IFGT

Report on Environmental
Diplomacy
 [Type a quote from the document or
the summary of an interesting point.
You can position the text box
anywhere in the document. Use the
Text Box Tools tab to change the
formatting of the pull quote text box.]

Environmental Diplomacy:

“Diplomacy is the established method of international discourse or the

art of managing international relation, chiefly by negotiation.
Historically, it meant the conduct of official relations between
sovereign states, usually bilaterally. In the 20th century diplomacy
expanded to cover summit meetings and other international
conferences, public and parliamentary diplomacy, the international
activities of supranational and sub national entities, unofficial
diplomacy by nongovernmental elements, and the work of
international civil servants.”

Environmental diplomacy can be broken into two general categories:

conventions regulating the use of natural resources, and conventions
regulating pollution. In each case, the central problem is that political
boundaries rarely reflect biological boundaries, so that as national
economies consume resources and produce pollution, they spread
environmental problems far beyond their national boundaries. The
sheer size of the U.S. economy has given it both the power to degrade
the environment around the world and the influence to push diplomatic
efforts to protect the environment.

For most of its history, the United States has been one of the leading
nations in the field of environmental diplomacy, but at the end of the
twentieth century the United States found itself more often on the
outside, as global discussions produced treaties that were increasingly
unacceptable to the U.S. government. This loss of leadership has
coincided with a shift away from bilateral treaties, first to small
multilateral treaties and then to conventions that are open to every
nation. That shift has been a logical reaction to an increasing
international awareness that some of the biggest threats to human
society come from global environmental problems, but it has meant
that the United States has been less able to shape the course of
events to its liking.

Environmental diplomacy has almost always been a secondary, or

even tertiary, goal of U.S. foreign policy. Simultaneously, though, it is
often the product of intense domestic political pressure, as
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have done a masterful job of
putting their members' concerns on the diplomatic agenda. As such, it
usually reflects the primary diplomatic and domestic goals of the time.
Hence, in the twentieth century, such trends and policies as
progressivism, the Good Neighbor Policy, containment, détente, and
environmentalism, as well as the state of the national and world
economy, all played crucial roles in shaping specific treaties. In
addition, the increase in scientific knowledge as well as public
awareness of and faith in that science were crucial elements in shaping
the course of environmental diplomacy during the twentieth century.
The United States has almost always been a strong proponent of using
science as an impartial tool in international environmental protection,
particularly in moving away from static treaties to dynamic bodies that
can address changing problems.

Finally, one must acknowledge that just as there are formal and
informal forms of diplomacy, so too are there formal and informal
kinds of environmental diplomacy. While the focus here is largely on
conventions and treaties, it should be remembered that the sheer
appetite of the United States for imported goods created an
unintended international environmental impact that might actually be
greater than that generated by formal environmental diplomacy.
Background

In the early 1980s, scientists were beginning to raise concerns about

climate change.

In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was

created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
the World Meterological Organization (WMO) to assess the scientific
knowledge on global warming. Its first major report in 1990 showed
that there was broad international consensus that climate change was
human-induced.

That report led way to an international convention for climate change.

This became the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), signed by over 150 countries at the Rio Earth
Summit in 1992. (By the middle of 2000, over 180 countries had
signed and ratified it).

The Convention took effect in 1994. By 1995 negotiations had started

on a protocol — an international agreement linked to the existing
treaty, but standing on its own. This led to the Kyoto Protocol, adopted
unanimously in 1997. The main purposes of this protocol was to:

 Provide mandatory targets on greenhouse-gas emissions for the

world's leading economies all of whom accepted it at the time;
 Provide flexibility in how countries meet their targets;
 Further recognize that commitments under the Protocol would
vary from country to country.
  Major Steps

The following table is from a report from PANOS called Just a lot of

hot air?, looking at the issues leading up to the climate conference
in Hague 2000. It summarizes the major steps toward action on the
issue of Climate Change. (Some minor updates added since recent
events after Hague.)

