International Environmental Agreements

Steinar Andresen, Elin Lerum Boasson, Geir Hønneland, Steinar Andresen, Elin Lerum Boasson, Geir Hønneland

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136591907
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

International environmental agreements provide a practical basis for countries to address environmental issues on a global scale. This book explores the workings and outcomes of these agreements, and analyses key questions of why some problems are dealt with successfully and others ignored.

By examining fundamental policies and issues in environmental protection this text gives an easily comprehensible introduction to international environmental agreements, and discusses problems in three areas: air, water and on land. It traces the history of agreements in broad thematic areas related to long-distance air pollution, ozone-depleting and greenhouse gases, ocean management, biological diversity, agricultural plant diversity and forest stewardship. Drawing on experts in their respective fields, this book provides an insightful evaluation of the successes and failures, and analysis of the reasons for this. Concluding with an insightful examination of research to show how performance of agreements can be improved in the future, this volume is a vital contribution to our understanding of the politics associated with establishing international environmental consensus.

International Environmental Agreements will be of interest to scholars, students and researchers in global environmental politics, international relations and political science.

Steinar Andresen is Senior Research Fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway, and formerly professor at the Dept. of Political Science, University of Oslo.

Elin Lerum Boasson is Research Fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway.

Geir Hønneland is Research Director at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø.

Part I

Introduction

1 An International Environmental Policy takes Shape

Steinar Andresen, Elin Lerum Boasson and Geir Hønneland

Important Years

1872	The world’s first national park established
1900	The first international convention for the conservation of nature signed
1948	The International Union for the Protection of Nature established (name changed to International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1956, with the acronym IUCN)
1961	World Wildlife Fund (WWF) established
1962	The book Silent Spring published
1972	The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment
1972	United Nations Environment Programme established
1987	United Nations report Our Common Future published
1992	Rio Conference on Environment and Development
2000	UN Millennium Declaration
2002	World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg

International environmental problems have now been on the political agenda for more than thirty years. The traditional approach to deal with these problems is to establish multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). There has been a tremendous growth in these agreements and several hundreds now exist. Although some of them have had a positive effect on the problem at hand, overall progress has been limited and existing environmental problems are formidable. In this book we explore the emergence of the environment as an international political issue. The main focus, however, is on the working and effect of these agreements. Why are some problems dealt with rather effectively while there is little or no progress within other issue areas? Also, what can be done to improve their problem-solving ability?

Although a few scattered conservation agreements had appeared in the early years of the twentieth century, the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment is generally considered the watershed event sparking a truly international approach to the environment. The conference resulted in several international agreements in the field of what is usually referred to as ‘classic’ nature conservation – the protection of endangered species for example. As the 1970s progressed, treaties targeted air and water pollution, usually within a demarcated part of the globe. By the 1980s, pollution was a worldwide concern and initiatives promoted an international programme to reduce emissions of substances known to deplete the ozone layer. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, concluded in 1982, was followed a decade later by another epoch making event, the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Several important agreements came out of the summit, including conventions on biological diversity and climate change. The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg did not produce the same kind of substantial output. More recently, environment, particularly climate change, has been on the agenda of more exclusive high-level international political forums like G-8 and G-20.

Changing international relations and trends affect perceptions of environmental problems and the options for dealing with them. In this book we discuss the most important multilateral arrangements set up to address environmental problems in three areas: air, water and nature protection/ biological diversity. This threefold division informs the structure of the book as a whole. The part on air deals with long-distance air pollution, ozone-depleting gases and greenhouse gases. The section on water examines the international stewardship of the oceans, including ocean law, marine pollution and fisheries management. The section on soil and diversity in nature addresses biological diversity, agricultural plant diversity and forest stewardship. Under each heading we look at international systems of collaboration and achievements to date. To conclude we compare approaches and discuss possible ways forward to improve performance and outcomes of international environmental policy.

We approach these issues from a political science angle, a main topic being the political bargaining over diagnoses of the ailment and appropriate cure – perceptions and conceptualisations. Science teaches us about natural processes and nature’s response to human interference: both of which are an essential background for discussing substantive policy options. It is not surprising that scientists were the first to ‘discover’ the threat facing environment, and came up with methods for dealing with it. Political science, for its part, can help explain why some environmental problems are solved relatively quickly and others are suspended in a semi-permanent state of political contention, with no conclusion in sight. Insofar as the problems themselves differ, policy must obviously be designed around the particular issue in question. Bringing the issue to international attention is sometimes an effective approach, sometimes not. Further, the form or configuration of the international response will vary; some approaches may be fruitful while others may fail.

The international collaboration on environmental matters interferes with national and local problem-solving efforts. Sometimes MEAs may enable and promote national and local problem-solving efforts, while in other instances it may hamper such efforts. In any case, increased knowledge of the international policy framework will make it easier for national and local actors to select fruitful strategy and tools.

In this introduction we explain what we understand by international environmental politics, the book’s main contentions and theoretical grounding. This leads to an account of international cooperation on the environment, its origins and history. We stay with history when we turn to the emergence of a truly international approach, before concluding with a review of the ensuing chapters.

