ex: intellectual property rights, increased costs of fuels)
· Large increase in biofuel production
§ Biofuels: liquid renewable fuels such as ethanol (an alcohol fermented
from plants materials) and biodiesel (a fuel made from vegetable oils or
animal fats) that can substitute for petroleum-based fuels. They are
environmentally benign: need of large amounts of pesticides, fertilizers,
water and energy, and have a large carbon footprint
· Environmental quality in urban areas continues to be a major problem. Urban
areas will likely absorb all the population growth expected over the next four
decades while at the same time drawing in some of the rural population.
Increasing urbanization implies heavier water and air pollution and higher rates
of natural resources consumption. The current pace and scale of urbanization
often strain the capacity of local and national governments to provide even basic
services to urban residents.

v All these trends are some of the most important forces that shape global environmental politics. They
have resulted from the intense economic development, rapid population growth, inefficient
production, and sustainable resource consumption prevalent in many parts of the world. They
are not necessarily harmful, but the manner in which much of this economic development
occurred, one characterized by high levels of resource consumption and pollution

3. An introduction to global environmental politics

§ The sources, consequences and actors involved in an environmental issue can be local, national,
regional or global.
§ The main actors in international environmental poitics are states, international organizations,
environmental nongovernmental organizations, corporations and industry groups, scientific
bodies and important individuals.
§ From the economist’s point of view, environmental problems (EPr) represent negative externalities
§ Unintended consequences or side effects of one’s actions
o Negative externalities that lead to environmental degradation are similar to “the tragedy of the
commons”.
§ A term used to describe a situation in a shared-resource system where
individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest
behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling
that resource through their collective action.
§ G. Hardin→ “commons” is taken to mean any shared and unregulated
resource. Overgrazing unrestricted common lands, prior to their
enclosure, was a metaphor for the overexploitation of the earth’s common
 property: land, air and water resources. Cause of overgrazing→ no
methods of restriction.
One solution: assign property rights→ motivate owners to perverse their land
However: environmental resources cannot be fenced and parceled→ people
will logically pursue their interest in utilizing the Earth’s common resources
until they are destroyed, resulting in the tragedy of the commons
o Oran Young groups international environmental problems into four broad clusters: commons, shared
natural resources, transboundary externalities and linked issues
§ Commons: natural resources that belong to all human kind, rather than to any
ocuntry→ Antarctica, high seas, ozone layer
§ Shared natural resources: physical or biological systems that extend into or across
the jurisdiction of 2 or more states. Include nonrenewable sources, such as pools
of oil: renewable resources, such as migratory species of animals; complex
ecosystems, such as regional seas
§ Transboundary externalities: activities that occur wholly within the jurisdiction of
individual states but produce results affecting the environment or people in other
states. Ex: Chernobyl, transnational air pollution
§ Linked issues: cases where efforts to deal with environmental concerns have
unintended consequences affecting other regimes, and vice versa. The most
controversial issue of this type is the link between efforts to protect the
environment and those to promote economic development
o Costs and risks are unevenly distributed → some states are less motivated to participate in
international efforts. However, states must strive for consensus to address environmental issues
o Important characteristic of global environmental politics: veto power
§ Usually one or more states whose cooperation is so essential to a successful
agreement that it has the potential to block strong international action.
§ States can form veto coalitions, which have a central role to the dynamics of
bargaining and negotiation in global environmental politics.
§ Developing (weaker) states can form veto coalitions and prevent agreements or
bargain for special treatment on some environmental issue. However, in general
the major economic powers wield greater leverage because of their larger role in
global production and consumption, and their ability to provide or deny funding
for a particular regime
o A second characteristic is that political dynamics often reflect the role of state actors in the
production, use or international trade of a particular product
§ Ex: trade relations between tropical timber exporters and consuming nations are
critical to the dynamics of tropical deforestation
o A third characteristic is that economic power can affect the positions of states and even the outcome
of bargaining on international agreements in some circumstances
§ Bribe with denying access to markets or economic assistance to countries that are
not going along with the powerful country’s interests
o Fourth characteristic: while states are the most important actors, in some cases public opinion and
NGOs also play an important role
§ Public opinion channeled through electoral politics aand NGOs into national
negotiating positions, has influenced aspects of the global bargaining

4. International Regimes in Global Environmental Politics

o Understanding global environmental politics requires understanding international regimes

§ Regime: a system of principles, norms, rules, operating procedures and institutions
that actors create to regulate, guide and coordinate action in a particular issue
area of international relations
§ Regimes are essentially international policy, regulatory and administrative systems
§ States are the primary and most important creators of international regimes, but
they are not the only actors involved in their creation or implementation
o Regimes receive a good deal of theoretical and empirical attention from scholars
§ One important line of progenitor theories is marked by concern for the impact and
mitigation of structural anarchy, especially the difficulty of establishing
international cooperation
§ Another line flows from scholars called “constitutionalists”, who study treaties and
the formal structure of international organizations; and from researchers
employing the institutional process approach (examines how an organization’s
day to day practices, processes and methods of operation influence outcomes)
§ A third line of antecedents starts with the premise that despite structural anarchy,
extensive common interests exist among states and their people and that scholars
and statesmen must learn how these interests can be realized
§ Functionalism, which is the fourth important line of predecessors, argues that the
scholarly and the political focus of international cooperation must center not on
formal interstate politics but rather in providing opportunities for technical
(nonpolitical) cooperation among specialists and specialized organizations to
solve common problems. Technical cooperation can begin a process of
increasing interdependence and spillover
v Inadequate explanation: politics always play an important role, states do not
want to relinquish control
v Neofunctional integration theory critiqued and extended functionalism, arguing
that gradual, regional integration is most important for understanding and
creating effective international governance. The approach added politics
o If international relations are increasingly interdependent, influenced by new types of actors and
interactions, and fractured into issue areas across which power and interest vary, the how actors
choose to manage these issue areas- the regimes they create to manage them – becomes
important to the conduct and study of international politics
§ “Complex interdependence” (Keohane and Nye): characterized by three
characteristics, involving (1) the use of multiple channels of action between
 societies in interstate, transgovernmental, and transnational relations, (2) the
absence of a hierarchy of issues with changing agendas and linkages between
issues prioritized and the objective of (3) bringing about a decline in the use of
military force and coercive power in international relations.

o International regime = a set of mutual expectations, rules and regulations, plans, organizational
energies and financial commitments, which have been accepted by a group of states
o States and other actors create regimes through negotiations. Most regimes center on a binding
agreement or legal instrument. For global envi. problems the most common kind of legal
instrument is a convention. A convention may contain all the binding obligations expected to be
negotiated, or it may be followed by a more detailed legal instrument, often called a protocol,
which elaborates more specific norms and rules.
§ Actors that engage in these activities include not only states and international
organizations, but also private entities such as multinational corporations, banks,
timber companies…
o Framework convention: convention negotiated in anticipation that parties will negotiate one or more
subsequent elaborating texts. It is usually followed by the negotiation of one or more protocols.
o Nonbinding agreement can form a centerpiece of a regime to the extent that it establishes norms that
influence state behavior. Referred as soft law.
§ They are not very effective

o Global Environmental Regimes

§ Environmental regimes change over time, often expanding and becoming stronger
but sometimes weakening or changing in scope→ regime evolution. Many
regimes are strengthened as efforts shift from creating an initial framework
convention to negotiating and implementing specific protocols.
§ Regimes:
1. The whaling regime. It evolutionated: it was originally intended as a regime
for the regulation of commercial whaling but evolved into a ban on whaling
2. CITES regime,Wildlife conservation. Until 1970s, virtually all wildlife
conservation treaties lacked binding legal commitments and perhaps
consequentially, were ineffective in protecting species. The first global
convention with string legal commitments and enforcement mechanism:
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES), 1973. It set up a system of trade sanctions and a worldwide
reporting network to curb the traffic in endangered species
3. The regime that seeks to reduce hazardous waste
4. The ozone regime
5. Climate regime

o Theoretical Approaches to International Regimes

 § Several major theoretical approaches have been used to explain how international
regimes come into existence and why they change. These include structural,
game-theoretic, institutional bargaining and epistemic-community approaches,
each may help explain one or more international regimes, but none individually
can account for all the regimes.
1. The structural, or hegemonic-power, approach holds that the primary factor determining regime
formation and change is the relative strength of the state actors involved in a particular issue,
and that stronger states in the issue system will dominate the weaker ones and determine the
rules of the game. It sees strong international regimes as a function of a hegemonic state that can
exercise leadership over weaker states.
v Useful to explain the creation of post-WW II economic system, it cannot
explain why global environmental regimes have been negotiated
2. Game theory and utilitarian models of bargaining: in game theory, bargaining scenarios are
examined under different conditions with regard to the number of parties involved, the nature of
the conflict (zero-sum or non-zero-sum) and the assumptions that the actors are rational and
interconnected in some way (they cannot pursue their own interests independently of the
choices of other actors). Small groups of states, or coalitions, are more likely to succeed in
negotiating an international regime than a large number because each player can more readily
understand the bargaining strategies of the other players.
3. Epistemic-communities model: emphasizes the impact of international learning and
transnational networks of experts and bureaucrats, primarily on the basis of scientific research
into a given problem, as a factor influencing the evolution of regimes. This approach identifies
intra-elites shifts within and outside governments as the critical factor in the convergence of
states policies in support of a stronger regime. Transnational epistemic communities=
communities of experts sharing common values and approaches to policy problems.

§ The importance of scientific evidence and expertise in the politics of many global
environmental issues cannot be ignored. A significant degree of scientific
understanding and consensus has sometimes been a minimum condition for
serious international action on an issue.
§ A theoretical explanation for the formation of global environmental regimes must
leave room for the importance of the rules of the negotiating forum and the
linkages between the negotiations on regimes and the wider relationships among
the negotiating parties

