* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Global environmental problems and politics
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Global environmental problems and politics T. Forsyth DV3166, 2790166 2011 Undergraduate study in Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences This is an extract from a subject guide for an undergraduate course offered as part of the University of London International Programmes in Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences. Materials for these programmes are developed by academics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). For more information, see: www.londoninternational.ac.uk This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by: Dr Tim Forsyth, Reader in Environment and Development, Development Studies Institute (DESTIN), The London School of Economics and Political Science. This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to pressure of work the author is unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising from, the guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourable or unfavourable, please use the form at the back of this guide. University of London International Programmes Publications Office Stewart House 32 Russell Square London WC1B 5DN United Kingdom Website: www.londoninternational.ac.uk Published by: University of London © University of London 2009 Reprinted with minor revisions 2011 The University of London asserts copyright over all material in this subject guide except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. We make every effort to contact copyright holders. If you think we have inadvertently used your copyright material, please let us know. Contents Contents Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 Aims.............................................................................................................................. 2 Learning outcomes ........................................................................................................ 3 Syllabus.......................................................................................................................... 3 How to use this subject guide......................................................................................... 4 Study time...................................................................................................................... 5 Structure of the guide..................................................................................................... 5 Essential reading............................................................................................................ 6 Further reading............................................................................................................... 7 Journals......................................................................................................................... 7 Online study resources.................................................................................................... 7 Websites........................................................................................................................ 9 Examination advice...................................................................................................... 10 List of abbreviations used in this subject guide.............................................................. 11 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?................... 13 Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 13 Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 13 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 13 Further reading............................................................................................................. 14 Works cited.................................................................................................................. 14 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 14 The rise of global environmentalism.............................................................................. 15 Theorising ‘global’ environmental problems................................................................... 22 North versus South?..................................................................................................... 26 Adaptation and mitigation............................................................................................ 27 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 28 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 29 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 29 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes........................................................................ 31 Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 31 Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 31 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 31 Further reading............................................................................................................. 32 Works cited.................................................................................................................. 32 States and non-state actors.......................................................................................... 32 What is a regime?........................................................................................................ 36 Three routes to regimes................................................................................................ 37 The case of the ozone regime....................................................................................... 40 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 44 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 45 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 45 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC .................................. 47 Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 47 Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 47 i 166 Global environmental problems and politics Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 47 Further reading............................................................................................................. 47 Additional resources..................................................................................................... 48 What is climate change?............................................................................................... 48 Political disagreements about climate change............................................................... 51 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).................... 58 The road to Kyoto......................................................................................................... 60 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 62 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 62 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 63 Chapter 4: Climate-change policies: the Kyoto Protocol and beyond .................. 65 Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 65 Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 65 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 65 Further reading............................................................................................................. 65 Additional resources..................................................................................................... 66 The Kyoto Protocol....................................................................................................... 66 Assessing the Kyoto Protocol........................................................................................ 70 The political fallout from Kyoto..................................................................................... 73 After Kyoto................................................................................................................... 75 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 78 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 79 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 79 Chapter 5: International business and global environmental governance........... 81 Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 81 Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 81 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 81 Further reading............................................................................................................. 82 Works cited.................................................................................................................. 82 Additional resources..................................................................................................... 82 Understanding business and the global environment..................................................... 82 Economically liberal approaches to international business and environment................... 83 Critical views of business and environment................................................................... 85 The Global Climate Coalition........................................................................................ 87 Alternative views of business and environment............................................................. 90 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 93 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 94 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 94 Chapter 6: Technology transfer and environment................................................. 95 Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 95 Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 95 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 95 Further reading............................................................................................................. 95 Works cited.................................................................................................................. 96 Additional resources..................................................................................................... 96 What is technology transfer?........................................................................................ 96 Problems of technology transfer.................................................................................... 99 International disputes about technology and environment........................................... 102 New thinking about technology transfer...................................................................... 107 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 108 ii Contents A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 109 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 109 Chapter 7: International financial institutions: the World Bank and Global Environment Facility................................................................................ 111 Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 111 Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 111 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 111 Further reading........................................................................................................... 112 Works cited................................................................................................................ 112 Additional resources................................................................................................... 112 Reforming international financial institutions.............................................................. 113 The World Bank and environment............................................................................... 114 The Global Environment Facility (GEF)......................................................................... 121 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 124 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 125 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 126 Chapter 8: Trade and environment...................................................................... 