Event Date and Principal achievements

place
Intergovernmental 1990 Broad international scientific
Panel on Climate consensus that human actions are
Change (IPCC) - First influencing the climate
report
UN Framework 1992, Rio de  Committed the global
Convention on Climate Janeiro, Brazil. community to stabilizing the
Change (Entered into level of greenhouse gases in the
force 1994) atmosphere
 Recognized the primary
responsibility of industrialized
countries, and the differentiated
responsibilities of developing
countries
IPCC - Second report 1995  Confirmed human influence on
climate
 Stated that risk from climate
change is severe enough to
justify preventive actions
(Governments which have
signed the Convention have to
accept the findings of the IPCC).
Conference of Parties 1995, Berlin,  Established budget, secretariat
(COP) 1 Germany and institutional mechanisms
 Established pilot phase of
"Activities Implemented Jointly"
Event Date and Principal achievements
place
to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
 Agreed timetable for setting
specific reduction targets for
industrialized countries
Conference of Parties 1996, Geneva,  Endorsed IPCC2 and COP1
(COP) 2 Switzerland agreements
 US announced its commitment
to binding targets “medium-
term”, with “flexibility, in
implementation measures”
 OPEC dropped its opposition to
action
Conference of Parties 1997, Kyoto, Agreed the Kyoto Protocol, with
(COP) 3 Japan targets for industrialized country
greenhouse gas reductions
Conference of Parties 1998, Buenos Agreed a "Plan of Action" for
(COP) 4 Aires, Argentina following up on the Kyoto Protocol,
including processes for stimulating
technology transfer
Conference of Parties 1999, Bonn, Further progress on implementing
(COP) 5 Germany the Kyoto Protocol
“Rio plus Ten” Earth 2002 Many people hope the Kyoto
Summit Protocol will be ratified and will enter
into force by this the time. [This
didn’t happen. It will now come into
force February 2005]
COP7 Marrakesh To agree legal text covering
Climate outstanding technical aspects of the
Conference, political agreement reached in Bonn
October 29 to in July 2001 on how to implement
November 9, the Kyoto Protocol.
2001
COP8 Delhi Climate Leading up to this conference there
Event Date and Principal achievements
place
Conference has still been little progress on
reducing emissions.
COP10 COP10—Buenos Countries were to discuss adaption
Aires Climate measures, and the entry of the
Conference Kyoto Protocol into force
COP11 COP11— At the same time, the first Meeting
Montreal of the Parties of the Protocol (MOP
Climate 1) took place. These meetings
Conference attempted to advance discussions on
the future emission reductions and
ways to help developing countries.
COP13 Bali Climate led to a final agreement known as
Conference the “Bali Roadmap”. The Bali
Roadmap outlined a new negotiating
process to be concluded by 2009 to
feed into a post-Kyoto (i.e. a post-
2012) international agreement on
climate change.
COP14 Poznań Climate The conference came at a time when
Conference Europe seemed to weaken their
usually strong stance on climate
change action and on news that in
recent years, emissions from
industrialized nations had risen.
COP15 Copenhagen There was a lot of hope and
Climate optimism before this conference that
Conference a meaningful climate negotiation
could be agreed to, as climate
change concerns are increasing
rapidly.
Obstacles And Slow Progress

Many of the objectives highlighted above have still not been

recognized. For example, the industrialized countries have not
provided much help in many areas such as effective emission
reductions and stalling on developing country commitments, or
opposing the Kyoto protocol itself.

COP3—Kyoto Protocol Climate Conference

1997, at the Conference of Parties III (COP3), Kyoto, Japan, the

Kyoto conference on climate change took place. There, developed
countries agreed to specific targets for cutting their emissions of
greenhouse gases. A general framework was defined for this, with
specifics to be detailed over the next few years. This became
known as the Kyoto Protocol.