5.Paradigms in Global Environmental Politics

o In times of relative stability, public policies and systems of behavior tend to flow
in accordance with dominant paradigms, or sets of beliefs, ideas and values.
o The paradigm that has dominated public understanding of environmental
management during the period of rapid global economic growth in the last two
centuries has been essentially a system of beliefs about economics. Called
exclusionist paradigm, because it excludes human beings from the laws of
 nature. Also called the frontier economics, suggesting the sense of unlimited
resources characteristic of a society living on an open frontier.
o This paradigm has rested primarily on 2 assumptions of neoclassical economics:
1. The free market will tend to maximize social welfare
2. There exists an infinite supply of both natural resources and “sinks” for
disposing of the wastes that accrue from exploiting those resources. Humans
will not deplete a resource, as long as technology is given free rein and prices
are allowed to fluctuate enough to stimulate the search for substitutes
o Rise of an alternative paradigm
§ In early 1960s, the book Silent Spring started the beginning of an explosion of popular
literature about new threats to the environment: synthetic pesticides, radiation, toxic
wastes…
§ First mass movement for environmental protection→ US in late 1960s
§ Research and writings to raise awareness that economic activity without concern for
environmental consequences carried high costs to society
§ Passage of a series of landmark pieces of legislation, such as the 1970 Clean Air Act
(US)
§ The first global environmental conference= the UN Conference on the Human
Environment in Stockholm in 1972
v Marked the beginning of the explosive increase in nongovernmental and
intergovernmental organizations dedicated to environmental preservation
§ Over time, alternative paradigm challenging the assumption of classical economic began
to take shape. The forerunners were the studies carried out by Club of Rome, the US
Council on Environmental Quality and the department of State
v The studies concluded that if current trends continued, many ecosystems
and natural resources would become seriously and irreversibly degraded
and that these environmental developments would then have serious and
negative economic consequences
v This view point was called the limits-to-growth perspective
v A global community of practitioners and scholars began to emerge, allied
in the belief that ecologically sound policies should replace policies based
on the exclusionist paradigm
v Sustainable development emerged as a catchphrase of the search for an
alternative paradigm
§ The UN established the Brundtland Commission, which helped to define, legitimize and
popularize the concept of sustainable development
v Defined sustainable development as “development that meets the need of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”
§ The sustainable development paradigm:
v emphasizes the need to redefine the term development: reducing the amount of
resources used per unit of gross national product (GDP), shifting from fossil
 fuels to renewable energy, and reusing and recycling rather than consuming
discarding resources
v intergenerational equity: future generations have an equal right to use the Earth’s
resources
v need for greater equity between and within nations
v need to adjust markets to make prices reflect the real costs to society of producing
and consuming a given resource or emitting pollution→ polluters pay principle +
markets do not address externalities effectively
(environmental degradation can negatively affect a state’s economy)
o Paradigm Shift?
§ Some argue that the sustainable development paradigm has not failed but that its
ascendancy has stalled because of the rise of a variation of the exclusionist paradigm:
globalization.
v Globalization became identified with a number of trends, including a greater
international movement of commodities, money, information and people, as well
as the development of technology, organizations, legal systems and
infrastructures to allow this movement
v Globalization policies advocate for liberalization of markets, minimizing
regulations on the markets
v Globalization paradigm
§ The UN General Assembly called for the conference UNCSD (UN Conference on
Sustainable Development or Rio+20) in 2012 to focus on two themes:
1. A green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication
2. The institutional framework for sustainable development
v Green economy paradigm
v Green economy can be thought of as one that is low carbon, resource efficient
and socially inclusive. Where there is enhance energy and resource
efficiency, and prevention of the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services
v During the Rio+20 process, the green eco paradigm met with resistance by
developing countries. Embracing the model posed risks for developing
countries because:
1. The green economy is defined in a one-dimensional manner and
promoted in a purely “environmental” manner, without considering fully
the development and equity dimensions
2. A “one size fits all” approach is taken, treating all countries in the same
manner

o Environmental Change as a Security Issue

§ The paradigm of environmental degradation and resource depletion states that
environmental degradation can negatively affect national security. It will lead to
resource scarcity, which will cause violence between opposing groups within a state or
between states
 v Environmental degradation → contributes to resources disputes, refugee
movements, poverty, hunger and weak governments
Ex:
1. changing climate conditions contributed to the devastating ethnic conflict
in Darfur
2. in North America, the collapse of fisheries in Mexico contributed to the
decision by some fishermen to become involved in drug smuggling
3. overfishing and illegal fishing off the coast of Somalia contributed to the
increase in piracy
v Furthermore, wars and other security issues can affect the environment.
Military spending absorbs government finances and policy attention, that
might otherwise be dedicated to environmental protection. They consume
large quantities of natural resources.

o The Precautionary Principle: a new paradigm for environmental policy

§ The Precautionary Principle point of view is to avoid producing certain serious
environmental problems in the first place. It attempts to resolve the problem of the lack
of scientific certainty regarding the range, extent and cost of environmental impacts
from particular activities that can prevent effective policy in the face of strong
lobbying by economic interests. It also attempts to provide guidance in the
development of national and international environmental policy in the face of scientific
uncertainty
§ The most widely used definition: where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation
§ Arguments exist that it should not be accepted as a principle of international law. Some
argue that shifting the burden of proof means that decisions will not be based on
scientific uncertainty but rather on emotional and irrational factors
§ Nevertheless, clearly the principle has become a part of many international
environmental policies
§ Evidence supports the thesis that we could be in a time of paradigm transition: from
exclusionist premises to sustainable development and precaution

6. CONCLUSIONS
Legitimate differences in economic, political and environmental interests make achieving unanimity
among states responsible for, or directly affected by, an environmental problem a political and
diplomatic challenge. For a regime to form, veto states must be persuaded to abandon their opposition or
at least to accept a compromise
 CHAPTER 2 – ACTORS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ARENA

1. INTRODUCTION
o States adopt the broad economic, regulatory, trade and development policies that affect the
environment
o They decide which issues receive formal consideration by the international community directly
(through advocacy for international action) or indirectly (through membership in the
governing councils of international orgs)
o States negotiate the international legal instruments that create and implement global
environmental regimes
o International Organizations (IGOs) help to set the global environmental agenda, initiate and
mediate the process of regime formation

2. NATION-STATE ACTORS: ROLES AND INTERESTS

o Their most important actions in global environmental politics→ creation,
implementation and expansion of international environmental regimes
o In regime negotiations, a state may play one of the four roles: lead state,
supporting state, swing state, or veto state
§ A lead state has a strong commitment to effective international action
on the issue, moves the negotiation process forward by proposing its
own formula as the basis for an agreement, and attempts to win the
support of other state actors
§ Supporting: speaks in favor of the lead state’s proposal
§ Swing: as the price for its acceptance it demands a concession to its
interests
§ Veto: either opposes a proposed regime outright or tries to weaken it to
the point that it cannot be effective
o A lead state may:
1. Fund, produce and call attention to research that defines the problem and
demonstrates its urgency
2. Seek to influence public opinion in arget states
3. Use its diplomatic clout to encourage an international organization to identify
the issue as a priority
4. Rely on worldwide network of NGOs that support its position in other countries
and at international conferences
5. Make a diplomatic demarche to a state that is threatening a veto role
6. Pledge to commit financial or technical resources to the problem (such as the
positive incentives that industrialized countries accepted in the Montreal
Protocol and Stockholm Convention, and gained significant developing-country
participation)
o Domestic Political Factors
§ A state’s position on global environmental issues sometimes reflect the interests of
dominant socioeconomic elites
§ The existence of a strong environmental movement can be a decisive factor in a
state’s definition of its interests on an issue, especially if it is a potential swing
vote in parliamentary elections
→ the absence: makes it more likely that a state will play a swing or blocking role
on an international envi. issue
§ A final domestic political factor that can shape a country’s definition of its
interest in an environmental regime is the ideology or belief system of the policy
maker

o Comparative Costs and Benefits of Environmental Regimes

§ A second group of variables that shape the definition of national interest in a
global environmental issue includes the potential risks and costs of an
environmental threat as well as the costs and benefits associated with the
proposed regime
§ The costs of compliance with a given global environmental regime may differ
dramatically from one country to another, and such differences have sometimes
shaped the roles played by states in regime negotiations

o International Political and Diplomatic Considerations

§ A state may hope to gain international prestige by assuming a lead role, or it
may decide against a veto role to avoid international opprobrium or damage
to its relations with countries for which the environmental issue is of
significantly greater concern
§ Concern of national prestige – s state’s reputation or status – was once
confined to the issue area of international security
§ A state’s concern about how a veto role might affect its image sometimes
focuses on a particular country or group of countries→ex: for international
trade in hazardous wates, France and UK did not play a veto role to
maintain close ties with former colonies in Africa

o Subnational Actors
§ In recent years, cities, states and provinces have shown increased interests in
adopting their environmental and energy policies. These could have a major
impact on global environmental problems, especially climate change.

3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
o IGOs are formed by member states either for multiple purposes – for instance, the UN and
various regional associations such as OAS – or for more specific purposes, examples of
which include FAO and WHO
o IGOs may influence the outcomes on global environmental issues in several ways:
1. Help determine which issues the international community will address
2. May convene and influence negotiations on global environmental regimes
3. May provide independent and authoritative information on a global
environmental issue
4. It may develop norms and codes of conduct (soft law) to guide action in
particular issue areas
5. It may influence states’ environmental and development policies on issues not
under international negotiation but relevant to global environmental politics
6. It may affect the implementation of global environmental policies through the
provision of funds

o Setting Agendas and Influencing Regime Formation

§ In the past, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) dominated the
agenda setting of global environmental politics. UNEP: organization on
environmental issues. Its original mandate was to promote, catalyze and
coordinate the development of environmental policy
- UNEP identifies critical global environmental threats requiring
international cooperation, and initiated negotiations.
- Today: UNEP provides leadership and encourages partnership in
caring for the environment by inspiring, informing and enabling
nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without
compromising that of future generations
§ The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) also had opportunities
to play an agenda-setting role

o Providing Independent and Authoritative Information

§ IGOs can also influence global environmental politics by providing independent
and authoritative information to states, other IGOs, the public, and the press
§ As environmental issues, like climate change, have become more technical and as
scientific uncertainty about possible long-term effects has grown, policy makers
rely on scientists to present the facts and projections, which often set the stage
for treaty negotiations

o Developing Nonbinding Norms and Codes of Conduct

§ IGOs also influence global environmental politics by facilitating the
development of common norms or rules of conduct that do not have binding
legal effect on the participating states.
§ A variety of creative nontreaty measures, called soft law, have been developed
to influence state behavior on environmental issues. Soft-law measures
include codes of conduct, declarations of principles, global action plans, and
other international agreements that create new norms and expectations
without the binding status treaties
§ Most UN agencies have contributed to this process, but UNEP has done the
most to promote it
§ Example: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standard Program→ standards, guidelines
and odes of practice aimed at protecting the health of consumers and
ensuring fair trade
§ FAO: Food and Agriculture Org of the UN. Leads international efforts to
defeat hunger, advance agricultural productivity and ensure food safety.
Helps environment, for example, drafted the guidelines on the
environmental criteria for the registration, use and distribution of
pesticides; or set out the principles and standards of behavior for
responsible practices to ensuring the effective conservation of living aquatic
resources (responsible fisheries)
§ Soft-law agreements are often a good way to avoid the lengthy process of
negotiating, signing and ratifying binding agreements. It may be turned into
binding international law in 2 ways:
- The principles in the agreement may become so widely regarded as
the appropriate norms for a problem that they are ultimately
absorbed into treaty law
- Political pressures may arise from those dissatisfied with spotty
adherence to soft-law norms that they successfully advocate for
international negotiations to turn a nonbinding agreement into a
binding one

o Influencing National Development Policies

§ IGOs affect global environmental politics by influencing the
environmental and development policies of individual states outside
the context of regime negotiations. For example, through providing
financing and technical assistance for development projects
§ UNDP is a large source of multilateral grant-development assistance.
- United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is the UN global
development organization which works with national governments,
IGOs, NGOs and other to implement programs and build developing
countries’ capacity to address local, national and global development
challenges. In each country office, the UNDP resident representative
also normally serves as the resident coordinator of development
activities for the UN system as a whole
 - UNDP supports development countries to mainstream
environmental management, address increasing threats from climate
change and build local capacity to better manage the environment
and deliver services, especially water and energy
§ IGOs may influence policy by focusing normative pressures on states
regarding the environment and sustainable development, even when
no formal international agreement exists on the norm. UNDP has
gone the furthest of any UN agency in this regard
§ UNDP is also one of the three implementing agencies of the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF)
- The largest international funder of projects that address global
environmental issues. It provides grants to developing countries and
countries with economies in transition for projects in six focal areas:
biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation,
the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants

4. TREATY SECRETARIATS
o Treaty secretariats are a specific type of IGO established by an international treaty to manage
the day-to-day operation of the treaty regime. International civil servants tasked with
pursuing the treaty’s objective
o Core tasks:
1. Arranging and servicing meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and
all subsidiary bodies
- The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are yearly
conferences held in the framework of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They serve as the formal
meeting of the UNFCCC Parties (Conference of the Parties, COP) to
assess progress in dealing with climate change. The COP is the
supreme decision-making body of the Convention. All States that are
Parties to the Convention are represented at the COP, at which they
review the implementation of the Convention and any other legal
instruments that the COP adopts and take decisions necessary to
promote the effective implementation of the Convention, including
institutional and administrative arrangements.
2. Preparing and transmitting reports based on information received from the
COP and subsidiary bodies
3. Preparing reports on secretariat implementation activities for the COP
4. Ensuring coordination with relevant international bodies and NGOs
5. Liaising and communicating with relevant authorities, nonparties and
international orgs
6. Compiling and analyzing scientific, economic and social data and information
7. Monitoring adherence to treaty obligations
 8. Giving guidance and advice to parties
9. Providing expert technical advice to parties

o A secretariat’s level of influence depends largely on its mandate, its funding, and the
professional and personal commitment of the staff. Essentially, however, treaty secretariats
have 2 overarching areas of impact:
1. Influence the behavior of actors by changing their knowledge and belief system
2. Influence political processes through the creation, support and shaping of
norm-building processes for issue-specific international cooperation

o Treaty Secretariats as Knowledge Brokers

§ They possess expert knowledge: technical and scientific knowledge on the
problem, administrative and procedural knowledge and diplomatic
knowledge. And know how to manage it.
§ Convene expert panels and academic assessments

o Treaty Secretariats and the Political Process

§ Treaty secretariats can influence political processes through the creation,
support, and shaping of norm-building processes for issue-specific
international cooperation, such as the advance informed-agreement
provisions the Biosafety Protocol and the prior informed consent (PIC)
procedure under the Rotterdam Convention
§ They also can influence through capacity building. They play enabling roles
for capacity building at the national and local levels. For example, a
secretariat provides basic informational materials on its convention and its
sociopolitical implications.
§ Secretariats can stick to their administrative and facilitative roles, or they can
also seek to push the agenda, looking for new initiatives and trying to get
government to support and implement them
§ More often than not, the secretariat’s role in the negotiations is less overt and
more facilitative – the important but often unrecognized and sometimes
pivotal, role of promoting a smooth process, which can be crucial in steering
negotiations toward a successful outcome
§ However, it is important to note that treaty secretariats sometimes become
more active players in global environmental politics than some governments
and other actors may prefer

5. MULTILATERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

o Some of the most powerful IGOs are the multilateral financial institutions, including the WB,
the IMF and the regional development banks, because of the amount of financial resources
that they transfer to developing countries every year
o Donor countries are the dominant players → voting = in accordance to contributions
§ The US has the most power in the WB & Inter- American Development Bank
o WB was originally viewed by environmental activists as a contributor to unsustainable
development → the bank pursued structural changes and investment strategies to
demonstrate its commitment to sustainability and environmental strategies
o The IMF was slower than WB and regional banks to acknowledge the need to take
environmental considerations explicitly into account in its lending operations. The IMF’s
involvement in environmental policy is limited to areas that have a serious and perceptible
impact on a country’s macroeconomic outlook.
§ The IMF argues that it can integrate environment into its policy dialogue only
to the extent that member countries allow it to do so

6. REGIONAL AND OTHER MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS

o There are many regional and multilateral organizations that are playing an important role in
environmental politics, driving sustainable and environmental initiatives
§ Some are specific functional groups that have taken on environmental
responsibilities out of necessity
§ Others have broad political and economic agendas that now also include
environmental issues
§ Others have been specifically established to address environmental concerns
1. The EU, the only regional org whose decisions obligate its members.
2. The Organization of American States (OAS).
3. African Union includes the promotion of sustainable development as one of its official
objectives
4. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
5. Group of 77 (G77)
- Functions as the negotiating arm of the developing countries within
the UN system
- The group has played a key role in multilateral environmental
negotiations
6. OECD: promotes sustainable consumption and production
o States have created regional organizations explicitly to address environmental issues, such as:
1. Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP)
2. The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment
3. The Central American Commission on Environment and Development

7. NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
o NGO = independent, nonprofit organization not beholden to a government or a profit-making
organization
o NGOs influence on global environmental politics stems from three principal factors:
1. They possess expert knowledge and innovative thinking about global
environmental issues acquired from years of focused specialization on the issues
under negotiation
2. NGOs are acknowledged to be dedicated to goals that transcend narrow
national or sectoral interest
3. NGOs often represent substantial constituencies within their own countries and
thus can command attention from policy makers because of their potential
ability to mobilize these people to influence policies and even tight elections
o In industrialized countries NGOs fall into one of three categories:
1. Organizations affiliated with international NGOs (INGOs) ⁅ NGOs with
branches in more than 1 country ⁆
- Some INGOs are loose federations of national affiliates; others have
a more centralized structure
- Ex: Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace
2. Large national orgs focused primarily on domestic environmental issues
- Ex: big US environmental orgs, almost all of which have
international programs
3. Think tanks or research institutes, whose influence comes primarily from
publishing studies and proposals for action
- Normally funded by private donations or contracts, rely primarily
on their technical expertise and research programs to influence
global environmental policy

o Influencing Environmental Regime Formation

§ NGOs can attempt to influence the development, expansion and
implementation of international regimes in various ways, such as:
1. Raising public awareness about particular issues and conducting
education campaigns
2. Influencing the global environmental agenda
3. Lobbying governments
4. Proposing draft text to be included in conventions
5. lobbying negotiating conferences
6. Generating press attention
7. Supporting ratification and implementation of an environmental treaty
8. Bringing lawsuits to compel national action
9. Organizing consumer boycotts to pressure international corporations
10. Providing reporting services
11. Monitoring the implementation of agreements
§ One example of an NGO influencing the global environmental agenda is the
role played by WWF and Conservation International in creating the
demand for banning commerce in Africa elephant ivory. The groups
 published a detailed report on the problem and engaged in public education
campaigns
§ Pressing for changes in the policy of a major actor is sometimes the best way
for NGOs to influence an international regime
§ Greenpeace’s monitoring of and reporting on the toxic waste trade was a key
factor in encouraging a coalition of countries to push for a complete ban on
North – South waste trade under the Basel Convention
§ NGOs can influence international regimes in a more specialized way by
writing potential text for inclusion in a convention or amendment and
circulating it in advance of the negotiation in the hope that it will be
formally supported and submitted by a national delegation
§ NGOs have become especially active and well organized in lobbying at
international negotiations. The COPs to most environmental conventions
permit NGO observers, enabling NGOs to be actively involved in the
proceedings
§ NGOs also influence international conferences by providing scientific and
technical information and new arguments to delegations already
sympathetic to their objectives. They can also provide useful reporting
services during these conferences
§ NGOs can sometimes assist governments in implementing the provisions of
environmental regimes, by offering assistance in drafting national
legislation, providing technical and scientific assistance on relevant issues,
and brokering the provision of essential financial support

8. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

o Private business firms, especially multinational corporations are very important actors
o Their core activities consume resources and produce pollution, and environmental regulations
can directly affect their economic interests. Corporations also have significant assets
influencing global environmental politics
o Corporations often oppose national and international policies that they believe will impose
significant costs on them or otherwise reduce expected profits
o However, some of the, have supported creating strong national and international environmental
policy. When faced with strong domestic regulations, they tend to support international
agreements that will impose similar standards on competitors abroad

o Influence on Regime Formation

§ Business and industry affect global environmental regimes by undertaking
business activities that either weaken a regime or contribute to its
effectiveness. To influence the formation of regimes, corporations attempt
to:
1. Shape the definition of the issue under negotiation in a manner favorable
to their interests
 2. Fund and distribute targeted research and other information supportive
of their interests
3. Initiate advertising campaigns to influence public opinion
4. Persuade individual governments to adopt a particular position on a
regime being negotiated by lobbying it in its capital
5. Lobby delegations to the negotiating conference on the regime
§ Corporations may facilitate or delay, strengthen or weaken global
environmental regimes by actions that directly affect the environment. The
climate and ozone regimes are particularly sensitive to the willingness of
corporations in key countries to take actions that will allow the international
community to go beyond the existing agreement

o Industry and Nonregime Issues

§ Corporations have their greatest political influence on a global environmental
issue when there are no negotiations on a formal, binding international
regime governing the issue. Hence, they are able to use their economic and
political clout with individual governments and international organizations
to protect particular economic activities that damage the environment
- Example: the agrochemical industry enjoyed strong influence on the
FAO’s Plant Protection Service, which was responsible for the
organization’s pesticide activities. This influence was instrumental in
carrying out the industry’s main strategy for avoiding binding
international restrictions on its sales of pesticides in developing
countries. Instead of binding rules, the FAO drafted a voluntary
“code of conduct” on pesticide distribution and use between 1982 and
1985 in close consultation with the industry

9. CONCLUSIONS
o State actors play the primary roles in determining the outcomes of issues at stake in global
environmental politics, but non-state actors – IGOs, NGOs, corporations and treaty
secretariats – influence the policies of individual state actors toward global environmental
issues as well as the international negotiation process itself
o IGOs, especially UNEP, WMO and FAO have played important roles in regime formation.
IGOs also seek to exert influence on state policy through research and advocacy
o Treaty secretariats, a subset of IGOs, can influence the behavior of political actors by acting as
knowledge brokers and through the creation, support and shaping of intergovernmental
negotiations and cooperation
o NGOs influence environmental regimes by defining issues, swaying the policy as a key
government, lobbying negotiating conferences, providing information and reporting
services, proposing convention text and monitoring the implementation of agreements
Corporations, are able to maximize their political effectiveness in shaping the outcome of a global
environmental issue when they can avert negotiations on a binding regime altogether

CHAPTER 4: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGIMES: Natural Resources,

Species and Habitats.

Environmental regimes: Regimes designed to converse natural resources. Main challenge: The of
protecting natural resources and species that are of international importance, but exist within the
boundaries of sovereign states or beyond the boundaries of any state.These regimes have to
overcome conflicts among states’ economic and political interests, concern for protecting state
sovereignty, and different opinions regarding the importance of the precautionary principle and
the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and how to implement these
principles.

1. BIODIVERSITY LOSS
Biodiversity: Most often associated with the earth’s vast variety of plants, animals and
microorganisms, but the term encompasses diversity at all levels, from genes to species to
ecosystems to landscapes.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), in its Red
List of Threatened Species, assesses species’ extinction risks as:
● Least Concern
● Near threatened
● Three escalating categories of threatened: Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically
Endangered
● Extinct
Main drivers of species’ extinction: Human population growth and increasing per capita
consumption → climate change, habitat destruction, pollution and invasive species.

GLOBAL REGIMES FOR CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY 190

Despite general acknowledgement of the importance of biodiversity and its value to the well-being
of future generations, there is still a resistance to strong legal obligations by a veto coalition of
developing states whose territories hold most of the world’s biodiversity, and inconsistent support
from the United States and several other key industrialized countries.

The regime that was established in 1993, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBC) has three
objectives: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the
fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out the use of genetic resources.The treaty
encompasses socioeconomic issues, such as the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic
resources and access to technology, including biotechnology, has also led to implementation
challenges. (191-92)

Regime strengthening
The Conference of the Parties (COP) made some attempts in strengthening the regime and solving
the implementation problems. The implementation problems are born from a diffuse nature of the
regime’s rules and norms, the absence of an enforcement mechanism and a strong led- state
coalition, and a general lack of political will.
● The COP’s first approach to implementation was the development of several work
programs in critical areas that sustain biodiversity and provide critical ecosystem services:
mountain regions, dry and subhumid lands, marine and coastal areas, islands, inland waters,
agricultural systems, and forests.
However, in a treaty that relies on national implementation, there is no mechanism to
systematically and effectively monitor implementation at the national level. Lack of effective
implementation was demonstrated in the international community’ failure to meet the global
target to significantly reducing the rate 0f biodiversity loss by 2010. The COP adopted this target
in 2002, and it was later endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development and
incorporated into the Millenium Development Goals.