127 Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 127 Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 127 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 127 Further reading........................................................................................................... 128 Additional resources................................................................................................... 128 Why is trade relevant to environment?........................................................................ 128 Environmental trade-dispute resolution under GATT.................................................... 130 Environmental disputes under the WTO....................................................................... 132 The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).................................................... 134 Environment–trade regimes........................................................................................ 137 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 137 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 138 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 139 Chapter 9: Non-governmental organisations...................................................... 141 Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 141 Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 141 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 141 Further reading........................................................................................................... 141 Works cited................................................................................................................ 142 Civil society and NGOs in global environmental politics............................................... 143 NGOs and knowledge regimes.................................................................................... 145 NGOs and conservation ............................................................................................ 148 NGOs and local representation................................................................................... 151 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 152 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 153 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 153 Chapter 10: Biodiversity ..................................................................................... 155 Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 155 Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 155 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 155 Further reading........................................................................................................... 155 Works cited................................................................................................................ 156 Additional resources................................................................................................... 156 iii 166 Global environmental problems and politics Defining biodiversity................................................................................................... 156 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) ........................ 160 The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)...................................... 163 Bioprospecting and intellectual property rights............................................................ 166 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 167 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 168 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 168 Chapter 11: Forests............................................................................................. 169 Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 169 Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 169 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 169 Further reading........................................................................................................... 170 Works cited................................................................................................................ 170 Additional resources................................................................................................... 170 Tropical deforestation and conservation ..................................................................... 171 Regulating logging..................................................................................................... 175 Forest policy and climate change ............................................................................... 178 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 182 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 183 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 183 Chapter 12: Conclusion: rethinking regimes and models of governance............ 185 Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 185 Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 185 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 185 Further reading........................................................................................................... 186 Works cited................................................................................................................ 186 States and non-state actors........................................................................................ 186 Reforming international organisations......................................................................... 187 Regimes and regime theory........................................................................................ 188 Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 190 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 191 Appendix 1: Full list of Further reading referred to in the guide....................... 193 Appendix 2: Sample examination paper............................................................. 201 Appendix 3: Guidance on answering the sample examination questions.......... 203 iv Introduction Introduction 166 Global environmental problems and politics is a ‘300’ course offered on the Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences (EMFSS) suite of programmes. If you take this course as part of a BSc degree, 09 Human geography or 11 Introduction to international relations or 114 Democratic politics and the State or 21 Principles of sociology must be passed before this course may be attempted. This course aims to provide you with insights into and an understanding of global environmental problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss, and the ways in which countries and people can address them. Global environmental problems are relatively new in international politics, as global environmentalism did not become a political force until the 1960s. But since then, governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other organisations have tried to reach agreements on or new ways to deal with these problems. Some agreements have been based on existing methods of international negotiation or political governance, while some have been based on new thinking and a need to break new ground in achieving political agreement. This course appeals to many students from different backgrounds. Those studying it might be worried about environmental problems and want to understand ways to address them, or simply want to know more about the kinds of risks they pose. Some of you may also wish to undertake a career in environmental management, or concerning environmental politics and international development. The course aims to show how and why environmental changes pose problems for different countries and societies, so it will be relevant for anyone who wishes to understand more about how global environmental problems raise important political dilemmas. It also shows how different policymakers have approached environmental problems in the past, and what challenges there are at present, and in the future. The course is relevant to anyone studying politics, geography, international relations, development studies, sociology and of course environment. That said, I should also point out what this course does not do. First, this course is not an analysis of physical environmental science. It refers briefly to our understanding of environmental problems. But it does not summarise the scientific debates about controversies concerning the origins of – say – climate change or biodiversity loss. Instead, it summarises debates about how to deal with environmental problems within the sphere of political and social action. This approach does not mean we always assume that environmental problems are proven, or that we should believe everything we read in the newspapers. Rather, a political analysis of environmental problems acknowledges the uncertainty about some of them. It also explores how different people might represent environmental problems in different ways in order to win political advantages. Secondly, this is not simply a course in the discipline of international relations. Global environmental problems, of course, require an international response and the discipline of international relations can help a great deal in understanding how different states negotiate with each other, and how 1 166 Global environmental problems and politics different power relations between states can influence agreements. But this course also deals with how global environmental problems and the political responses to them might be experienced or enacted on a scale smaller than that of the nation state, and how, increasingly, political responses to environmental problems come from a variety of non-state actors such as businesses, NGOs and everyday citizens such as you and me. Indeed, some of the most difficult political problems arise when trying to implement global policy at the sub-state scale, such as the clashes between local forest users in developing countries and international actors implementing ‘global’ climate and biodiversity policies. Accordingly, this course is based upon a broader political approach to environmental governance than usually associated with the discipline of international relations. Some of these approaches are discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, where we address what is political about global environmental problems and how we can reach agreements. Thirdly, this course is not a simple summary of all global environmental problems. It focuses largely upon climate change, biodiversity loss and debates about deforestation. All of these are linked, of course, because changes in one may impact on the others. The course refers briefly to other environmental debates such as the approach to ozone depletion (Chapter 2) and worries about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Chapter 8). Unfortunately, there is not enough space here to investigate other problems such as desertification, transboundary pollution of oceans, deterioration of wetlands or similar themes. Instead, this course aims to summarise the key political debates about how to address global environmental problems, especially where many countries and societies disagree about the nature, impacts of and necessary responses to problems. The themes of climate change, biodiversity and forests present many important lessons for politics, and for other global environmental problems. I am basing this course upon some teaching I do at The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) on global environmental governance. My own background is in environmental problems and international development and I have spent some years living in developing countries researching these themes. I strongly believe that global action is required to address many environmental problems but I also believe that the international policymaking community is still learning how to incorporate different viewpoints about environmental problems, and that many existing approaches to global environmental governance do not yet understand the local realities of environmental change in many developing countries. I hope you enjoy studying this course. The rest of this introduction describes the