Theoretical Approach

The prefix ‘inter-’ means ‘between’ or ‘among’. Hitched onto ‘national’ it becomes ‘international’ and signifies the presence or involvement of two or more states. ‘International’ in this literal sense is too narrow a concept for our purposes. In the field of the environment, numerous non-governmental organisations and transnational corporations operate outside their country of origin. International, in our rendition, will therefore include relations between governments and non-governmental organisations, and between the latter organisations themselves. Politics is understood just as broadly. Any process or situation impinging on the creation and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements will be considered relevant.

In this book we shall be looking in particular at the political practices of parties to relatively stable treaties and conventions. Usually based on some kind of written settlement or pact, both the degree and type of commitment taken on by governments can vary. We shall use the terms ‘accord’ and ‘regime’ interchangeably with the term ‘international environmental agreement’, which includes the institutional arrangements surrounding the agreement itself. Bilateral agreements, between two individual nation-states, are the least complicated. Agreements can have a specific regional or geographical focus, generally the home region of the signatories. When governments from different regions and continents come together for a common purpose, the resulting approach is global. Our interest in this book lies mainly with arrangements at the regional and global levels, that is with MEAs.

Each chapter asks the same set of questions:

1 What is the nature of the particular problem?

2 What is the history of the MEAs that are developed to cope with the problem?

3 How do the MEAs operate?

4 How effective have the MEAs been in solving the problems they were set up to deal with?

5 What explains the performance of the MEAs?

Our first question concerns problem identification, that is, the reason why this particular multilateral arrangement was created. We inquire into the type of problem, its magnitude and significance. How far does its geographical impact extend? Is it a local, regional or global problem? In the event of environmental damage, do the harmful processes take place in water, in the soil or in the atmosphere?

We are interested in more than the technical and scientific aspects, however. If we want to understand the political discussions, we need to know how environmental problems challenge conventional mindsets, behaviour and actors. How far does the scientific community agree on the causes of the problem? Is one particular sector of society affected, or several? Will taking action result in piecemeal political concessions, and are powerful constituencies likely to feel threatened? Finding answers to these questions will tell us a great deal about the problem itself and not the least how difficult or easy it will be to solve the relevant problems. We will therefore get back to this aspect under question five where we explain performance.

The second question addresses the creation and history of the MEA. When was the problem identified? How long did it take before the international community responded? Who helmed the work? Did new states join or current members leave the negotiations? Could certain episodes in all the rounds of negotiations be characterised as particularly momentous? Where is the arrangement in terms of its ‘life cycle’? Is it young and healthy, or already passed its ‘sell by date’ in respect of the initial cause?

Our third question explores how the MEAs operate. To grasp the potential of a collaborative effort, we need to analyse it substantively. According to sociologist Richard W. Scott (1995) social structures may be understood as being normative, cognitive or regulative. This may also work as a template for describing the key content of the various MEAs. The normative dimension covers the values and moral principles that are promoted. One manifestation will be the urgency with which the problem is viewed relative to other pressing issues. Strongly normative regimes will be at pains to establish and communicate clear goals and values. What do they ultimately hope to achieve in addressing this environmental problem? What should be the moral principles of their work? Which values should take precedence? Surveillance mechanisms can be created for monitoring compliance. If countries violate the normative principles of the regime, they run the risk of alienating the public; if they uphold the principles, however, they will be applauded.

The cognitive aspect concerns how the problem is perceived and how remedies are presented. The key factors are the main causes of the problem, the degree to which something can be done about it, whether economic or regulatory action seems the best approach. When the cognitive element is central, the regime will encourage scientific studies and release considerable resources for research on likely solutions and procedures. Mapping cognitive content also means establishing the causes of the environmental problem and its impact. Which principles are likely to shed light on effective solutions? Some regimes will be strong enough to influence a state’s perception of the problem, by bringing scientists and bureaucrats on board, providing training programmes and manuals for those engaged in addressing the problem.

Regulatory aspects are formal sets of rules governing the arrangement. The crucial thing here is whether the agreements contain legally binding commitments on the participating states. How rigorous, far-reaching or ambitious are these commitments? Are they rendered in clear, lucid, easily understood language? Oversight and enforcement mechanisms tend to be built into the more rigorous treaties, including some form of punitive action for non-compliance. Here it is pertinent to ask whether surveillance and dispute mechanisms are sufficiently robust. Are states likely to lose rights for breaking the rules? Are economic penalties a real possibility? Does the regime have the muscle to enforce punitive measures?

While some MEAs are strong on the normative aspects, others rely on the cognitive or regulatory ones. Some agreements utilise all three dimensions more or less equally. Regulatory measures are usually practised by parties to the agreement in a top-down direction. The normative and cognitive elements work – without necessarily invoking governmental intervention – by encouraging the media, private sector, experts and interest organisations to examine and change if necessary attitudes and opinions. Historically, political science has laid most weight on the regulatory pillar. Carefully, precisely worded provisions were therefore expected to have greater effect in practice than loosely formulated, airy commitments. However that may be, the regulatory strength does not as such tell us much about what the treaty means in practice. Strict and precise rules and regulations increase the potential for higher effectiveness, but it is no guarantee that it happens.