In response to this failure, in 2010 the COP adopted renewed commitments in the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011-2020, to be met by 2020. A report made in 2014 argued that what is needed
is a package of actions, such as legal or policy framework, socioeconomic incentives, public and
stakeholder engagement, and an overall substantial increase in total biodiversity- related funding
to reverse the loss of biodiversity.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 194

Biosafety: Set of precautionary practices that seek to ensure the safe transfer, handling, use, and
disposal of living modified organisms (LMOs) derived from modern biotechnology.
By the early 1990s, most countries with biotechnology industries had domestic biosafety legislation
in place, but there were no binding international agreements regarding, genetically modified
organisms that cross national borders.

Biotechnology, particularly its agricultural applications, was a highly controversial issue. Policy
responses varied widely in different legal orders, the most well-known example if the United
States and the EU. with the latter calling for a precautionary approach toward modern
biotechnology. There was a WTO dispute between both nations, which was decided in favor of the
US in 2006.

In 2000, governments reached an agreement and adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
The Protocol entered into force in 2003 and requires parties to take precautionary measures to
prevent LMOs from causing harm to biodiversity and human health. The successful
implementation of the Cartagena Protocol depends on the interplay of economic interests. One
example of this is the difficulty parties had in reaching an agreement on documentation
requirements for bulk shipments of LMOs intended for food, feed, and processing.

Considering that large agrobusinesses and other economic interests, backed in most cases by their
government, did not want any agreement at all, the Cartagena Protocol is a historic achievement.
For the first time under international law, there is a requirement that countries take
precautionary measures to prevent LMOs from causing harm to biodiversity and human health.
Furthermore, at MOP5 in 2010 a new phase in the int. regulation of biotechnology began: one that
focuses on cooperation in managing the risks associated with LMOs rather than on the struggle
between those who see biotechnology as a solution for many of the world’s pressing problems and
those who oppose it because they consider the risks of LMOs greater than the benefits. At the
same time, however, only one member of the original veto coalition1 has ratified the Cartagena
Protocol, leaving many of the world’s top grain exporters outside the regime.

Access and benefit sharing

Genetic resource from plants, animals, and microorganisms are used for a variety of purposes,
ranging from basic research to consumer products to medicines. Those using genetic resources
include research institutes, universities and private companies.
Since the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) entered into force in 1993, developing
countries have called for an increased focus on the conventions third official objective: fair and
equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.This issue involves how
companies, collectors, researchers, and others gain access to valuable genetic resources in return
for sharing the benefits of this access with the countries of origin and with local and indigenous
communities. in 2004, the COP2 mandated that the Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing
elaborate and “international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing.
Sharp division between the lead countries (the providers of genetic resources) and the veto
coalition (user countries) plagued the access and benefit-sharing negotiations. The Group of
Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries took the lead on behalf of providers countries. The
megadiverse countries constitute up to 70 percents of the world’s biological diversity and they are
primarily tropical countries: Bolivia,Brazil,China, Costa Rica, Kenya, South Africa, etc.
In 2010, in Japan, the parties adopted the Nagoya Protocol Access to Genetic Resources and the
Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization. The final compromise text
was characterized by many as a “masterpiece in creative ambiguity”. -instead of resolving
outstanding issues by crafting balanced compromise proposals the most contentious references
were either deleted or replaced by short and general provisions that allowed for flexible
interpretation.
On international cooperation, developed countries had argued that the protocol should focus on
compliance with national legislation instead of creating international regulations. However,

1
Veto coalition named the Miami Group composed by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, USA,
and Uruguay.
2
COP: Conference of the Parties. It is the governing body of an international convention, in this
case: Convention on Biological Diversity.
because only 25% of developing countries had legislation on this issue, it was argued that such a
requirement would have weakened the effectiveness of the protocol. The final text encourages
transboundary cooperation and provides that each party shall take appropriate and effective
measures to provide that genetic resources and traditional knowledge have been accessed in
accordance with consent and mutually agreed terms.
The ambiguity and the lack of concrete measures make that its effectiveness depends on the
interpretation given by each party of the Nagoya Protocol.

Moving forward
Although parties have made progress on important issues,the biodiversity regime remains weak.
The complexity of the biodiversity crisis, the multiple levels at which it can be addressed, the
North-South contrasts in the distribution of biodiversity and the many ways that biodiversity
protection can conflict with important economic, social, and political interests make reaching
agreement on action-enforcing language a contentious process.
Few steps have been taken:
● The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
● The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES) of 2012.

2. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES

Because trade in animals and plants crosses national borders, international cooperation is
required. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was adopted in
1973. as the spirit of such cooperation. It is in charge of delineating endangered species, as well as
imposing trade sanctions against violators. Proponent and veto coalition vary across the specific
agreements on individual species and often cross traditional North-South divisions. CITES
currently protects fifty.six hundred species of animals and thirty thousand species of
plants.Endangered species are divided into three categories mentioned before: Vulnerable,
Endangered and Critically Endangered
.

All 182 member parties are required to adopt national legislation that corresponds to the species
listing of CITES and they have to designate two authorities on a domestic level: a management
authority and a scientific authority. CITES has three main operational bodies: the Standing
Committee, the Animals Committee,and the Plants Committee.However ,the review of significant
trade relies on data reported by countries through government agencies.

In recent years,CITES has focused on combating illegal wildlife trade, which has become one of
the largest sources of criminal earnings in the world. Internet has contributed to the growth of the
illegal wildlife trade, providing an unprecedented technological platform for a burgeoning,
undocumented trade in endangered animals.
African Elephants
The case of African elephants illustrates CITES’s efforts to curb species loss and exemplifies the
difficulties inherent in negotiations among numerous parties. During 80s, there was a great decline
and a study sponsored by WWF and Conservation International concluded that African
Elephants were being harvested at a rate far exceeding that considered sustainable. In 1980, an
international coalition achieved that the elephants were included into Appendix I, with the
consequent strict surveillance and regulation, in spite of the opposition of three southern African
countries (Bostwana, Namibia and South Africa). However, despite these efforts, the global
poaching trade is at its highest in decades, with tens of thousands of African elephants killed every
year and some experts consider that there could be as little as five years left to save elephants from
extinction.

Controlling International Trade in Endangered Species

Main features of the CITES regime:
● Umbrella regime enveloping a multitude of mini regimes across which states’ political and
economic interests vary from species to species. These min regimes, while sharing a common
organizational structure and coalitions, are all characterized by an individual set of
developmental stages, lead states and coalitions that often consist of unusual alliances. Veto
coalitions can be led by producers nations, consumer nations or coalition of both.
● The role that science plays in the listing of species can also vary by species. It plays an
important role in issue definition and fact-finding stages, via the documentation of the initial
population crashes and via the documentation of different population trajectories.
● Although scientific knowledge can inform debates, economic and political factors often
determine specific outcomes. Commercial interests or national sovereignty may lead nations to
oppose listings or other measures.
● The impact that CITES listing has on controlling population declines also varies by species.
For example, if trading countries file a reservation to the listing, trade is predominantly domestic
rather than international. Overall, CITES has produced mixed results. More effective in the
whaling and ozone cases, but the threats to endangered species continue to multiply.

3. FORESTS
The issue of forests is unique in that it continues to defy the creation of a comprehensive regime
due to the complexity of the issue and the veto coalition.
Over the past twenty-five years, the earth lost 3.1 percent of its forested area. However, the
deforestation rate slowed by more than 50 percent between 1990 and 2015, due to the decrease in
deforestation and increased plantation, what has stabilized the net forest area. Forests are
important because 20 percent of humanity rely on them and they contain 80 percent of the world’s
remaining territorial diversity. Causes for deforestation: cutting down, overharvesting,
overgrazing by lifestock, insect pests and diseases, fires, storms and air pollution.

Global governance
● The Food and International Global Organization of the UN was the principal global forum
for the discussion of international forestry issues from the mid-1940s to 1971, when the FAO
established the Committee on Forestry.
● The first real initiative can be traced back to the 1980s, with the creation of the
International Tropical Timber Organization and the Tropical Forest Action Plan, which was
finally abandoned.
● The 1992 UN Conference on Environmental and Development marked a turning-point in
the international forest-policy dialogue. Finally, the the Forest Principles only hints that forests
are a global environmental issues and omits the idea of international guidelines for forest
management and all references to trade in sustainably managed forest products (it is totally linked
to national sovereignty).

Interim solutions
With Canada and Malaysia acting as lead states, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development
established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in 1995. In spiteof the more than one hundred
proposals made by the IPF, there no changes in forest-management policies and practices. In
addition, there was a great polarization:
● EU: at the beginning binding treaty, but then it opposed
● Developing countries: African countries support a convention. South-American countries
were firmly opposed
● United States: leaders of the veto coalition of a convention

United Nations Forum on Forests

Then, in 2000, the UN EConomic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established the UNFF with the
goal of promoting the management conservation and sustainable development of the world’s
forests. However, difficult to get consensus for any kind of binding legal agreement. Some
countries called for a non-legally binding voluntary code of conduct. In the end, countries
recognized thatt without the support of the two key players in the vet ocoliation, USA( largest
timber industry) and Brzil (largest tropical forest), no treaty would be possible.WIth no
agreement, delegates agreed to reconvene at UNFF6 in 2006 to try again to reach an international
consensus. In 2006, there were some advancements:
● Development of a voluntary instrument based on four global objectives.
● Continue the work of UNFF until 2015
● In UNFF7, they completed a negotiation of a non-legally binding instrument covering all
types of forests and a multiyear program of work.
Finally, in the following UNFF meeting, countries totally abandoned the idea of creating a
legally.binding instrument and to coordinate future measures with the Sustainable Development
Goals. The forests case demonstrates that it is not always possible to negotiate a treaty to address
a global environmental issue and that coalitions have the ability to shift significantly due to
changing economic interests.
4. DESERTIFICATION AND LAND DEGRADATION
Much of the population affected by this issue is already poor, mainly affecting the African
continent. Desertification and land degradation have never been priority issues on the global
environmental agenda, despite efforts by many African countries since the 1970s. Land
degradation in arid. semiarid and dry subhumid areas result mainly from adverse human impact.
The main problems regarding the lack of importance given to this issue is that it does not involve
resources or life-support systems of global interests and a bewildering array of natural and social
factors have an impact on land degradation, making difficult to articulate in a simple and clear
way either the nature of the problem or the international actions needed to address it. In addition,
for many African countries there is a strong link between poverty alleviation and desertification
control. Consequently, the African countries’ emphasized the need for additional funding, and
many developed countries denied it. Finally, the United States proposed the Global Mechanism,
which would improve existing aids, under the authority of the COP. African countries considered
it insufficiently, but they finally accepted because it was the only compromise acceptable to donor
countries.