purpose of the course and gives some indication of how to use this subject guide. Perhaps the best advice I have at this stage is to read the chapters as a guide to the main objectives of the course and then go through some of the recommended readings to learn more about specific subjects. Aims The specific aims of the course are to: • promote understanding of the political response to growing evidence of global environmental degradation • demonstrate some of the underlying uncertainties and controversies about how environmental problems and explain how they should be evaluated and responded to politically, especially concerning differences between developed and developing countries 2 Introduction • enhance awareness of global environmental governance as an outcome of what different actors do by evaluating the role played by key actors such as states, international organisations, transnational corporations and environmental NGOs in such governance • explain the emergence of environmental policies, including environmental regimes and the specific challenges of different problems with particular reference to climate change, biodiversity loss (and its links with deforestation) and other problems such as ozone depletion • demonstrate some of the key political problems that arise in relation to achieving agreement between different nation states, and between environmental policy at different spatial scales, especially when these represent apparent challenges to economic development or local rights. Learning outcomes At the end of the course, and having completed the essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • explain the basic political dilemmas and challenges of calling environmental problems ‘global’ and seeking ‘global’ solutions to them • describe different approaches to constructing environmental regimes, including approaches based on nation states in cooperation or in conflict; or the role of so-called ‘knowledge actors’ such as scientists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in creating consensus • critically discuss the manner in which the emergence of sustainable development as a core concept of international initiative reflects and responds to dominant political and economic interests • describe the diverse problems of addressing climate change and declining biodiversity through multi-faceted policy approaches such as international treaties, national regulation and civil society activity • explain the importance of trade in achieving international agreement of standards and practices, and the dilemmas faced when regulating trade in environmental goods and services that have uncertain and contested environmental impacts • assess the role played by key international organisations linked to the United Nations in the promotion of global environmental regimes and global environmental governance in general • describe and assess the main debates surrounding the role of NGOs in global environmental politics • describe and assess some of the dilemmas of implementing global environmental policy at the local level, such as in biodiversity conservation. Syllabus What is political about global environmental problems? Introduction to the role of states and non-state actors. The politics of calling something ‘global’; global and systemic versus cumulative global problems; a brief history of global environmental meetings and the debates relating to sustainable development. Environmental regimes, including the case of ozone: discussion of regimes as a key political approach to agreement between countries; different approaches to regimes (including knowledge regimes); ozone as an example of how an early regime emerged. 3 166 Global environmental problems and politics Climate change: introduction to the problem with a focus on state actors; the early agreements; IPCC and UNFCCC; Kyoto. Climate-change policies: analysis of flexible (trading-based) mechanisms, links to forests and climate, vulnerability and adaptation. Business and international environmental governance: discussion of the role of business in the development of climate-change policy and other governances, private-environmental governance, neoGramscian analysis. Technology transfer and environment: the importance of technology. How can technical solutions be extended in developing countries; what needs to be done? World Bank and Global Environment Facility: analysis of two key global institutions of global environment; an analysis of what they have done and the major criticisms. Trade and environment: the example of genetically modified organisms: summary of debates for and against trade; the ways in which environment was addressed under GATT and WTO; some famous disputes; the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Non-governmental organisations: summary of debates about NGOs and some examples of big NGOs in relation to climate change. Biodiversity: biodiversity; summary of key issues and the difficulty of measurement and control; the emergence of CITES and CBD as examples of biodiversity policy. Forests: why forests are different from biodiversity; timber and logging; the problem of logging and illegal logging; the role of people’s groups in forest politics; connections with climate-change policies. Conclusion: rethinking global environmental politics: the role of states, non-states, and expertise in environmental policy; which models of global governance work best? How to use this subject guide The aim of this subject guide is to help you to interpret the syllabus. It outlines what you are expected to know for each area of the syllabus and suggests relevant readings to help you to understand the material. This subject guide is not a substitute for reading. There are four set essential textbooks that you will find very useful for background information. But you will find that much of the information you need to learn and understand is contained in examples and activities within the subject guide itself. In addition, the subject of global environmental problems is very topical and sometimes the best information is found on websites or recent publications that are available online. The subject guide lists some popular websites that you may wish to inspect from time to time. I would recommend that you work through the guide in chapter order, reading the essential text alongside it (you may wish to read the subject guide before or after the textbook, or in parallel). After you have understood the key themes and political questions, you may wish to supplement your studies by reading further papers or specific websites in order to get up-to-date details. Having said this, it is important that you appreciate that different topics are not self-contained. There is a degree of overlap between them and you are guided in this respect by the cross-referencing between different 4 Introduction chapters. In terms of studying this subject, the chapters of this guide are designed as self-contained courses of study, but for examination purposes you need to have an understanding of the subject as a whole. At the end of each chapter you will find a checklist of your learning outcomes, which is a list of the main points that you should understand once you have covered the material in the guide and the associated readings. Study time If you are intending to study for the examination in this course over the course of one academic year, you need to spend, as a minimum, six to seven hours per week studying for this course. This includes reading the subject guide and the essential and further reading, making notes and practising writing short and then longer answers to examination questions. You should appreciate that the way to do well in this course is to write good essays in the examination. Practising writing essays and knowing how to answer the questions by arguing your own position will be the best preparation for this. Structure of the guide • Chapter 1 serves as a foundation to understanding why it is political to call an environmental problem ‘global’, including divisions between developed and developing countries. • Chapter 2 presents discussion of some of the theories concerning global environmental governance. This chapter focuses especially on the concept of regimes, using the example of the ozone agreements. • Chapter 3 provides an introduction to climate change and the political conflicts before the signing of the United Nations convention on climate change (the UNFCCC). • Chapter 4 continues the discussion of climate change by reviewing the Kyoto Protocol and debates about policies for climate change after the Kyoto Protocol. • Chapter 5 considers the role of international business in global environmental policy, focusing in particular on the role of business as a political force before the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. • Chapter 6 looks at the need for international technology transfer as a means of implementing environmental policies, and the role of business investment. • Chapter 7 discusses the role of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility. It considers the roles that these institutions play and the ways in which they have been reformed after criticism from NGOs. • Chapter 8 reviews debates about trade and environment, focusing on the ways in which environmental disputes relating to trade have been resolved over the years. It uses the case of international trade in genetically modified crops as an example. • Chapter 9 provides an analysis of the role of international NGOs in global environmental policy, especially their role in creating knowledge about environment. It focuses on disputes concerning NGO interventions involving conservation in developing countries. 5 166 Global environmental problems and politics • Chapter 10 introduces the subject of biodiversity and reviews the politics and approach to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity. • Chapter 11 looks at international policies to address forest degradation, including international trade in timber and initiatives to link forest conservation to climate-change mitigation. • Chapter 12 presents a concluding discussion, drawing together some of the general themes of global environmental problems and politics, and the trends for future agreements. Essential reading Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2005) second edition [ISBN 9781568028279]. Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) fourth edition [ISBN 9780813343327]. Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005) [ISBN 9780262532716]. Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press, 2004) second edition [ISBN 9780333948514]. Detailed reading references in this subject guide refer to the editions of the set textbooks listed above. New editions of one or more of these textbooks may have been published by the time you study this course. You can use a more recent edition of any of the books; use the detailed chapter and section headings and the index to identify relevant readings. Also check the virtual learning environment (VLE) regularly for updated guidance on readings. From journals Carpenter, C. ‘Business, green groups and the media: the role of nongovernmental organisations in the climate change debate’, International Affairs 77(2) 2001, pp.313–28. Haas, P. ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination’, International Organisation 46(1) 1992, pp.1–35. Taylor, P. and F. Buttel ‘How do we know we have global environmental problems? Science and the globalisation of environmental discourse’, Geoforum 23(3) 1992, pp.405–16. Turner, BL. II. et al. ‘Two types of global environmental change: definitional and spatial scale issues in their human dimensions’, Global Environmental Change (12) 1990, pp.14–22. To download from the internet Chapin, M. ‘A challenge to conservationists’, WorldWatch Magazine Dec 2004; www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP176A.pdf Griffiths, T. (2007) ‘Seeing “RED”? “Avoided deforestation” and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities’, Forest People’s Programme; www.forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/avoided_deforestation_red_ jun07_eng.pdf Kanninen, M., D. Murdiyarso, F. Seymour, A. Angelsen, S. Wunder and L. German ‘Do trees grow on money?: The implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD’, Center for International Forestry Research, 2007; www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/cop/REDD_ paper071207.pdf 6 Introduction Each chapter of the subject guide commences by identifying the appropriate chapters from these textbooks. In instances where these textbooks are inadequate or simply do not cover a particular topic, additional or supplementary reading is recommended. This subject guide gives some suggestions for additional reading, but you may also find interesting material on websites (also suggested), or from searching for sources on the internet. Unless otherwise stated, all websites in this subject guide were accessed in April 2011. We cannot guarantee, however, that they will stay current and you may need to perform an internet search to find the relevant pages. Further reading Please note that as long as you read the Essential reading you are then free to read around the subject area in any text, paper or online resource. You will need to support your learning by reading as widely as possible and by thinking about how these principles apply in the real world. To help you read extensively, you have free access to the VLE and University of London Online Library (see below). A full list of all Further reading referred to in the guide can be found in Appendix 1 on page 189. Journals There are a number of journals which will form the basis of lists of suggested readings and which provide useful up-to-date materials. They are: Global Environmental Politics Global Environmental Change International Environmental Agreements Journal of Environment and Development Environmental Politics It is also worth checking some of the journals that look at international development to get information about the problems of applying environmental policies in specific countries. In particular, see: Development and Change World Development Online study resources In addition to the subject guide and the Essential reading, it is crucial that you take advantage of the study resources that are available online for this course, including the VLE and the Online Library. You can access the VLE, the Online Library and your University of London email account via the Student Portal at: http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk You should have received your login details for the Student Portal with your official offer, which was emailed to the address that you gave on your application form. You have probably already logged in to the Student Portal in order to register! As soon as you registered, you will automatically have been granted access to the VLE, Online Library and your fully functional University of London email account. If you forget your login details at any point, please email uolia.support@ london.ac.uk quoting your student number. 7 166 Global environmental problems and politics The VLE The VLE, which complements this subject guide, has been designed to enhance your learning experience, providing additional support and a sense of community. It forms an important part of your study experience with the University of London and you should access it regularly. The VLE provides a range of resources for EMFSS courses: • Self-testing activities: Doing these allows you to test your own understanding of subject material. • Electronic study materials: The printed materials that you receive from the University of London are available to download, including updated reading lists and references. • Past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries: These provide advice on how each examination question might best be answered. • A student discussion forum: This is an open space for you to discuss interests and experiences, seek support from your peers, work collaboratively to solve problems and discuss subject material. • Videos: There are recorded academic introductions to the subject, interviews and debates and, for some courses, audio-visual tutorials and conclusions. • Recorded lectures: For some courses, where appropriate, the sessions from previous years’ Study Weekends have been recorded and made available. • Study skills: Expert advice on preparing for examinations and developing your digital literacy skills. • Feedback forms. Some of these resources are available for certain courses only, but we are expanding our provision all the time and you should check the VLE regularly for updates. Making use of the Online Library The Online Library contains a huge array of journal articles and other resources to help you read widely and extensively. To access the majority of resources via the Online Library you will either need to use your University of London Student Portal login details, or you will be required to register and use an Athens login: http://tinyurl.com/ollathens The easiest way to locate relevant content and journal articles in the Online Library is to use the Summon search engine. If you are having trouble finding an article listed in a reading list, try removing any punctuation from the title, such as single quotation marks, question marks and colons. For further advice, please see the online help pages: www.external.shl.lon.ac.uk/summon/about.php 8 Introduction Websites The following websites contain useful information and reports that you can read as supplementary sources. They are particularly good at giving up-to-date information about recent negotiations or controversies where agreements are still being formed (such as in climate change). Please note that many of these websites provide information that is either topical (up to date) or tries to criticise some proposed policies. In the exam you will be given extra credit for using up-to-date material or being critical about policies or academic concepts. Please be critical of all literature and websites. Official websites: www.unfccc.int The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: this site has a vast amount of information about the history of, current challenges for and status of climate-change negotiations. www.cbd.int The Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity): this site has information relating to biodiversity conservation and negotiations. Think tanks and critical websites: www.iisd.org International Institute for Sustainable Development: useful summaries of recent negotiations. Sign up for latest updates on negotiations. www.chathamhouse.org.uk Chatham House: this is a London-based think tank. It has some good reports on political matters relating to global environment. www.wri.org/climate The World Resources Institute: a Washington DC-based think tank with reports and information about various environmental problems. www.cseindia.org The Centre for Science and Environment: a Delhi-based think tank that presents much information about environmental problems as they relate to poor people, especially in India. www.wrm.org.uy A Uruguay-based NGO that is critical of many common approaches to forest conservation and plantation forestry. www.brettonwoodsproject.org A British think tank that produces reports critical of the World Bank. www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/subject/climate A British think tank that produces various papers critically analysing some aspects of climate-change policy. www.ifiwatchnet.org An international website with various reports and videos presenting critical, or alternative, views about international development finance, including environmental policies. Unless otherwise stated, all websites in this subject guide were accessed in April 2011. We cannot guarantee, however, that they will stay current and you may need to perform an internet search to find the relevant pages. 9 166 Global environmental problems and politics Examination advice Important: the information and advice given here are based on the examination structure used at the time this guide was written. Please note that subject guides may be used for several years. Because of this we strongly advise you to always check both the current Regulations for relevant information about the examination, and the VLE where you should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also carefully check the rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow those instructions. The examination paper for this course is three hours in duration and you are expected to answer three questions from a choice of nine. The Examiner attempts to ensure that all of the topics covered in the syllabus and subject guide are examined. Some questions could cover more than one topic from the syllabus since the different topics are not self-contained. A sample examination paper appears as an appendix to this guide, along with guidance on answering the questions. The Examiners’ commentaries (which you can download from the VLE) contain valuable information about how to approach the examination and so you are strongly advised to read them carefully. Past examination papers and the associated Examiners’ commentaries are valuable resources when preparing for the examination. You should ensure that all three questions are answered, allowing an approximately equal amount of time for each question, and attempting all parts or aspects of a question. In approaching an examination in this area, the most important thing is to remember the following points. • The grade you get for the examination for this course will depend on how well you answer the three questions, so make sure you practise writing essays in advance. • You need to answer all three questions and allocate equal time to each. • Please note that questions will usually be about one theme of the subject guide, but answers should refer to other themes of the guide as well. The chapters of the guide are not exclusive to each other and sometimes you can refer to various environmental problems at the same time. • Use theoretical concepts such as regime theory. • Do cite authors or policy institutions and refer to controversies between different positions. • Use examples of environmental problems and politics and try to find your own examples from research in the literature and on the internet. • Remember, any essay requires you to make an argument that answers the question. If you do not argue a viewpoint, or do not answer the question, then you will not get a good grade. Remember, it is important to check the VLE for: • up-to-date information on examination and assessment arrangements for this course • where available, past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries for the course which give advice on how each question might best be answered. 10 Introduction List of abbreviations used in this subject guide CBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity CDM Clean Development Mechanism CITES Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna COP Conference of the Parties (to a convention) CTE Committee on Trade and Environment (of the WTO) GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade IFI International Financial Institution JI Joint Implementation NGO Non-Governmental Organisation REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation TNC Transnational Corporation UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WTO World Trade Organization 11 166 Global environmental problems and politics Notes 12 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? Aims of the chapter The aims of this first chapter are to introduce some of the more fundamental aspects of environmental politics at the global scale. This forms a basic underpinning for the rest of the course by setting out key questions about the nature of so-called ‘global’ environmental problems; how we identify the ‘global’ scale; why these are controversial; and how political processes may resolve – or sometimes add to – these controversies. Learning outcomes By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • critically evaluate different ways that environmental problems may (or may not!) be described as ‘global’ • outline the various definitions of the word ‘globalisation’ addressing both its economic and cultural implications (and especially how far simply talking about global problems tends to create a common identity and risk for people) • identify and discuss the reasons why certain political actors might wish to represent different environmental problems as ‘global’ or not; and how these political actors are linked to different stages of economic development • describe the difference between mitigation and adaptation as responses to environmental problems using examples of how different policies might encourage either mitigation or adaptation to climate change. Essential reading From your essential textbooks Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2005) Chapters 1, 7 and 12. Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) Chapter 1. Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005) Chapter 1. Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press, 2004) Chapters 1 and 7. From journals Taylor, P. and F. Buttel ‘How do we know we have global environmental problems? Science and the globalisation of environmental discourse’, Geoforum 23(3) 1992, pp.405–16. Turner, B.L. II et al. ‘Two types of global environmental change: definitional and spatial scale issues in their human dimensions’, Global Environmental Change (12) 1990, pp.14–22. 13 166 Global environmental problems and politics Further reading Adams, W.M. Green development. (London: Routledge, 2004) third edition. Agarwal, A. and S. Narain Global warming in an unequal world. (New Delhi: Center for Science and Environment, 1991). Boserup, Esther The conditions of agricultural growth: the economics of agrarian change under population pressure. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1965). Chatterjee, P. and M. Finger (eds) The earth brokers: power, politics and world development. (London: Routledge, 1994). Dryzek, J. The politics of the earth. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Layzer, Judith A. ‘Science, politics and international environmental policy’, Global Environmental Politics 2(3) 2002, pp.118–23. Middleton, N. and P. O’Keefe The tears of the crocodile: from Rio to reality in the developing world. (London: Pluto, 1993). Middleton, N. and P. O’Keefe Rio plus 10. (London: Pluto, 2002). Redclift, M. Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. (London: Routledge, 1987). Sachs, W. (ed.) Global ecology. (London: Zed, 1993). Shiva, V. ‘The greening of the global reach’ in Sachs, W. (ed.) Global ecology: a new arena of political conflict. (London: Zed, Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood, 1993) pp.149–56. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) Our common future. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). Works cited Carson, R. Silent spring. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962, or later issue) [ISBN 0141184949]. Giddens, A. Beyond Left and Right: the future of radical politics. (Cambridge: Polity, 1994) [ISBN 0745614396]. Gore, A. Earth in the balance: forging a new common purpose. (London: Earthscan, 1992; revised edition) [ISBN 1844074846]. Lovelock, J. The revenge of Gaia. (New York: Basic Books, 2006) [ISBN 046504168X]. Meadows, D.H., J. Randers, D.L. Meadows and W. Behrens III The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. (New York: University Books, 1972) [ISBN 0876631650]. Nash, R. Wilderness and the American mind. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973) [ISBN 0300091222]. Robertson, R. Globalisation: social theory and global culture. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1992) [ISBN 0803981872]. Ward, B. and R. Dubos Only one Earth. (New York: Deutsch, 1972) [ISBN 0140216014]. WRI (World Resources Institute) A guide to the global environment. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) [ISBN 0195062310]. Introduction Global environmental problems are now on everyone’s minds. For many people, we are living in a time of crisis: urgent action is needed. At present, the most pressing public concern is anthropogenically induced climate change. According to Sir John Houghton, a senior scientist from the United Kingdom, ‘Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction’ (Houghton, 2003).1 The 1990s were the ‘warmest decade for 1,000 years’. Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since records began in 1861. Possibly related to these trends, the US mainland was struck by 562 tornados in May 2003, killing 41 people, 14 1 www.guardian.co.uk/ politics/2003/jul/28/ environment.greenpolitics (accessed 15 July 2009). Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? and pre-monsoon temperatures in India in 2003 reached a blistering 49˚C (120˚F) − 5˚C (9˚F) above normal, killing 1,500 people. Another British scientist, Sir David King, said, ‘In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism.’2 This scientist specified the United States of America as the primary blockage for a failure to address these concerns. The USA, he said, must take the threat of global warming more seriously. 2 www.worldviewof globalwarming.org Environmental problems, clearly, are a topic of major concern and have grave implications for international politics. But what are we to do to address them? And what form of politics might make action more effective? This initial chapter outlines some underlying assumptions and political challenges concerning ‘global’ environmental problems. Global environmental problems are controversial but this does not mean we should think they do not exist. Rather, we need to understand the limitations we have on understanding them in their entirety, and how some actors may seek to represent them in ways that justify different policies. A political approach does not necessarily agree with how problems are represented, but instead seeks to see who wins and loses by presenting information in different ways. In the first instance this chapter looks at how global environmentalism has emerged as a political force, and some of the controversies that underlie global environmental politics. These challenges then present a good platform for analysing theoretical approaches to political agreements in Chapter 2. The rise of global environmentalism Different views of environmentalism Environmentalism is a very common concern today, yet there are many types of environmentalism. Any discussion of environmental politics should therefore acknowledge that there is no ‘one’ environmental viewpoint, and instead that environmental values and priorities can vary between different actors, countries, or social groups. This idea is both important and controversial for this course. Much worry about ‘global’ environmental politics can imply that the entire planet (or ‘globe’) is at risk from environmental change, and consequently that all people and living things are also in danger. In turn, it might be implied that environmental policies will accordingly benefit everyone. But these ideas are also highly contested – not just by people who try to downplay environmental problems, but also by different types of environmentalist. Accordingly, one of the biggest themes of global environmental problems and politics is in identifying how far global environmental changes do present a problem for all people; and how far proposed policies do, or do not, include the viewpoints of all. So why is environmentalism so divided? Let’s look at some of the most important views of environmentalism, and how these relate to global environmental politics. Perhaps the best known environmental position is what academics call ‘deep-green’ or ‘ecocentric’ visions of environmentalism. ‘Deep greens’ believe that the fragility of the Earth is the most important consideration in environmental policy. Usually, they see human activities as controlled by natural limits such as the maximum carrying capacity for human or other populations. Deep-green environmentalists are worried that human 15 166 Global environmental problems and politics growth – in terms of population or economic development – will threaten these environmental limits and lead to societal collapse or political and economic shocks such as famine and conflict. Some well-known environmental writers and activists who fall into this group include Lester Brown (the co-founder of the Worldwatch Institute) and Paul Ehrlich (who has written about the potential problems of population growth). Most deep-green environmentalists are influenced by the writings of the British cleric Thomas Malthus, whose Essay on the principle of population (published in two versions in 1798 and 1803) predicted that population growth would outstrip food production. Some of the most influential environmental writings in recent years have been Malthusian. For example, the book entitled The limits to growth (Meadows et al.) was published in 1972 and predicted how far reserves of natural resources would last under current rates of economic growth. The book concluded that – unless rapid reductions in growth were made – there would be rapid economic decline and that ‘Short of a world effort, today’s already explosive gaps and inequalities will continue to grow larger. The outcome can only be disaster’ (p.195). Similarly, many deep-green writings emphasise the global nature of environmental problems, and the need for all human society to live within global limits. For example, the scientist James Lovelock (2006) has described the ‘Gaia’ concept, in which he sees the entire Earth as a single living system that is fragile to the impacts of humans. He has argued that unless humanity can reduce these impacts, some billions of people are likely to die as a result of climate change and other environmental degradation. But in contrast to this group, there are other forms of environmentalism that place less emphasis on a notion of fragile and universal ‘nature’. Instead, these other groups look at the ability of technological innovation to provide ways of avoiding environmental problems, or the political and social bias in how environmental problems are defined. Members of the first of these groups are sometimes called ‘light greens’ because they acknowledge the existence of environmental problems, but are more optimistic about the ability of human societies to find ways to avoid them. For this reason, this group is sometimes also called ‘technocentric’ because it is concerned with how technological innovation or social reorganisation could minimise pressure on ‘natural’ limits. A good example of a writer from this group is the Danish woman, Ester Boserup, whose book The conditions of agricultural growth (1965) argued that Malthusian collapse was unlikely if people were able to anticipate limits, and adopt innovations to help increase food production or decrease the impacts of human activities. For example, irrigated rice terraces have been introduced in many parts of the world in order to improve food production. Other analysts have argued that market mechanisms will operate to reduce pressure on resources by making substitute products more attractive and accessible. For example, The limits to growth predicted that many metals such as copper would become scarce as economic growth continued. But copper is still mined, and many previous uses of copper have been superseded by more efficient resources (e.g. the replacement of much copper wiring by fibre optics). This sort of trend encouraged technological optimists to point out that the most important determinants of environmental scarcity were not natural limits, but the limits to human innovation. Or, as is commonly said, the Stone Age did not end because of a shortage of stone. Indeed, in 1980, deep-green environmentalist Paul Ehrlich entered into a wager with the technological optimist, Julian Simon, 16 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? to test this assertion. Ehrlich believed that commodity prices would be higher by 1990 as the results of resource scarcity and population growth began to show. Simon argued they would be cheaper. Simon won the bet. The technocentric, light-green approach to environmentalism is important as it is often encountered today in arguments about climate change or other global