The US proposed to just stabilize emissions and not cut them at all,
while the European Union called for a 15% cut. In the end, there was a
trade off, and industrialized countries were committed to an overall
reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels
for the period 2008 - 2012. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change said in its 1990 report that a 60% reduction in emissions was
needed...)
During the Kyoto summit, this was hotly contested by the United
States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world
— for just about four percent of the world's population, they emit over
a quarter of the world’s emission. Per capita, this is far, far higher than
any other nation as well.

Some countries, of which the US is the most influential and powerful,

have been accused of being counter-productive during climate change
negotiations.

When the Kyoto Protocol was written in 1997, it was mainly US and its
business lobby that vehemently opposed the protocol based on
economic concerns.

While the Clinton Administration signed and ratified the protocol, the
Republican majority Congress, was opposed to this. When Bush came
to power, he eventually withdrew from the international agreement.

President Bush cited a number of concerns, along the following

themes:

• Economic concerns;

• That the Kyoto protocol was a political document;

• That it is unfair that countries like China and India do not

emission reduction targets.

But are these concerns and reasons justified or legitimate?

Policy Strategy

In a June 2000 presentation, the World Resource Institute (WRI)

asked what is fair concerning developing countries and climate change.

WRI noted that there has often been a strong push by big business
lobbies and related interests when environmental regulation is
attempted.

The resulting environmental policy strategy tends to have the following

steps. These steps have also applied to climate change discussions:

Step 1: Deny It

With this step, we saw a lot of skepticism initially coming from US-
based scientists, many accused of reporting for big business interests,
such as oil and automobile industries.

Step 2: Fight It

With step 2, and with climate change, WRI notes that step 2 has
become “blame someone else for it”, referring to Bush’s attempts to
criticize the Protocol for not imposing reductions on developing
countries.

Step 3: Dilute It

With step 3, it is interesting to note that the climate change

negotiations that led to the Kyoto Protocol involved extremely heavy
concessions on steps and measures to take, in order to get the United
States in on the agreement. To criticize later the Kyoto Protocol for
being a political document is a cruel irony.

Step 4: Delay It

With step 4, many have criticized the US and others of delaying

effective action or in other ways attempting to derail effective action.

Steps 5 And 6: Do It And Market It

Steps 5 and 6 still have to unfold for the climate change issue. At the
same time, while the Bush Administration has at least admitted it is
not against action on climate change (just that it opposes the Kyoto
Protocol), it is spending money on research and technology.

Yet, combined with delay tactics, this may be a way to ensure the US
doesn’t lose its position of power by implementing climate change
measures. If its companies can find ways to be more efficient and
clean, then it can gain clout and prestige and recognition of help save
the world.

By going its own way, it is ignoring international issues and concerns,

and so this can be seen as a political move to ensure economic and
geopolitical success on this major environmental issue without
consideration of the rest of the world. Unfortunately it is often this “go
it alone” approach that also creates a lot of resentment against the US
in the eyes of many around the world
Bilateral Agreement
U.S- Canada:
Although the term "environmental diplomacy" is a creation of the late
twentieth century, the United States has in fact been negotiating
access to natural resources. Great Britain between 1783 and 1910
were a sustained effort to secure access to the grand fisheries off
Newfoundland, including those for cod and several other species. In
1891, the two nations agreed to arbitrate their dispute if necessary;
second, they appointed a four-member scientific committee to study
the issue during a visit to the Bering Sea. At first the ruling settled the
U.S.–Canadian disagreement, the solution turned out to be temporary,
as again shifting behavior and populations left a static agreement
behind. Canadian sealers responded by crossing the ocean and
demolishing the small Japanese and Russian herds, after which they
then began to leave the industry; in response, the Japanese
government lifted limits on its pelagic sealers, who promptly crossed
the Pacific and took large numbers of Pribilof seals, as they were not
bound by the arbitrators' ruling. The seal population continued to
decline; the herd that once numbered 2.5 million was slipping toward
200,000 early in the twentieth century.

