Global Environmental Politics Uc3m
Global Environmental Politics Uc3m
Global Environmental Politics Uc3m
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
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
§ 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
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
§ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
grvf dcCHAPTER 6
carlos
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
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.