environmental problems. Should we restrict economic growth? Or should we redirect market growth in order to encourage the use of new technologies? These matters are discussed in later chapters, especially concerning technology transfer and the role of business. In addition, the deep-green approach to environmentalism tends to suggest that the best way of avoiding problems is through a process of mitigation, or the reduction in the causes of problems, such as increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. On the other hand, more technological and optimistic approaches discuss adaptation as a way of avoiding environmental problems or trying to make them less damaging. Again, these themes are discussed later on. But there is another approach to environmentalism that can be said to be different from the deep or light green. This last group focuses instead on the politics of sustainable development, and of the international equity in how environmental problems are created and addressed. The views of this group have three important implications for the discussion of global environmental problems and politics. First, they question how far the current understanding of environmental change is truly ‘global’ in the sense that it presents equal challenges for all countries or peoples. This group therefore disagrees with deep-green descriptions of global environmentalism because they see environmental problems as more varied, and as related to the context and values of different people. Secondly, this group questions how far technological or market-based responses to environmental scarcity are available across the world. They point out that technology adaptations are not easily accessible to everyone. And thirdly, they argue that the incidence of environmental problems is closely linked to the vulnerability of different countries, peoples or individuals to the challenges posed by environmental change; and by their own political or economic ability to develop responses to these challenges. It is important to note that this group does not deny the existence of environmental problems, nor do they question the role of technology. Rather, they focus on the issue of international equity – often along North– South lines – on which environmental problems are addressed, what kinds of solutions are proposed, and who wins and loses as a result of these policies. A key part of this approach is to enquire about how (and by whom) global environmental problems are identified as ‘global’ and how proposed solutions impact on different countries and social groups. The rest of this chapter expands on this position, and on why calling environmental problems ‘global’ is more political than commonly thought. Activity 1.1 Spend a few moments thinking about your own environmental beliefs and your own motivation for learning more about global environmental problems. Are you a ‘deep green’? Do you believe strongly about the different levels of vulnerability to environmental problems between richer and poorer countries? How do you views differ from other people you know? 17 166 Global environmental problems and politics The social origins of environmentalism This section looks at how environmentalism might vary between different social groups and people, and how this might be relevant to ‘global’ environmental problems and politics. Have a look at Figure 1.1. This diagram was developed by the US historian of environmental movements, Roderick Fraser Nash (1973). Nash conducted a historical study of environmental perceptions in the USA and the dates when different environmental organisations emerged. His basic argument was that environmentalism – or the perception of wilderness as beautiful and threatened – was partly the result of other social processes such as urbanisation and industrialisation. The diagram shows two curves. One rises from the bottom left to the top right and represents how society perceives ‘nature’ as beautiful, as society becomes more developed (or industrialised and urbanised). The second curve falls downward from the top left to the bottom right, and is meant to represent the appreciation of ‘civilisation’ (or high levels of industry and urban life) as development proceeds. Marginal value High Marginal value of civilisation Marginal value of nature Nature appreciation Medium Low Nature importing Nature exporting Degree of development/time Figure 1.1: A proposed relationship of levels of development and the perception of nature as beautiful. Source: adapted from Nash (1973) p.346 Nash’s argument is that most undeveloped societies perceive more value in an advanced life than in a relatively undeveloped lifestyle. But many citizens in highly industrialised or urbanised societies begin to perceive ‘natural’ areas such as forests, or wilderness, as healthy antidotes to modern life. Clearly, this argument does not work in all circumstances, and is also a bit clumsy. Do all urban people really appreciate environment? Do all rural people want to live in cities, being unable to appreciate the landscape around them? These generalisations are too mechanical – not everyone thinks this way. But at the same time, Nash’s diagram raises some important questions about how far some of these trends may be true at a general level. For example, it is true that the main national environmental organisations inside the USA such as the Sierra Club (1892) and National Audubon Society (1905) were incorporated during the times when industrialisation and urbanisation were reaching their peak in the USA. National parks such as Yosemite in California were formed shortly afterwards. 18 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? Similarly, from an international perspective, might it also be true that many environmentalists in Europe and North America are most concerned about loss of rainforests, and declining numbers of exotic wildlife in developing countries than problems of environmental pollution in their own countries? Indeed, according to one study in Germany in 1998, some 86 per cent of the German population were anxious about rainforest destruction, more so than other national concerns.3 Some analysts also suggest that Nash’s diagram raises important class issues. Higher- (or middle-) class people might be more likely to see wilderness as threatened than lower- (or working-) class people. Indeed, some theorists such as the sociologist Anthony Giddens (1994) have argued that environmentalism in more developed societies marks a growing sense of a loss of tradition, or the sense of displacement that occurs as a result of new working conditions, distance from birthplaces, and the multiple roles that modern individuals are required to perform (such as office worker, family member, or neighbour, in various locations) in contrast to older social roles, which tended to be less diverse and generally in one location. Accordingly, the most powerful voices behind environmentalism might only come from a particularly developed sector of society rather than all classes or levels of development. ‘Germans turning Green with anxiety’, The Times, No. 66, 393, 29 December 1998, p. 10 in Stott, P. Tropical rainforest. (London: IEA, 1999) p.8. 3 These social trends have importance for global environmental problems and politics because they indicate that different societies and sometimes different countries may have varying levels of environmental concern and awareness. In turn, this variation raises some important questions: • Do political concerns about global environmental problems reflect only the interests of some countries and social groups, which may not relate equally to all other societies and countries? • Or is it the responsibility of environmental activists and leading countries to make other countries aware of the risks coming from global environmental problems? Activity 1.2 Write 300 words on the different forms of environmentalism that you are aware of, perhaps in your own country. Are there class differences? Are there clear differences between different NGOs or other organisations in terms of who they represent? The history of global environmental meetings Environmentalism, of course, is not simply the result of industrialisation, urbanisation and class formation. A growing volume of scientific research has provided evidence of important environmental changes and the probable impact of human activities. Yet, the focus of this research, and the political debates concerning these findings, are always embedded in political values and processes too. Global environmentalism was really born during the 1960s. At this time a number of key environmental concerns emerged in developed countries, coupled with the publication of some important and influential books about environment. For example, Rachel Carson’s famous book, Silent spring (1962) focused on the use of pesticides on ecosystems. For her, the ‘silent’ spring would occur when birds died because of a lack of food and the impact of pesticides on birds themselves. The discovery of large amounts of mercury poisoning in the Minamata region of Japan was linked to rapid industrialisation. Oil and other forms of pollution in the 19 166 Global environmental problems and politics Great Lakes of the USA/Canada and in Europe helped to inspire national environmental movements that in turn led to an increased consciousness of global problems and the connectivities between economic activity in some countries and environmental impacts elsewhere. Box 1.1 lists the most important international meetings on ‘global’ environment. There have been many other meetings, of course, but these are the ones that most people refer to as milestones of how global environmentalism has been addressed. 1972: United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm); key book: Only one Earth (Dubos and Ward, 1972). 1980s: World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), reporting in Our common future (WCED, 1987). 1992: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio, the ‘Earth Summit’), signed Framework Conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity, Agenda 21. 2002: United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (the Rio+10 Summit, Johannesburg), various discussions of poverty, health, and new political approaches involving partnerships between states and nonstate actors. Box 1.1: Key milestones in international environmental meetings. The so-called Stockholm meeting in 1972 was important for many reasons. The meeting came in the same year as the publication of The limits to growth (see above), and consequently much debate at Stockholm considered the possibility of resource shortage or famines. Some classic dividing lines between richer and poorer countries were established at the meeting. For example, the US government reflected the concerns of some prominent conservationist NGOs by seeking a ban on whaling and other measures to protect endangered species. However, it also resisted attempts from some other countries to restrict industrial pollution or to start a ban on nuclear weapons testing. The Soviet Union boycotted the conference. Meanwhile, perhaps the most influential moment of the Stockholm Conference occurred when the Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, made a speech in which she said that ‘poverty’ was the world’s most important environmental problem. The point of this speech was to ask the richer countries help poorer countries such as India develop quicker in order to have a greater ability to address environmental problems. Indira Gandhi’s speech helped cement important principles for later discussions. First, the principle of the ‘Right to Development’ was adopted at the conference. This principle asserted that poorer countries should not be penalised by environmental policy, and that economic development should come first. The second theme was the assumption, still held by many policymakers, that poor people are more likely to cause environmental damage than richer people. This belief is extremely controversial because it tends to focus on the impacts of poor farmers or city dwellers through activities such as agricultural expansion into forest areas, using wood fuel for energy, or affecting air quality by burning cheap fuel. It does not give equal consideration to the higher levels of consumption among richer sections of society, or within richer countries. As we shall see later on in this chapter, these disputes have emerged at other times in the analysis of global environmental problems and politics. 