Week 9: International environmental agreements Flashcards Preview

Environmental Fundamentals > Week 9: International environmental agreements > Flashcards

Flashcards in Week 9: International environmental agreements Deck (29)
Loading flashcards...


The North Pacific Marine Science Organization - a 1992 IGO whose mission is "to promote and coordinate marine research in the North Pacific and adjacent seas. Countries" (Canada, Japan, China, Korea, Russia, US)


Global Governance Forms of International Rules or Laws

3000+ multilateral agreements, customary practices, and judicial opinions


Norms "soft law"

Some human rights and labor laws; framework conventions on climate change and biodiversity


Global Governance Structures (formal and informal)

- IGOs, global (UN, WTO), regional (EU)
- international courts
- global conferences
- NGOs providing humanitarian relief
- ad hoc conferences


International Regimes

Linked principles, norms, rules, decision-making structures for an issue area


Functions of an IGO

-Informational (gathering, analyzing, disseminating data)
- Forum (provide space for exchange of views, decision-making)
-Normative (definition standards of behavior)
- Rule-creating (drafting legally binding treaties)
- Supervisory ( monitoring compliance with rules, settling disputes, enforcement)
- Operational (allocate resources, tech assistance)


Environmental Institutions

- Generally deal with poorly understood problems that are 10 to 20 years outdated.
- Recommendation: policies and organizations that comprise institutions should not codify existing knowledge in rigid rules - should foster open-ended knowledge creation


Characteristics of Effective Institutions

Agenda setting, international policy formulation, national policy response; symbolic institutional responses if strong rules are blocked by reluctant states


Power of Institutions

When international principles and norms achieve a certain legitimacy and are viewed as intrinsically valuable: can increase concern by linking issues such as material incentive (financial aid and technology) as well as enabling an ongoing negotiating process for participants


Role of International Institutions

- Helping weak states or groups of states put issues on the international agenda
- Give proponents of action greater influence than would have in an anarchic system
- Monitoring and evaluation (measure environmental quality, observe sources of potential pollution, track national policy, and or serve as "scapegoats" for costly measures"


Customary Law (International Legal System)

Practices generally followed, rather than by just a a few countries

Many countries, esp. in Europe consider the precautionary principle as part of customary international law, but this is debated by the US among others


Treaties (conventions or protocols

- legally binding agreements between countries or IGOs
- generally enter into force after a required number of countries agree to be bound by the treaty
- HOWEVER, only applicable to those countries who consented
- AND only effective to the DEGREE it is implemented
- Examples: Principle 21 of Stockholm Declaration 1972 and Principle 2 of Rio Declaration


Signing vs. Ratification of a Treaty

Signing: an agreement between national delegations - expresses intention to comply, but is not binding

Ratification: approval of agreement by the state (parliament, congress) that they consent to be officially bound by the treaty


International Institutions and Political Change

Institutions make a difference if they produce political change: enhance ability to make and keep agreements, promotion concern among governments, build national policy and administrative capacity


3 Treaties Signed by the US

1. Non-Proliferation Treaty, opened 1968, enacted in 1970
2. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (open in 1966, not in force)
3. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), open in 2001, enacted 2004


3 Characteristics of Effective International Agreements

1. Treaty must attract broad internal and external participation - change behavior by changing incentives that cause states to not cooperate
2. Deter countries for not complying - create incentives
3. Get countries to participate where substantial action is required


4 Barriers to Effective Government Response

1. Low levels of concern for the environmental threat
2. Lack of capacity to manage threat
3. Inability to overcome problems of collective action
4. industry reluctance


How Can Institutions Boost Concern?

- Shift states understanding of their interests by normative pronouncements (e.g. trans-boundary air pollution) and collaborative scientific review (Montreal Protocol)
- Magnify public pressure by generating cross government competition
- Role of intergovernment vs nongovernment organizations


How does Public Concern Grow?

When issues are socially significant, apparently nontechnical, broadly defined, and emotional - all of which are fulfilled by the ozone hole


Role of Regulations

Regulations do more than regulation: help generate political concern, set normative standards, communicate intensity of preferences, legitimate financial transfers



Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators - database from the Center for International Earth Science Information Network


Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

- Vienna Conference of 1985, entered into force 1988 and ratified by 196 states
- Framework does not include legally binding reduction goals for he use of CFCs (in Montreal Protocol)


Montreal Protocol

A subset of the Vienna Conventions ratified in 2009

Guiding Principes:
-"common but differentiated responsibilities"
- precautionary principle
- base policies and action on sound science

Key Points:
- quantitative emission limits for industrial transition and developing countries
- Industrial countries pay for added costs to developing countries
- Trade sanctions for non-participatios and violators
- Initial protocol modest; gradually tightened over 10 year period


Montreal Protocol Accomplishments

- 2010 reported compliance on CFC's, halons, etc.
- Phase out of 98% of the historic ozone-depleting substances
- Remaining 2% (HCFCs) to be phased out
- Recovery of ozone lay be approx. 2050


UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - Kyoto Protocol

- Stemmed from Rio Conference 1992
- US signed and ratified UNFCC
- Kyoto Protocol (1977) defines emission reduction for Annex I (developed) countries/ developing countries largely exempt
- penalties for noncompliance missing


Challenges for Developing Countries?

- Hard to implement regulations designed by developed countries ( esp. for fair and effective environmental regulations - developing countries want to me standard "makers" not "taker"; also complicated by funding of aid from developed countries)
- Standards too strict, and changes are made too quickly and supported by unclear science


Role for Umbrella Organizations of NGO's : ECOS

European Environmental Citizens Organization for Standardization (mission: enhance the voice of environmental protection in definitions of standards and specifications for products and services in the EU)
- sound measurement methods for pollutants
- green management systems in businesses
- improve consumer information towards sustainable consumption


The Path to Effectiveness: the 3 C's

1. Increase gov't Concern (direct linkage of issues; create, collect, dissemination scientific info, etc.)
2. Enhance Contractual environment (bargaining forums to reduce transaction costs, iterative decision-making process)
3. Build national Capacity (create networks to transfer technical and mgmt expertise, financial assistance, poloicy-relvant info and expertice)


Montreal vs. Kyoto Reading

Montreal was an international agreement signed by 183 countries designed to control ozone-depleting chemicals. It has been a big success and nations are complying with their obligations - ozone will be back to natural level by 2050.

Kyoto, on the other hand, attempted to address climate change and was signed by 130 nations and went into force in 1997. HOWEVER, many nations are not complying with their obligations hence GHG emissions are forecasted to rise.

Authors conclusion: both the success of the Montreal Protocol and outcome (or lack thereof) of Kyoto are largely attributed to the decisions by the US, which were driven purely by a domestic CBA. Specifically, the monetized benefits FAR exceeded the monetized costs for the former that the US could have chosen to act unilaterally to fix the ozone, while for latter, the monetized costs of Kyoto dwarfed the benefits. Overall, Kyoto was seen as a very costly endeavor with little relative gains.

Neither protocol presented an easy "prisoners dilemma" the easiest situation for an international agreement