Implementing and strengthening the Convention

The UNCCD faced significant challenges during the next six years, especially the
operationalization of the Global Mechanism. The lack of dedicated financing mechanisms meant
that the Convention spent time on procedures and institutions rather than substance. Many of the
political problems in this regime, the only multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) driven by
developing countries, stem from the fact that land degradation is not a priority for donor
governments. In 2003, parties requested the Joint Inspection Unit to review the activities of the
UNCDD Secretariat. In concluded that there had been a lack of common understanding and
recognition of the Convention in its true and proper perspective and that parties should adopt a
long-term strategic plan for implementation of the convention at the next COP. This strategic plan
was adopted in 2007 at COP8 in Madrid, it expanded the UNCDD’s mandte by including land
degradation (not only desertification).

The Science-Policy Nexus

Since the Convention’s inception, the role of science has been marginalized. The UNCCD process
lack ths an efficient operational mechanism to process and channel practical and scientific
expertise for political decision makers. To address this problem, in 2007 the COP called for
scientific-style conferences. However, it still proved difficult to translate the scientific presentation
into decisions taken by the COP. Finally, the UNCCD established a science-policy interface and
the Scientific Knowledge Brokerin Portal to enhance the UNCCD as a global authority on
desertification, land degradation, drought and sustainable land management.

Land-Degradation Neutrality
The implementation of the convention has been fraught, obligations and expectations for the
parties are not clear, the capital necessary is not set yet, it is not mainstream in international
development cooperation and donors prefer to address the issue bilaterally rather than under the
framework of the convention. No involvement of the local communities. So, UNCCD was hindered
from assuming global responsibility for land degradation.
This needed to change, so the concept land-degradation neutrality was created in 2011, to reverse
land degradation and include it in the SDGs (Target 15.3). It was defined scientifically as “amount
and quality of land resources needed to support ecosystem remains stable or increases” achieved
by managing land more sustainably to reduce degradation and increasing restoration.
Governments commit, at least, to equal restoration to degradation. But, many critics because the
ecosystem lost might be more valuable than the restored one, and states have the right to degrade
as long as they rehabilitate. So the next challenge will be to operationalize the target (proposed
with the Land Degradation Neutrality Fund in Ankara).
Moving forward
The UNCCD’s implementation has not been hindered by scientific uncertainty, but because of
economic and political factors like political commitment or bureaucratic mistrust (often by
developed countries) to serve as a veto coalition to exploit their power. But with the SDGs the
UNCCD has a new focus for the next fifteen years, but it has not been seen yet if UNCCD receives
more political commitment or financial support.
Fisheries depletion
This has not been considered a problem but for the past 30 decades. Nearly 30% of the world’s
marine fish is overexploited, many species are in sharp decline and the percentage of fish stocks
caught within biologically sustainability declined from 90% in 1974 to 71,2% in 2011. The
growing global demand for fish and the inadequate regulation on illegal fishing have contributed
to the fisheries crisis. The World Bank estimates that around 50$ Billions are lost due to
mismanagement of fisheries.
Fishery resources are regulated under national, international or both jurisdictions. And countries
like China, Japan, Poland, Korea, Russia or Spain are responsible for most of the catch in
international waters providing them a veto to address overfishing.
Negotiation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement
It is the first binding global agreement to address overfishing. It arose due mostly to the conflicts
over straddling (fishes which are in national and in international coasts), and highly migratory
fish stocks brought by Canada in 1979 (Los países costeros como Canadá, Australia… echaban la
culpa a los que no tenían mucha costa, UE, Japón… del overfishing, y los que no tenían costa se lo
echaban a los costeros). It was vetoed by Europe, Japan and Korea (distant-water fishing states).
In the UN conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in 1993, the
coastal states accused distant-water fishing states of abusing their right to fish, but both sides were
only half right, evidence demonstrated it, and both were in a sense veto coalition. The US was a
distant-water state and a coast state, so US played the role of lead state. It was too difficult, in the
middle of the negotiations, Spain over violated the limitations in Canada’s coast (xD
bAsiLotEèhAnDö TeTe, BibaÀh ESPAÑA), so Canada restricted EU vessels and EU got angry but
finally, Canada dropped charges against Spain and made a bilateral agreement with EU, so EU
and Canada had the same quota of fishing. And in August 1995 they finally agreed on the Fish
Stocks Agreement. They finally concluded that regional organizations had enough power to
regulate fishing practices within a limit (distant-water concern) but if this organization failed in
adopting procedures, then, other States parties of the agreement could board and inspect the
vessel (coastal states concern).
-Implementation
After ratification, the UN Fish Stocks Agreements entered into force in 2001. However, there are
still important countries like China, Mexico, Peru or Thailand who remain non-parties. This
agreement is very important, but it doesn’t effectively address 3 key global managements issues:
1) when the regional fisheries management organizations set quotas, country members can just
opt out if they don’t like it; 2) doesn’t set a mechanism to prevent or eliminate excess fishing
capacity; 3) it doesn’t refer to fish stocks under national jurisdiction, only to migratory and
straddling (20% of the total stocks).
States have created several nonbinding agreements to supplement it like the International Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, the
International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing… but all are voluntary, and therefore, not effective.
In 2006, and then in 2010 there were UN conferences to assess implementation on the Fish Stocks
Agreement by including some aspects of these nonbinding agreements, and mainly to develop a
legally binding instrument. There is a progress (no coastal-distant water states division, as none
decides unilaterally, but between states parties and states non-parties), but the refusal to ratify of
the main fishing states like China and Peru continues to impede the regime’s effectiveness.
Whaling
This shows the transformation of an international regime that allowed unregulated exploitation to
a framework for global conservations. On the one hand, States and NGOs that consider whaling
as an act of unnecessary human cruelty and a symbol of environmental exploitation; on the other
one, it represents national sovereignty, cultural traditions and the ability to maintain coastal
livelihoods.
In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was created, it set quotas,
prohibited certain endangered species and minimum sizes for caught commercially. The
International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established, but it has no power to enforce its
regulations, and the major whaling countries like Brazil, Chile, China, Peru or Korea refuse to
join. And scientific knowledge was subordinated to economic and political interests of the parties,
so it is not surprising that in the 60s large of the largest pieces were in doubt.
But there was a raising concern by the population, also encouraged by the intelligence of the
cetaceans and the US set proposal into the international agenda in the 1972 UN Conference on the
Human Environment. This raised international awareness, but it didn’t do anything because it
wasn’t proposed by the IWC, so US and other leading States joined the IWC to ensure the
three-fourths majority required to institute a whaling ban in the institution. And US also
implemented domestic legislation to ban imports, so Chile and Peru were affected. And finally, by
1982 enough non-whaling nations joined the IWC, and in 1985 rules entered into force to ban
commercial whaling (Japan, Norway and Soviet Union banned it). However, whaling states used
scientific records to justify whaling with scientific goals, and the non-whaling states could not do
anything. Finally, in 1994, a non-whaling area was established even for scientific whaling
(Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary). But still, Norway and Iceland are out of the limits in 2014,
although it is in their national costs, and Japan is out of the limits but in international waters
(under the scientific whaling assumption). In general terms, the number of whales has decreased,
not enough, but many NGOs have also entered action now. Currently, US, New Zealand Australia
and EU are lead states on whale conservation, whereas Iceland, Japan and Norway are vetoing by
increasing their financial support, and denying the scientific reasons as the IWC’s Scientific
Committee does not support these measures.
- REGIME STRENGTHENING
The IWC is seen as a dysfunctional regime due to the division between the lead states and the veto
states. Although there are changes like from 935 whales to 200, it is impossible to reach a
consensus, and Japan still claim that popular awareness is not scientific. Even Australia instituted
proceedings before the International Court of Justice against Japan, and the ICJ ruled against
Japan, by ordering a temporary halt of the activities, but only in Antarctica not in the Pacific. A
new resolution was established in the IWC so the Scientific Committee had to adjust to the ICJ
declaration, so the Scientific Committee needed to revise its lethal research proposals.
And it is unfair because some proposals like one from Greenland to caught as it was needed for
nutrition was accepted by EU because it favoured Denmark (even though in reality, some of
Greenland whales were sold in Denmark). Right now, IWC has the same problems pro-whaling to
protect their sovereignty; anti-whaling, any exception will degenerate into an open season on
whales. As the real fact finding and consensus building goes under political interests, the future
effectiveness of the ICW remains in doubt.
Conclusion
It has been shown that the negotiation of a strong global environmental regime depends on
inducing one or more key veto states to go along with one or more of the core proposed. By strong
regime, we mean an agreement that mandates actions that can reasonably be expected to have an
impact on the problem if they are implemented, and states can be held accountable for
implementing them. Whether a regime succeeds in addressing an environmental threat depends
on how strong the regime is. Success in overcoming the impact of veto states results from one or
more of the following five developments:
- A veto state changes its own understanding of the problem because of scientific evidence (ozone
depletion, climate change, POPs)
- Changes its position because its economic interests have changed
- A change of government
- Domestic political pressure
- Fears negative reactions from other governments (Adverse international opinion)
Regime formation usually requires leadership by one or more states committed to defining the
issue, this role is usually played by states motivated by vulnerability or due to an advantageous
legal or economic situation.
Lead and veto states are not equal. Lead states with greater diplomatic clout, economic resources
or negotiating skills outperform those with fewer resources. But the impact of a veto state depends
on its ability to keep the regime from being effective, it might have less political or economic
influence but a large distant-water fishing fleet.
The more important veto states are Brazil, China, India, EU and US (less important). The states
with a greater diplomatic influence are US, followed by EU, China and India.
The international community has been able to negotiate a impressively large number of
agreements to reduce environmental threat. Global environmental regimes now include
conventions that enjoy nearly universal participation and have the potential to affect economic
development strategies and even domestic political processes. However, not all of these agreements
have been successful.

CHAPTER 5
carlos

Effective environmental regimes: obstacles and opportunities.

Global environmental politics

Effective environmental regimes: obstacles and opportunities.
The most important measure of the effectiveness of an environmental regime -the extent to which
it produces measurable improvements in the environment- is a function of three factors. First is
regime design: particularly the strength of the key control provisions aimed at addressing the
environmental threat, but also the provisions on reporting, monitoring, noncompliance, and
financial and technical assistance. Second is the level of implementation, (adopting formal
legislation) and third, is compliance.

OBSTACLES TO CREATING STRONG REGIMES

Six major categories of obstacles which can inhibit the creation of strong and effective global
environmental regimes: 1. Systemic or structural obstacles (derived from the structure of the
international system, the structure of international law, and from the structure of the global
economic system); 2. Lack of necessary and sufficient conditions (public or official concern so as
to address them); 3. Procedural obstacles stem from international environmental issues;
5.obstacles which result from the interconnections of environmental issues; and 6. Obstacles to
designing effective regimes.

1. Systemic or structural obstacles

One of the broadest is conformed by the anarchical structure of international politics (aka absence
of hierarchy). In particular, states tend to think that they only can rely on themselves so as to
ensure their safety. Because of this, and just as in security or economic issues, the system places
pressures on state actors which can make it difficult to create effective environmental regimes.
These actors refer, for example, to the economic impediments which arose when States realize that
other countries might face fewer costs from an agreement than themselves (i.e., when they suspect
that other states are going to be better off from an agreement than themselves), for example,
George Bush argued that the US would competitively suffer more from reducing the greenhouse
gases than China. Free-riding, tragedy of commons.
Another systemic or structural obstacle is the lack of congruence between the global political and
ecological systems. Political systems: independent states, meanwhile environmental system:
completely interrelated Nature.
Besides, and assuming that legitimate actors within the borders of one country may create
environmental consequences in other countries (rivers between European countries or the US and
Canada, for example), clashes with the most fundamental principle of international law, which is
sovereignty. Due to this, in many occasions effective international environmental policy does often
require limiting what a State does within its own borders. This conflict is embodied in principle 21
of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, known as one of the most important models of international
environmental law.
Some argue that elements of international economic system also present a structural impediment
to creating and implementing strong and effective global environmental regimes. (system
emphasis on resource extraction, globalization, lowest-cost production…)
2. The absence of Necessary Conditions: Concern, Contractual Environment and Capacity.
Effective Environmental Regimes require three necessary, but not sufficient, conditions, (Peter
Haas, Robert Keohane, and Marc Levy). These conditions: first, there must be adequate levels of
concern within governments, and perhaps among the public at large, so that states decide to
devote resources to examining and addressing the problem and implementing potential solutions.
Second, there must be a sufficiently hospitable contractual environment so that states can gather
together and negotiate with reasonable ease and costs, make credible commitments…
Third, States must possess the scientific, political, economic and administrative capacity to
understand the threat; participate in creating the global regime; and then implement and ensure
compliance with the regime’s principles.
The presence of these three is a necessary but insufficient condition.