In the 1970s and 1980s, social scientists wanted to explain how and why treaties came into existence (Young 1989; Haas 1990; Benedick 1991). By the late 1990s, the performance or effectiveness of treaties was attracting attention (Victor et al. 1998; Weiss and Jacobson 1998; Young 1999); by then, many had ‘come of age’. Had they done well? Had they made a tangible difference? The problem with performance questions is the difficulty involved in assessing it. The most obvious method is to compare performance with official goals. If the goals are plain and clear, uncontroversial and easily measured, this can be a useful approach. But targets are frequently vague, with governments and observers harbouring very different ideas about what they boil down to. The essential question we nevertheless shall try to answer is whether the multilateral institution has succeeded in solving the problem that occasioned its creation.

Thus, in question four we set out to evaluate the relevant MEAs. Up until quite recently there has been a considerable debate among scholars on how best to measure the performance of MEAs. More recently, however, there is an emerging consensus that a distinction should be made between output, outcome and impact (Underdal 2002). Output is the rules and regulations constituting the MEA, thereby similar to the regulatory aspects described above. This indicator is fairly easy to measure and is much used by students of international law. Strict rules and regulations normally indicate a more effective MEA, but we do not know that until we find out what actually happens on the ground. That is, output tells us about potential effectiveness more than actual effectiveness. That is why additional measurement criteria are needed. Outcome deals with the set of consequences flowing from the implementation of the rules and regulations laid down in the relevant cooperative arrangements. That is, the more successful the state-parties are in actually implementing the regulations, the more effective the MEA in question. A key element in this process is to get the key target groups to change behaviour in the direction described by the regime. The final indicator, impact, deals with the consequences that materialise as changes in the state of the environment itself – as a result of the relevant MEA.

To measure output is a fairly straightforward process, but there are severe challenges in measuring the two others, particularly the impact indicator. This is so because of the difficulty in establishing a causal link between the relevant components of the MEA and the behaviour of target groups as well as effects on nature itself. Ideally, the one indicator we would like to use most is the impact indicator as it gives the best measurement on the ‘real’ effect on the problem caused by the MEA. However, due to the influence of a host of other factors, this indicator is very difficult to use; many other factors impinge on the state of the environment apart from a treaty or convention. Isolating the effects of a treaty from other phenomena such as natural variation, or economic, technological or social change, is extraordinarily complicated.

To illustrate challenges regarding the application of the outcome indicator, it is not enough, for instance, to point to a drop in emissions or reduced catches: they could just as easily have completely different causes. Two examples illustrate the difficulty. In the early 1960s, there was a noticeable slide in the numbers of great whales caught. But it was not because the International Whaling Commission had tightened the rules; after decades of over-exploitation the whale population was decimated and, naturally, harder to find. And when emissions of greenhouse gases fell steeply in Europe in the early 1990s, the main cause was not the Climate Convention, but the sudden slowdown in industrial output following the Soviet Union’s collapse. But as various studies show, the impact of many agreements is both immediate and strong on participating countries’ behaviour. One of the clearest examples is the Montreal Protocol under the ozone regime.

Altogether this leaves us with five indicators on how to measure or evaluate the performance of the MEAs described and analysed in this book: normative (‘strength’), cognitive (‘strength’), regulative (or output), outcome and impact. It is fairly straightforward to measure the first three of these indicators. We will apply the two latter and more methodologically challenging indicators only when analysing the more ‘mature’ MEAs. Many treaties and conventions analysed are relatively young: it would be quite unrealistic to expect them to have solved a complex environmental problem within the space of a couple of decades or so. It takes time to induce behavioural change and even more so impact on nature. However, in the concluding chapter we will investigate closer the possible inter-linkages between the different indicators. For example, will a high score on the ‘softer’ indicators (norms and cognition) also render a high score on the harder indicators (output and outcome)?

Turning then to question five, how do we explain the performance of the various MEAs and why some are much more successful than others? These quest...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• PART I Introduction
• 1 An International Environmental Policy Takes Shape
• PART II Air pollution
• 2 Reducing Long-Range Transport of Air Pollutants in Europe
• 3 International Ozone Policies Effective Environmental Cooperation
• 4 International Climate Cooperation Clear Recommendations, Weak Commitments
• PART III Ocean management
• 5 Law of the Sea Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment
• 6 North Sea Pollution Control One Problem, Different Solutions
• 7 International Fisheries Politics From Sustainability to Precaution
• PART IV Nature protection and biodiversity
• 8 Convention On Biological Diversity From National Conservation to Global Responsibility
• 9 The Plant Treaty Crop Genetic Diversity and Food Security
• 10 International Forest Politics Intergovernmental Failure, Non-Governmental Success?
• PART V Conclusions
• 11 Ideals and Practice in International Environmental Politics
• Index