In 1911 the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia worked
out a deal that allowed some flexibility. The key component was a ban
on pelagic sealing, which U.S. scientists had shown unequivocally to be
the cause of the decline of the seal herd. In exchange, Canada and
Japan received a fixed percentage of the skins harvested from the
Pribilofs each year, and they allowed the United States to decide how
many, if any, seals were to be taken. In effect, the United States had
purchased the other nations' right to catch seals on the high seas.
They had been willing to sell in part purely because of economics, but
also because the United States had pressed hard that pelagic sealing
was both immoral and scientifically indefensible. The North Pacific Fur
Seal Convention was one of the first great successes in environmental
diplomacy.

In 1909, Canada and the United States signed the Boundary Waters
Treaty, which formed the International Joint Commission (IJC), with
powers to regulate pollution, rivers.

U.S. Clean Air Act of 1990- Trail Smelter case focused on a Canadian
pollution source, a quick study of wind currents and the U.S.–
Canadian boundary would suggest that the vast majority of
transborder air pollution runs north, not south. As fate would have it,
the industrial heartland of the United States was not only built above a
belt of sulfurous coal but under wind currents that run right into the
most populated parts of Canada. Nature in turn left eastern Canada
especially vulnerable to acid rain.

Migratory Bird Treaty (MBT)- In 1960, the bilateral Canadian-American

relationship has also addressed wildlife protection in North America.
The MBT divided birds into three categories: game, insectivorous, and
others. Game birds could be hunted during specific seasons;
insectivores were permanently protected; and those listed in the third
category got protection just because they were popular. The rationale
for protecting birds was that they were beautiful and useful. In 1972
the United States signed a similar deal with Japan in order to protect
birds in the Pacific.

U.S-Mexico:
In 1936 the United States and Mexico signed a Migratory Bird Treaty
that had been on the conservationists' wish list since 1913. That treaty
did little to change U.S. law, although it did add birds of prey to the
protected lists, and its main value was to export U.S. ideas about bird
conservation to Mexico. In 1972 the United States signed a similar
deal with Japan in order to protect birds in the Pacific. And in 1976 the
Soviet Union joined the club with an agreement to protect birds that
migrated in the northern Pacific.
Impacts
i) Disastrous impact of climate change: Climate change is
dangerous to both mankind and any life existing on planet
earth. Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by
0.3-0.6 degree Celsius.

ii) Direct impact: there will be increase in number of deaths due

to greater frequency and severity of heat ways and other
extreme weather events.

iii) Indirect impacts: Indirectly, change in weather pattern, can

lead to ecological imbalance, change in food production level
etc.

iv) Agriculture: Climate Change will affect agricultural yield

directly because of alteration in temperature and rainfall and
indirectly changes in soil quality, pests, diseases.

v) Weather: A warm climate will change rainfall and snowfall

patterns, would lead to increased droughts and floods, melting
of polar ice sheets etc.

vi) Sea level rise: Sea level rise could have number of physical
impacts on coastal areas, including loss of land. These will
adversely affect coastal agriculture, tourism, freshwater
resource etc.
 vii) Health: Global warming will directly affect human health by
increases cases of heat stress. It will cause new disease both
in human and in cattle.

viii) Wildlife and marine life: Due to increase in temperature the

tropical forests of the ocean, the corals and coral reefs would
sustain more damage. Thereby reducing the number of fishes
and sea birds that feed on these organisms disturbing the food
web of aquatic ecosystem.

Worst affected developing nations:

1. Bangladesh

2. Myanmar

3. Honduras

4. Vietnam

5. Nicaragua

6. Haiti

7. India

8. Dominican Republic

9. Philippines

10. China
Conclusion:
 Developing countries are contributing in control carbon emission.
 Annex I countries, though doing high carbon emission are not co
operating to achieve the emission targets but forcing developing/
under developing countries to do the same.
 The impact of this climate change will be very dangerous to the
world in the near future so all countries should co operate.