Procedural Obstacles
Once states begin the bargaining or negotiation phase, two important obstacles emerge: the
time-lag and lowest-common denominator problems.
The process to create and implement effective global environmental policy (GEP from now), is
neither easy nor speedy. The international agenda must be set, negotiations convened, appropriate
policies identified… Very time consuming, and environmental issues do not wait for political
processes. While the year-lasting negotiations are being held, species keep being extinguished.
The second procedural obstacle, the lowest-common denominator problem, is created by veto
states. Since all states are sovereign entities, they can choose whether to join global environmental
agreements. However, because active participation by many countries is required to address a
global environmental problem, the countries most concerned with addressing a particular issue
often need support from countries with far less interest. Thus, an environmental treaty can only
be as strong as its least cooperative state allows it to be.

Characteristics of Global Environmental Issues

These characteristics, which stem from global environmental problems, are important elements of
GEP and have the capacity to exacerbate many of the obstacles outlined above.
One of the most critical is that environmental issues are inextricably linked to important economic
and political interests. People do not pollute intentionally as ‘my goal for today is polluting the
environment’. People pollute while performing legitimate actions so as to create and produce
revenues and capital for them. Thus, creating strong environment regimes often requires
addressing activities which are IMPORTANT to certain countries or interest groups aka todas las
empresas d este planeta. This link creates obstacles to effective action.
A second characteristic is unequal adjustment costs. Addressing an envir. Problem means
changing the economic, political and/or cultural activities which ultimately cause the problem.
These changes carry benefits and costs. Countries face different adjustment consts depending on
the environmental issue.
A third obstacle is that environmental issues often involve significant complexity and uncertainty
regarding their scope, severity, impact or time frame. Scientific uncertainty about an
environmental problem can undermine concern and allow other, more certain economic or
political interests to be prioritized in the policy hierarchy.
A fourth characteristic is time-horizon conflicts. Problems are seen very far from now in the
future.
Fifth, stats and groups sometimes possess different core religious, cultural or political beliefs and
values relevant to environmental issues. Sixth, large number of actors must cooperate to create
and implement effective global environmental policy. The longer the nº of actors, the more
difficult to reach cooperative solutions.

Interconnections between Environmental Issues

Sometimes the connections between causes, impacts, solutions… of environmental issues can
inhibit successful action. This is the case when one environmental problem exacerbates another
one, making the problem more difficult to solve because long-term success in that issue also
requires successfully addressing the other issue (e.g., climate change)
Interconnections also create obstacles if addressing one problem causes another one to worsen.

Regime Design
Control measures and reporting requirements that are too complex or extremely vague might not
be implemented correctly. Treaties without flexibility cannot be adjusted in response to new
scientific findings.
Regime design is difficult. The process requires a nuanced understanding of the science of the
environmental issue, including its causes and consequences, how it interacts with other issues, and
how it will evolve over time; the economic and social activities which gave rise to the problem and
will be affected by it; how to address the issue so that a long-term solution is environmentally,
economically and politically possible; and how to design the solution in the form of an
international regime that can be implemented effectively at the national level.
Equally important is the fact that regimes are negotiated as much as they are designed -and
negotiated by people and governments with concerns that might run counter to the requirements
for a perfectly crafted environmental regime.

OBSTACLES TO EFFECTIVE NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGIMES

Compliance refers to whether countries adhere to the mandatory provisions of an environmental

convention and the extent to which they follow through on the steps they have taken to implement
these provisions.
GE regimes employ a variety of mechanisms to promote implementation and compliance. These
include using binding rules instead of voluntary measures, providing eligible countries with
technical and financial assistance to build capacity and help them to fulfill particular regime
obligations, providing incentives…
Most countries which sign and ratify do comply the best they can. But sometimes, due to technical,
financial, administrative or political issues, compliance turns out to be impossible, even when a
government remains committed to the regime. Only rarely does a state deliberately set out to sign
and ratify a treaty w no intention of compliance. Noncompliance can be traced to several different
types of actors, including:

Inadequate Translation of Regime Rules into Domestic Policy

Some states are unable to or choose not to adopt the domestic legislation necessary to implement
and fully comply with an international agreement. Failure to enact these domestic laws can stem
from economic or political opposition or prevented by interest groups or political or economic
instability. Even when a treaty is ratified, interest groups or political opposition might still manage
to prevent or significantly weaken the necessary implementing legislation.
Besides, in democracies with nonintegrated federal structures, the fed government may not always
have jurisdiction to implement international environmental agreements completely at the state or
provincial level.

Insufficient capacity to implement, administer, or enforce domestic policy.

It is not enough with enacting the laws, but implementing, administering, and enforcing them.
Doing so requires sufficient issue-specific skills, knowledge, technical know-how, legal authority,
and enforcement capacity at individual and institutional levels.
Therefore, another reason for inadequate compliance is insufficient state capacity to implement,
administer or enforce the relevant domestic policies.
Inability to monitor and report on implementation
Some states which want to comply can end up not doing so because they do not know what is
happening within their country. Two sets of factors affect this: adequate feedback mechanisms,
and number and size of potential violators whose conduct the government must control.

Costs of compliance
Domestic compliance is also affected by the costs of such compliance relative to the country’s level
of economic development, current economic situation… states with low per capita income might
be reluctant to commit significant funds to comply with commitments to reduce global threats,
even if doing so is in the country’s long-term interest, because such compliance would come at the
expense of spending for economic and social development.

Misperception of Relevant Costs and Benefits

A related obstacle is a lack of understanding regarding the full set of economic costs and benefits
of pursuing environmental goals. Many analyses indicate that even if policy makers wish to ignore
nonmonetary concepts relating to environmental and human health protections, purely economic
arguments do support environmental protection.

Inadequate or poorly targeted financial and technical assistance

Many global environmental regimes contain specific measures for providing FTA to developing
countries and so help them fulfill their obligations. Developing countries consistently argue that
implementation and compliance with specific elements within some environmental regimes
depend on the provision of adequate FTA. At the same time, the global financial crisis has
complicated regime negotiations on expanding financial assistance in several global environmental
issues.

Poorly designed regimes

If a regime does not contain clear, implementable requirements, parties often find trouble
translating the vague language into domestic specific rules or regulations, or parties can choose to
interpret the vague requirements in wats which produce few adjustment costs.

Many regimes, little coordination

Sheer number of environmental treaties and confusing and uncoordinated web of requirements
they now include. Uncoordinated and confusing obligations placed on states which are difficult to
fulfill.

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE

Raise awareness and concern

One of the most important factors in improving implementation and compliance is elevating
awareness, concern, and knowledge among government elites and the general public regarding
environmental issues. The effectiveness of, and compliance with, international environmental
regimes likely cannot increase significantly until public officials raise the priority of these issues or
until elevated public concern and concerted individual action forces them to do so.

Create market incentives

Most economic forces at work today still reward rather than punish unsustainable activity
(chapter 1) because the local and global costs of pollution and unsustainable resource use carry
little or no economic costs to those responsible.
Establishing market prices for pollution and unsustainable activity can reward efficiency and
emission avoidance, encourage innovation, create a level playing field for non-polluting and
sustainable technology options. Any negative, systemic economic impact of the additional costs
could be offset by tax reductions in other areas, such as income taxes or sales axes on particularly
sustainable products or services.

Build domestic capacity **

Improved compliance sometimes requires programs that strengthen the capacity of developing
countries to implement environmental conventions. Capacity building can also increase
government concern for an issue by expanding awareness of the issue within the bureaucracy and
increasing the number, skills and visibility of people working on the issue.

Improve effectiveness of financial and technical assistance

The line between capacity building and other types of FTA is largely an artificial one. In general,
however, capacity building refers to permanent improvements in the ability and self-sufficiency of
a country, whereas financial and technical assistance refers to help regarding specific instances of
compliance. Increased and more effective compliance also requires more effective assistance,
which is assistance targeted towards the most important needs, monitored to avoid waste,
coordinated across regimes…
Support secretariat stability and capacity
Environmental regimes rely on secretariats to fulfill a wide variety of key functions such as
coordinating, organizing meetings, facilitating communication among parties… Yet secretariats
budget tend to be minuscule in comparison with formal international organizations, combined
with problems caused by late payments or defaults on financial pledges by some parties. These
facts tend to decrease the ability of secretariats to properly perform their functions.
Efforts by donor countries and organizations to stabilize funding for secretariats would allow
them to provide greater support to the regime.

Augment coordination between regimes and conventions

The broadest issue areas in global environmental politics involve multiple, overlapping global and
regional regimes, international organizations, and soft-law guidelines and procedures.
Improved coordination among treaties and organizations would improve regime implementation
and compliance by 1. Helping to remove the obstacles produced by the lack of such coordination,
2. Allowing for more effective use of limited resources, 3. Avoiding unnecessary duplication of
tasks, and 4. Potentially creating unforeseen opportunities where efforts for joint initiatives could
improve reporting, monitoring, environmental assessments, financing, and implementation.
Opportunities for enhanced coordination that have received particular attention and exhibit
promise include examining and eliminating regulatory gaps or conflicts, coordinating reporting
schedules and formats, co-locating secretariats and relevant international organizations that work
in related issues, integrating certain operation within co-located secretariats, coordinating the
scheduling of the conferences of the parties (COPs) of related regimes, supporting ratification to
remove membership gaps, integrating appropriately related implementation activities…

Improve monitoring and reporting

Without regular and accurate monitoring and reporting by parties, it is difficult to assess the
baseline, trends, and current status of an environmental problem; to assess current levels of
regime implementation; to identify specific instances or patterns of noncompliance or
ineffectiveness; and to develop potential solutions. Studies indicate that regimes employing
systems of regular monitoring and reporting have better levels of domestic implementation and
compliance than those which do not.

Consider sanctions
Improving compliance may require additional sticks (sanctions) as well as more carrots (capacity
building, FTA) or as well trade restrictions or tariffs. These sanctions must be credible and potent.

Generate publicity
Environmental conventions could create mechanisms through which negative publicity would
become a more prominent consequence of refusal to participate in a global regime or failure to
implement specific provisions. Positive publicity can also enhance compliance.
.
INCREASING FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REGIMES

The issue of financial resources has been at the center of global environmental politics for many
years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Implementing all the mentioned features
requires financial resources. Besides, it requires transitions to environmentally sound technologies
and new strategies for natural resource management.
For many, the major obstacle to effective implementation is the lack of adequate financial and
technical resources to fulfill treaty obligations. On the other hand,, many donor countries face
financial and political challenges which limit their ability to fund large new initiatives or make
significant new commitments to assist developing countries in implementing existing programs.
Several possibilities for increasing financial resources for implementing global environmental
regimes

Focus multilateral and bilateral assistance toward Sustainable Development Goals

Existing ODA and loan guarantee programs, which dwarf environmental funding in size, could
systematically apply resources to programs which also enhance environmental goals. Overall
ODA flows would not need to be reduced or enlarged under this proposal. Instead, governments
and organizations would funnel aid to proven programs with shared environmental and
development goals. Thus, ODA programs focused on industrialization or energy production would
support only projects which produce or use green energy.
Similarly, cleaning ‘brownfields’ (former industrial properties containing hazardous substances)
would enjoy priority over clearing land for construction or agriculture. Sustainable agriculture
which produces food for local consumption on a regular basis would receive priority over
boom-and-bust industrial export agriculture that consumes significant quantities of water and
fertilizer and can leave countries as net importers of food.

Develop revenue from regime mechanisms

Environmental regimes have the potential to develop mechanisms to capture certain cost savings
which result from environmental protections or to collect fees from services or permits. By
making emissions reduction a potential profit source, the competitive nature of market capitalism
is employed to combat climate change.
The central challenge to deploying an effective emissions trading system is designing and then
continually improving the system so that it works at both the business and the environmental
levels.

Create new revenue streams from coordinated pollution taxes

In nearly all the new ideas, countries would impose similar taxes on pollution or other activities
and then pool or use the money individually to finance sustainable development and
environmental regimes. Taxes would be levied on activities harmful in their own right and
therefore reasonable to discourage through taxes.
Other possibilities include taxes on certain types of energy production, transboundary shipments
of hazardous waste, the production of particular substances…

Exchange det obligations for sustainable development policy reforms and investments
Implementing aggressive debt-relief programs in concert with agreements by the debtor country
to use a specific amount of the savings for environmental program offers potential to tap an
additional source of funds for problems largely neglected by most assistance programs, such as
programs needed to combat desertification in Africa.
WB and IMF launched in 1996 the Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) which
seeks to ensure that no poor country faces a debt burden it cannot manage. The HIPC initiative
helps the poorest and most heavily indebted countries escape from unsustainable debt.

Eliminate counterproductive subsidies

Eliminate subsidies which contribute to the unsustainable use and long-term degradation of the
affected lands, forests, and fish.
CONCLUSION
Among the most fundamental are six broad sets of obstacles which can make it difficult to create
regimes with strong and binding control measures:
1. Structural or systemic obstacles which arise from the structure of the system, of the
international law, and of the economic system
2. The lack of sufficient concern
3. The time-lag and lowest-common-denominator procedural obstacles
4. Obstacles which stem from characteristics of global environmental issues themselves
5. Obstacles which stem from interconnections between environmental issues
6. Regime-design difficulties

grvf dcCHAPTER 6
carlos

Environmental Politics and Sustainable Development

GEP cannot be studied in a vacuum. Environmental issues are inextricably linked with economic
and social development issues. North-South economic issues are a crucial element of the political
context of global environmental politics. Developing countries continue to insist tat the
industrialized countries, because of their historical dominance in the production and consumption
of pollutant resources and goods, are responsible for the environmental problems and should bear
the responsibility for any solution.
This chapter looks at global environmental politics within the context of sustainable development
with a focus on three elements in this complex relationship: north-south relations, social
development, and economic development and trade.

NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Historically, developing countries perceived global environmental issues as a distinctively
north-south issue and, sometimes, as an effort to sabotage their development aspirations. This
perspective emerged back in 1971 at a seminar held in Founex, Switzerland, which laid the
groundwork for the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.
Emergence of Sustainable Development.
In the wake of the Stockholm Conference, the UN worked to raise international environmental
awareness through governments, NGOs and the world’s business and scientific communities.
However, environmental and development issues were often addressed separately and in a
fragmented fashion. Stockholm successfully brought international attention to the environmental
crisis but did not resolve any of the inherent tensions in linking environmental protection with
social and economic development.

The Rio Principles

On the twentieth anniversary of the Stockholm Conference, governments gathered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, to move the sustainable development agenda forward. The 1992 earth summit
attracted greater official and unofficial interest than had the Stockholm Conference. The summit
and the preparatory work which preceded it showed that there were still significant differences
between developed and developing countries on many environmental issues. Developing countries
focused no the consumption levels and the economic policies of the developed countries, affirming
that ‘an environmentally healthy planes was impossible in a world which contained significant
inequities; while developed countries focused on ozone depletion, global warming, etc.
The Earth Summit created the Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, which led to the principles of additionality, common but differentiated
responsibilities, and the ‘polluter pays’ principle.
The first of these principles is additionality, which arose out of the southern concern that
environmental issues would attract international aid away from traditional developmental issues.
This means, that new money needs to be given to the developing countries so as to deal with the
environmental problems, and not just diversify the money which was already being given in order
to deal with the economic problems.
Developing countries also believe that the north should bear the financial burden of measures to
reverse ecological damage. This is a key component of the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities. This principle states that global environmental problems are the common concern
of all nations, and all nations should work toward their solution (common responsibilities), but
responsibility for action should be differentiated in proportion to the responsibility for creating
the problem and the financial and technical resources available for taking effective action
(differentiated responsibilities)
Since some nations have a greater and more direct responsibility for creating the problems, they
have a greater responsibility to address them. Developing countries emphasize historical
responsibilities for causing global environmental problems, the large disparities in current per
capita contributions. They do also argue that the FTA must meet the extra, or incremental, costs
for using alternatives to the inexpensive ozone-depleting chemicals…
In contrast, while most industrialized countries allow that historical responsibility and current per
capita emissions are relevant to policy discussions, they also emphasize the common responsibility
of all countries to contribute to solving global environmental problems.
The third Rio principle is the ‘polluter pays’ principle, which seeks to ensure that the economic
and other costs of environmental action should be borne by those who created the need for that
action.as with the others, the South has argued that this principle has been steadily diluted.
Another consistent theme in developing-country views of global environmental issues is the
inequality in governing structures of international organizations such as the World Bank, which
allows a minority of donor countries to outvote the rest of the world.
The south claims that it has seen few benefits from its continuing involvement in gep.
THE SOCIAL PILLAR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The social development pillar or dimension of sustainable development addresses issues of access
to resources and opportunities, social justice and equity, participation and empowerment. A
strong social pillar means that all development sectors are stronger, whether it is agriculture,
infrastructure… a weak social pillar means weakness in other sectors as well.
Developing-country concerns with social development, globalization, and other issues such as the
HIV/AIDS epidemic led to a greater focus on the social development dimension of sustainable
development as the millennium approached.
The world was also experiencing increasing globalization. Some viewed it as a threat, other as an
opportunity.
In a speech delivered to the UNGA in April 2000 to launch the Millenium Report, the UN
secretary-general Kofi Annan tackled the globalization issue.

The Millennium Assembly

The UNGA designated its fifty-fifth session, starting on September 6, 2000, as the Millennium
Assembly and decided to hold a Millennium Summit of world leaders to address the pressing
challenges facing the world’s people in the twenty-first century. The world leaders reaffirmed
their commitment to work toward peace and security for all and a world in which sustainable
development and poverty eradication would have the highest priority. The Millennium Assembly
placed the relationship between poverty, environmental decline, and economic development firmly
in the international spotlight.
Eight development goals containing eighteen targets and forty-eight indicators, which are
commonly known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The World Summit on Sustainable Development

These issues came to a head at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002, held ten years after the Earth Summit in Rio to map out a
detailed course of action for the further implementation of Agenda 21.
The summit produced three key outcomes. The first one was the Johannesburg declaration, a
pledge by world leaders to commit their countries to the goal of sustainable development. The
second was the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, which sets out a comprehensive program
of action for sustainable development and includes quantifiable goals and targets with fixed
deadlines. Third, the summer produced nearly three hundred voluntary partnerships and other
initiatives to support sustainable development.
During the previous decade, sustainable development more often than not equaled protection of
the environment. Johannesburg was the first true summit on sustainable development in the sense
that advocates of all three dimensions were under one roof arguing their cases, raising real issues,
and confronting those with different interests and perspectives.
The road to 2015: challenges in implementing the MDGs.
In 2005, world leaders gathered once again in NY to reaffirm the MDGs and discuss related
issues. Among the outcomes, the heads of states expressed their commitment to achieve the MDGs
by 2015, pledged an additional $50 billion a year by 2010 to fight poverty, and addresses such
issues as innovative financing for development.
Despite some progress in goals, progress had slowed for some MDGs in 2012 (MDGs Report
2012), in part due to the multiple financial crises which arose in 2008 and cut development
assistance. El libro se escribió en 2012 y hace predicciones para el 2015 que pueden haberse
cumplido o no, pero no voy a poner porque es simplemente un pronóstico. ‘Anyways, a failure in
achieving the MDGs, provided that significant progress has been made, need not be seen as a
failure in economic and social development.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE

The third pillar of sustainable development is economic development. The relationship between
the global economy and the natural environment goes a long way to explaining the evolution of
global environmental politics. The global economy has changed dramatically over the past 60
years. Post-WWII of the 50s & 60s was essentially divided between developed/developing
(North-South)
By 1974, developing countries attempted to restructure the global economic system. The South
called for a bold but largely unrealistic plan, the New International Economic Order (NIEO), a
list of demands for the redistribution of wealth, which would include a set of petitions so as the
developing countries to receive more help and have advantage regarding the developed countries.
After the 1970s, the NIEO faded from the global political agenda as economic trends turned
against the South.
In the 1980s, falling commodity prices devastated the economies of countries heavily dependent on
commodity exports.
But the global economy was also changing. From 1998 to 2008, the worlds economy doubled in
size (from $31 trillion to $62 trillion), and a handful of large developing countries accounted for
the largest growth.
However, despite the growth of some economies, the income gap between the industrialized world
and the developing world has not narrowed.
When the GATT was negotiated just after WWII, there was no mention of the word environment.
The GATT and the WTO constitute a regime which seeks to promote a common set of
international trade rules, a reduction in tariffs and other trade barriers, and the elimination of
discriminatory treatment in international trade relations. The preamble of the treatment which
established the WTO recognized that the organization should ensure the optimal use of the
world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development – nonbinding.
In November 2001, the WTO held the Doha conference in Qatar, and ministers agreed to set a
declaration which was focused around nine topics, one of them was the environment.
However, WTO member states failed to complete their negotiations in 2005, and the trade talks
were formally declared at an impasse at the end of 2011.
The Relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the WTO
More than twenty multiralteral agreements (MEAs) incorporate trade measures to help them
achieve their goals, this means that the agreements use restraints on trade in particular substances
or products, either between parties to the treaty or between parties and nonparties, or both.
Trade-restriting measures in an environmental agreement may serve on of two broad purposes.
First, they may control a type of trade perceived to be a source of the environmental damage that
the convention seeks to address.
Second, environmental agreements may control trade as a means to ensure regime participation,
compliance, and effectiveness.
The potential problem with using trade measures in MEAs is that they might conflict with WTO
rules (an agreement claiming that parties can use trade restrictions against some countries
-nonparties- but not against others -parties- may violate articles I, III and XI of the GATT.

Environmental Issues and the WTO Dispute Settlement System

Disputes between trade liberalization and environmental protection have increased in both
number and diplomatic prominence.
Policies which seek to regulate or restrict trade as a tool to address environmental problems are
caked environmental trade measures (ETMs). Exporters disadvantaged by such environmental
measures may claim that the polcies are actually intented to protect domestic producers from
foreign competition. Sometimes, the exporting countries bring such complaints to the WTO’s
dispute-resolution panels.
When a country believes that an ETM unfairly restricts market access, it can file a complaint, and
a GATT/WTO dispute-resolution panel has the authority to determine whether a particular trade
measureis or is not compatible with the GATTT trade rules.

Ecolabeling, standards, and certification

The use of ecolabels -labeling products according to environmental criteria- by gvernments,
industry and NGOs is increasing. But the same problem appears with this technique (although in
a lesser degree). WTO members have doubts regarding whether these schemes could be misused
to protect domestic producers. For this reason, the schemes should not discriminate between
countries and should not create unnecessary barriers or disguised restrictions on international
trade.
Certification and labeling became an international issue after the establishment in 1993 of the
FSC, an independent NGO that created the world’s first third-party ecolabeling scheme for wood
products. The FSC-labeling scheme is the preferred scheme for buyers’ groups in numerous
countries, including Austria, UK, US and Japan, this unprecedent alliance of major companies,
NGOs, and other supporters has resulted in arguably greater levels of dialogue and progress than
the formal international negotiations and has begun to change forest-management practices
worldwide.
Some countries are hostile to particular private ecolabeling schemes because they threaten to
reuce markets for a domestic industry guilty of unsustainable practices.
Subsidies and the Environment
Another issue on the trade-and-environment agenda is what the CTE calls ‘the environmental
benefits of removing trade restrictions and distortions’, -a diplomatic euphemism for eliminating
subsidies that harm the environment.
Subsidies can have negative impacts on the environment, especially in the commodity sectors
(agriculture, fossil fuels). They draw a higher level of investment into these sectors and exacerbate
the overexploitation of land, forests, and fish. They can also reduce the cost of particular practices,
products, or technologies which harm the environment.

Liberalizing trade in Environmental Goods and Services

The final trade-environment issue to be discussed here is that of liberalizing trade in
environmental goods and services. The 2001 Doha ministerial declaration instructs WTO
members to negotiate the reduction or elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers on
environmental goods and services. The WTO emphasizes that these negotiations will facilitate
trade, since domestic purchasers will be able to acquire environmental technologies from foreign
companies at lower costs. The environment will benefit because of the wider availability of less
expensive products and technologies, which in turn will improve the quality of life by providing
better access to clean water, sanitation, and clean energy.
On the other hand, the difficulty of defining environmental goods and services for the purposes of
reducing trade barriers has plagued the negotiations since they began in 2002. These negotiations
could have an impact on several MEAs.

The Outlook for Trade and Environment

Cosas que podrían llegar a pasar en la Doha Round de 2013, motivos para tener éxito o fracasar.
(el libro se escribió en 2011). Por lo que he visto en internet, parece q no tuvieron éxito.

CONCLUSION
The evolution of global environmental politics cannot be understood completely outside the
context of the three dimensions of sustainable development.
Despite the apparent tension between economic, social, and environmental goals in both developed
and developing countries, many respected observers argue that in the long run, economic health
depends on social and ecological health.

Chapter 7

The future of global environmental politics

2015 was expected to be a great moment due to the negotiations for the sustainable development
goals (Agenda 2030), there were many conventions: addis ababa, others to strengthen multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs) or the Montreal protocol.
But the optimism has faded for some, because as issued by the UNEP, multilateral environmental
policy has failed to reverse or slow down global environmental threats including climate change or
biodiversity loss due to implementation battles over technical assistance, accountability...
At the same time, the economic costs of environmental degradation continue to grow.
This chapter examines the challenges of global environmental governance, and how the structure
should change to meet these challenges.
Global environmental governance in a changing international system
Since 70s the international activity on environmental issues has increased more than in any other
global issue. But, activity doesn’t produce success, neither cooperation means effective action.
What occurs depends on how the policies intersect with the complex reality.
The first of these complex realities involves the broad changes in the international system,
east-west cold war politics, after north-south at the Earth Summit, now the struggle is to
determine which countries take which actions and who should provide and receive FTA (free
trade agreements). The inequalities, for example the top five non-OECD countries (China, Brazil,
India Russia and Indonesia) and the thirty four OECD countries represent 85% of World GDP,
but the forty eight least developed countries (LDCs) represent 1% of world’s GDP. This creates
CBDR (common but different responsibilities) as the poorer ones argue the necessity of resources
to avoid poverty, and the industrialized ones claim that they can evolve without imitating their
model.
The second, the proliferation of stakeholders: countries, coalitions, IGOs, NGOs, corporations,
foundations, states and provinces, big cities… and the impossibility of imposing top-down policies.
The cross-cutting interests makes more difficult to achieve the required broad consensus.
Corporations still have a significant influence opposing MEAs (multilateral environmental
agreements) as in the chemicals. But, this is positive in the case of NGOs, playing key roles in
agenda setting and regime implementation, this fact makes that regimes become public-private
and private-private more than between state actors (public-public). However, this doesn’t replace
the ability of effective governments, environmental private action shouldn’t seek to replace state
action, but to work in tandem.
The third is the fragmentation of global environmental issues. Far from holistic, it is fragmented
and unequal. This results in conflicting agendas, for example, some argue that HFC should be
considered in climate regime, others under binding Montreal Protocol. Across IGOs, including
UN, the issues are addressed without effective coordination, so the responsibility remains
fragmented.
The fourth reality is the need for universality. It refers to recognition of the interconnectedness of
national and global environment and development challenges and universal commitments to
address them. Environmental issues concern public goods so they affect everyone regardless of
wealth, gender or race. Thus, they need individual and collective action. The awareness of the
global participation started in the Montreal Protocol negotiations in the early 90s. But this doesn’t
mean universal ratification and implementation.
The fifth reality is that intergovernmental negotiating process itself is still a necessity. Many critics
because it’s slow, and environmental problems don’t slow down while governments negotiate.
Although not every MEA has been negotiated within the UN system, it has been recognized has
the main venue for addressing these issues. As the international systems is still centered on states,
governments will still be decision-making authorities.

The continuing evolution of global environmental governance

Since Rio+20 in 2012, global environmental institutions have sought to evolve in response to the
realities previously outlined. The UN has evolved to adapt SDGs, thee are the evolution aspects:
-Evolution of Multilateral environmental agreements
The early MEAs (70s - 90s) did not contemplate interdependence of environmental issues, they
failed to integrante environmental standards into economic development policies, and they lacked
mechanisms to hold states accountable, so it was more utilitarian than ecological.
The second phase, just before the 1992 Rio Declaration and continuing in Minamata Convention
on Mercury in 2013 led to negotiations that resulted in the UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD, Stockholm
convention, Rotterdam convention, Minamata Convention and the expansion of the Montreal
Protocol. Their creation and expansion represent important achievements.
The third phase is more recent and concerned with implementation and effectiveness. This
actually makes a difference on the ground rather than just the creation of new agreements. A
critical issue is compliance, as there is not international court, the implementation is left up to
national governments that enact domestic laws. This raises the question whether reform of
international institutions is required to improve the national implementation. On the one hand, a
trend to enhance the role of international institutions. On the other one, significant resistance to
delegating enforcement powers, even monitoring. Then, there is not any solution.
Due to this fragmentation, some stakeholders seek greater collaboration and cooperation, for
example, the Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions created a joint secretariat, joint
meetings.
UNEP tries to create better cooperation among six biodiversity-related conventions, although is
not as developed as the previous initiative.
-Evolution of the UNEP
UNEP is the lead UN organization on the environment. It was established in 1972, it has grown in
its size and complexity. SDGs is one of its two main agenda items. There were two main camps,
one included institutional reformists who wanted to improve the current system, the other side
thinks that another organization should replace the current one with the status of an official
specialized agency that doesn’t have yet. Some even think in creating a world environment agency
as the WTO with international legislature and ability to judge.
In Rio+20 the second opinion was not supported. But, they agreed that all countries can join
UNEP’s Governing council, and other measures to strengthen responsiveness and accountability.
The first universal governing council, renamed UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) convened in
2014. It called for the full integration of the environmental dimension of the SDGs. UNEP must
not provide leadership in implementing this dimension within the UN system and create
monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

From the commission on SD to the high-level political forum on SD

In Rio+20, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was really criticized, so, later in
2012, the UNGA formally established the High Level Political Forum on SD (HLPF), which
operates under ECOSOC and the UNGA giving a higher political profile than the CSD. It’s
charged with political leadership, guidance and recommendations for SD, following up and
reviewing by having annually meetings for 8 days. It is too soon to determine its effectiveness.

Does evolution mean change?

The evolution doesn’t guarantee positive change. Perhaps, the biggest obstacle to improve is
political will. Some of the political and economic leaders that oppose action appear to believe that
they live in isolation from these dangerous trends. They dismiss the idea of the existence of all the
explained threats. Others worry about their national sovereignty or the economic growth. Thus,
global environmental governance is not as ambitious as expected.

Conclusion
IN July 2015 the Addis Adaba Action Agenda (AAAA) was adopted to provide the financial and
technical means to implement the SDGs. The following events work for the future of
multilateralism
1) delegates from almost 200 nations adopted the Paris agreement aimed at keeping the
globa temperature rise below 2ºC
2) governments agreed to negotiate an instrument on the conservation of marine
biodiversity in areas beyond natural jurisdiction under the Law of the Sea.
3) Parties to Montreal Protocol agreed to an amendment
4) Parties to the Stockholm Convention added new chemicals that overcome economic
interests
5) UNFF (UNForum on forests) adopted the International Arrangement on Forests (IAF)
and the UNCCD adopted decisions. Both centered and promoted coherence with SDGs

But, threats continue unabated. This raises questions as; Can the international community
develop effective cooperative efforts? it depends on the issue (+ for whales, or for ozone layer) (-
for biodiversity loss, desertification, global fisheries,), one important factor is to continue efforts to
improve the effectiveness of environmental regimes even after they are adopted.
Moreover, environmental regimes are not the only forces that influence global environmental
governance,
1) multilateral institutions do too like UNEP, IPCC (IPanel on climate change), IPBES (I Science
policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services) or GEF (Financial support). However,
these institutions don’t always have enough resources to promote strong regimes. 2) The world’s
global trade and financial institutions as WB, IMF or WTO also play important roles, the first two
apparently do, but there are many critics but non-developed countries. WTO brought a bit of
good on environmental issues by phasing out export subsidies for some agricultural products.
3) US, when it’s engaged, it usually overcomes reluctance (whaling, ozone depletion, elephants,
fish stocks or climate negotiations, el libro está escrito antes de trump jeje). When it’s a veto state
(desertification, POPs or biodiversity) the regime is negatively affected. China, India and the EU
are kind of the same.
4) business, now, in general terms, they play an active role due to economic interests because of
the corporate social responsibility image. But, there are very important negative cases too.
5) Domestic political support which will not likely happen without civil society influencing
national public opinion and pushing governments at the international level. NGOs such as
Greenpeace or WWF, the most important challenge for them is to build political pressure on
reluctant states.

Global environmental politics has grown more complex since the Stockholm Conference in 1972,
many more issues, more institutions… it is a sign of progress, but still not enough to meet the
significant challenge (al o mejor no es la 27527 vez que lo dice). The SD Agenda might be the shift
as it is the first time that a UN development agenda recognizes the interlinkages of ecosystems,
poverty eradication, economic development and human well-being.
Conclusion: what the future bring is unclear, there are reasons for both optimism and grave
concern. But, the need for innovative and creative global solutions is greater than ever.