20 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? A final reflection of the Stockholm Conference was on how far we could identify ‘global’ environmental problems as uniform and shared by all. The book published by the Conference was called Only one Earth, by Rene Dubos and Barbara Ward (1972). The title of this book reflected the wellknown concern of many environmentalists that we need to be concerned about global limits because we live on one planet. Yet, the overriding conclusion from the discussions at the Conference was that the world was severely divided between rich and poor, and with strongly divided environmental values. In social terms, if not ultimately in physical terms, this was hardly ‘one’ Earth. Conferences after Stockholm By the 1980s, it was clear that a new approach to environment was needed. Catastrophes predicted in books such as The limits to growth had not occurred. Critics, however, suggested that smaller versions of these possible collapses had already happened in specific locations in Africa or Bangladesh where famine, cyclones or other disasters had overwhelmed societies. Some ‘deep-green’ critics suggested that the ultimate collapse in environmental quality would still occur. Other, more development-oriented thinkers instead proposed that these smaller level crises in specific countries indicated a need to see environmental problems as linked to local political and economic capacities, rather than predefined ecological limits. Some of the pessimism of the 1970s was replaced, however, by a 1980s faith in market forces, which influenced the two main policy events that shaped how global environmental problems and politics were seen in the 1980s and 1990s. The first main event in the 1980s was the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which was also called the Brundtland Commission because it was convened under the leadership of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Brundtland. The Brundtland Commission was a series of meetings between experts and representatives of different countries (shared between richer and poorer countries, as well as those under communist rule). The commission made its report in the 1987 book, Our common future (WCED, 1987). The book made a number of recommendations about how to integrate economic growth and environmental protection. Unlike the outright worry about economic growth in The limits to growth, Our common future sought to explore ways to ensure that growth and conservation could occur at the same time. Its most famous quotation was the definition of sustainable development that has been widely adopted since: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (WCED, 1987, p.43) This statement reiterates the right to development, and presents economic growth in terms of its ability to continue (or to continue to provide livelihoods and income) rather than specifically in terms of environmental impacts. It is a definition that allows developing countries the right to grow, but acknowledges the concern that rapid industrialisation and growth could do more harm than good. At the same time, it was clear that this definition was very general and posed many questions. Some of these questions were asked in another influential book, Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions by Michael Redclift (1987). He looked at this famous quotation and asked: what are acceptable needs? Who defines them? Can we assume we all 21 166 Global environmental problems and politics speak with the same voice and interests? Can we speak on behalf of people in the future, and what their needs might be? Who defines what kind of development is acceptable? Can we really understand the impact of human activity now on complex and changing physical systems? He also pointed out a concern about the definition of sustainable development that has been repeated at various times since, namely that many richer countries define it in terms of intergenerational concerns (how far development today might impact on future generations) while many developing countries see it in terms of current spatial inequalities (inequalities between the vulnerability of different countries, or the ability of different countries to adapt to changes or implement policies). In addition, the late 1980s saw a rise in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). For example, the Vienna Convention (1985) (and later Montreal Protocol, 1987) established legally binding guidelines for countries to deal with ozone-depleting substances (discussed in more detail in Chapter 2). The major policy event of the 1990s was the so-called Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. This conference (also called the UN Conference on Environment and Development) saw the first legally binding agreements between countries on climate change and biodiversity. These agreements are described in more detail in Chapter 3 (climate change) and Chapter 10 (biodiversity). Yet it is worth noting that they came in the early 1990s after much public concern in richer countries about the impact of deforestation and industrialisation on climate. Moreover, the planners of the Earth Summit originally intended to have a third convention on the protection of forests, but this suggestion was rejected by the main countries with tropical forests (notably Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia) because it was seen to be interfering with the rights of these countries to use their resources in the way that richer countries had already done. Indeed, the disagreement about how to treat forests within global environmental policy was a classic example of how different countries have seen ‘global’ environmental problems in different ways (see Chapter 11 for more information about forests). After these conventions were agreed, there were meetings about each one that produced timelines and objectives. These are discussed in later chapters. In 2002, the United Nations held a further meeting on global environment and development in Johannesburg. This meeting was the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, or ‘Rio+10’). It did not have to discuss climate change or biodiversity, because there were already meetings planned to advance these agreements. But the Johannesburg meeting broke new ground by focusing almost exclusively on the dilemmas faced by poorer nations such as extreme poverty and insufficient drinking water. The summit also focused on new forms of governance that would allow states and non-state actors (such as companies and large NGOs) to forge partnerships that would enable them to implement environmental policies more effectively at the local level, rather than creating new treaties addressing new topics of environmental concern. Theorising ‘global’ environmental problems The attention given to global environmental problems, therefore, has changed over time, and has involved different perspectives, and the varying involvement of different countries and actors. These views are likely to continue to change. 22 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? Moreover, it is now clear that ‘global’ environmental problems present great complexity in how they are caused, how they impact on different people and places and in terms of how they are evaluated. What steps can we take to clarify global environmental problems, or classify them into different types? This subject guide – not just this chapter – is devoted to defining and theorising global environmental problems and politics. But at this early stage it is possible to suggest some underlying ways to see global environmental problems that offer insights into them. Two themes may be considered: the physical extent of problems, and the social perception of them as ‘global’. Physical extents of ‘global’ environmental problems In an important paper in 1990, the US environmental scientist Billie Lee Turner defined two types of global environmental problem (Turner, 1990). Systemic environmental problems are global because they are caused by a change in a global system. Under this approach, a change in one location in the global system will impact upon the rest of the system. Plus, a solution to the global system need not be located in the same place as the cause of the disturbance to the system. For example, the release of ozone-depleting substances in one country will impact on the entire ozone layer. Reducing ozone-depleting substances in a different country will help reduce the impact of the damaged ozone layer in other countries. Cumulative environmental problems are global because they occur globally, but are not necessarily linked to a global system. For example, biodiversity loss might be called a cumulative problem because it is occurring in many places simultaneously. There is no necessary physical link between biodiversity loss in one country and in another. Consequently, protecting biodiversity in one location will be restricted to that location. Activity 1.3 Make a list of ways in which climate change might be considered a systemic or cumulative global environmental problem. This is a difficult task. Many observers see climate change only in systemic terms because it is connected to greenhouse gas concentrations in the global atmosphere. But at the same time, climate change may be considered cumulative because the impacts and causes of climate change vary between places. We shall return to this theme when we look at the controversies of climate change in Chapters 3 and 4. The social perception of ‘global’ problems The definition of global environmental problems as either systemic or cumulative, however, does not account for the fact that some problems are assumed to be global by scientific research, media, and public debate. In another influential paper, sociologists Peter Taylor and Fred Buttel argued that we need to understand the role of discourse in making us believe in the reality of certain environmental problems, or in how environmental changes might impact on society as a whole (Taylor and Buttel, 1992). The word ‘discourse’ refers to how the language we use can help create a sometimes controversial vision of reality in hidden ways. It can be used to discuss various aspects of global environmental problems and politics because it refers to how problems are framed and discussed in ways that can sometimes shape how they are defined or addressed (see Box 1.2). 23 166 Global environmental problems and politics Discourses are the hidden assumptions about the world that we carry in everyday speech. A discourse ‘creates’ (or reifies) a vision of reality when people use this language in ways that do not question these assumptions. For example, newspapers, politicians and environmentalists might talk of environmental change as a global risk. This is a cognitive statement, and is designed to make people more worried about environmental problems. But if these statements also assume that environmental risks occur because the world has fixed limits, or that fast-growing countries pose the greatest environmental threats, then these less explicit meanings might be a form of hidden discourse. The analysis of discourse within political debate aims to make these assumptions more transparent, and consequently make political debate more informed and less based on assumptions. ‘A discourse is a shared way of apprehending the world. Embedded in language, it enables those who subscribe to it to interpret bits of information and put them together into coherent studies or accounts. Each discourse rests on assumptions, judgments, and contentions that provide the basic terms for analysis, debates, agreements and disagreements, in the environmental area no less than elsewhere.’ (Dryzek, 1997, p.8) Box 1.2: Discourse. Taylor and Buttel asked: are global environmental problems ‘global’ because they occur everywhere, or because we have grown used to talking about them as global? Similarly, is global environmentalism building a ‘global’ community that holds up this discourse? These authors applied these questions to the assumptions made in The limits to growth model of 1972. They argued that this model was based on assumptions about human behaviour that were difficult to apply to all societies around the world. In particular, Taylor and Buttel argued that the model assumed that each individual acts in an economically rational way – based on the assumption that each person will always maximise economic returns, or their personal gains from resource use, and in competition with each other. They argued that these assumptions do not work for all societies, and consequently the prediction of catastrophe coming from The limits to growth could only occur if we assumed that ‘global’ society acted in a globally uniform way. Yet, despite this risky claim, The limits to growth book and idea became very influential and is still seen by some environmentalists as a reasonable prediction of environmental reality. As a result, Taylor and Buttel argued that we needed to see the role of global discourse as an important force in convincing people about ‘global’ environmental problems. They wrote: ‘We know we have global environmental problems, in part, because we act as if we are a unitary and not a differentiated “we”’ (Taylor and Buttel, 1992, p.406). Taylor and Buttel’s work also highlighted the importance of globalisation within environmental politics (see Box 1.3). Globalisation is often referred to as the increasing economic connections between manufacturing and investment. But it can also refer to how communication of ideas between different locations can be affected by culture and discourse. The ‘globalisation’ of environmentalism and environmental discourse therefore might affect how environmental problems are seen, and what political solutions are considered acceptable. We discuss this theme more when we analyse different approaches to environmental regimes in Chapter 2, and especially the role of so-called ‘knowledge regimes’. Knowledge regimes are a way of building environmental policy by gradually persuading states and citizens to adopt new knowledge, or see the importance of certain environmental values. 24 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? Some analysts of global environmental problems, however, see the role of globalisation as crucial. The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has argued that the increasing management of ‘global’ environmental problems by large international organisations such as the World Bank or United Nations can only mean that the viewpoints of poorer countries and people are ignored. She once wrote: The ‘local’ has disappeared from environmental concern. Suddenly, it seems only ‘global’ environmental problems exist, and it is taken for granted that their solution can only be ‘global’… The ‘global’ in the dominant discourse is the political space in which a particular local seeks global control, and frees itself of local, national and international restraints. The global does not represent the universal human interest, it represents a particular local and parochial interest which has been globalized through the scope of its reach. (Shiva, 1993, p.149) This quotation indicates an approach to globalisation that believes the political pressure of large organisations is shaping environmental policy in damaging ways. Globalisation, in terms of increasing private investment and connectivity around the world, or in terms of increasingly shared discourse, is an important theme in the political analysis of global environmental politics. Box 1.3 summarises some of the key points about globalisation. Social scientists usually see two meanings of the word globalisation. Socalled ‘economic globalisation’ occurs when there is increasing connectivity between investment and economic activity in different locations around the globe. For example, the increasing presence of factories in developing countries might be called globalisation if the factories are owned by international companies, or if they provide products for different countries. Economic changes in one country might therefore impact on another country because of globalisation. So-called ‘cultural globalisation’ occurs when people start talking about the globe as a single place, or when cultural forms of expression start co-existing in different locations. For example, the presence of Indian clothes, dress and music in new locations might be considered cultural globalisation, or the trend towards seeing different forms of culture coexisting in the same place. Globalisation is important for global environmental problems and politics because the economic form might explain the growth of certain environmental risks such as pollution. The cultural form might also influence how environmental problems are seen in different locations, or which policy approaches are considered relevant. We discuss this more when we look at environmental regimes in Chapter 2. ‘Globalisation as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.’ (Robertson, 1992, p.8) Box 1.3: Globalisation. Activity 1.4 Write a few words about one example of a global environmental problem where there are controversies about how it occurs, or how it is evaluated by different countries. Then consider how far these controversies are affected by media or information distributed by NGOs or other actors. 25 166 Global environmental problems and politics North versus South? As Vandana Shiva’s statement suggests, many disagreements about global environmental problems are often described in terms of richer versus poorer countries, or North versus the global South. It is, of course, too simple to reduce all environmental controversies to the differences between richer and poorer countries. But, that said, there are some general trends that occur frequently in global environmental politics. These trends have been discussed earlier in terms of the diagram from Nash (1973), or the conflicts between countries at the Stockholm Conference. In simple terms, some of the classic differences between North and South may be summarised as follows. For many environmentalists in richer countries, the rapid growth of developing countries such as Brazil, India and China represents severe risks to the planet. These countries have immense populations, and will demand more and more food, electricity, fuel and other commodities. Many of them have some of the most important tropical forests, biodiversity or areas of wilderness but comparatively low levels of environmental awareness about global problems such as climate change. The political capacity of states or other actors to implement environmental policies is also low but there is an urgent need to transfer environmentally sound technologies to rapidly developing countries, and to create environmental regulations that work in these challenging conditions. Yet, for many developing countries, the current worries about global environmental problems from richer countries raise some important additional concerns. Why should developing countries, which are poorer, and have immense developmental problems, take responsibility for addressing environmental problems? Why should they not develop first, and worry about environment second? In some cases, such as deforestation or industrialisation, richer countries have been contributing to problems longer than many developing countries, so it seems unfair that poorer countries should take responsibility. Furthermore, many developing countries have not received levels of aid that were promised some years back, and consequently any additional help relating to environment should not replace existing commitments to assistance. Indeed, some aspects of climate change might impact most on developing countries and hence it is only right that they should get assistance. Richer countries have not yet transferred technologies to developing countries and many resist the access of poorer countries to international trade. Most importantly, environmental worries should not be used as reasons to prevent poorer countries gaining access to the wealth that has been enjoyed by richer countries for years. Many of these debates are discussed later in this subject guide (e.g. technology transfer is described in Chapter 7). But it is fair to say that many political controversies about global environmental problems occur between North and South. Sometimes the origins of controversies lie in the very definition of problems, and how these definitions reflect different environmental values. A famous example of this occurred in the dispute between the Washington DC-based think tank, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based NGO, in the early 1990s. 26 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? In 1990, WRI published one of the first reports that allocated potential national responsibilities for greenhouse gas emissions, in the build-up to the Rio Earth Summit (WRI, 1990). This report was politically astute. Many citizens of the USA were concerned about the loss of tropical forest and possible climate change. WRI used an index later published in 1991 that gave substantial weight to current deforestation rates and to the predicted release of methane from wet rice and livestock. As a result, the report put Brazil, India and China among the top six emitting countries. The publication of this report created much resentment among developing countries. In particular, the CSE (and especially the activists Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, 1991) pointed out that the WRI report referred to national statistics but not to per capita emissions, which, of course, were much smaller in developing countries than in developed countries. Secondly, the index used simplistic estimates for deforestation and methane emissions. For example, wet-rice methane estimates were extrapolated globally from studies in Italian rice fields. There was no acknowledgement of the diverse ways in which deforestation may occur. Deforestation might occur because food production for poor people had increased, which is ethically different to other forms of deforestation. There was also no accurate guide to the kinds of ecosystem (including new forests) that could replace forests that were cut. Perhaps most importantly, the index did not acknowledge the historical importance of deforestation or industrialisation in developed countries (greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere for many years). These questions are important for global environmental probes and politics. In one sense, the WRI report was entirely accurate in looking at current sources of greenhouse gases and relating these to national states. In another sense, it made many culpable assumptions that gave a highly simplistic explanation of how greenhouse gas concentrations or deforestation arose. At worst it might be portrayed by some as a document that seeks to support policies that overlook poverty in developing countries, and wants to restrict the right of developing countries to use resources. Some later proposals for governing climate change and biodiversity loss have been criticised in the same way. Adaptation and mitigation The implications of these disputes about global environmental problems are that there are still important disagreements about how to address environmental problems in effective ways. One important division is in how much emphasis is given to the mitigation of environmental problems, compared with adaptation to them. • Mitigation refers to policies or actions that reduce the size of an environmental change. For example, any action that reduces greenhouse gas concentrations might be called mitigation because it is reducing the physical process that creates anthropogenic climate change. Mitigation is considered by many people to be the most effective means of addressing environmental problems because it reduces their cause. It should also be clear that mitigation tends to work best when environmental problems are considered to be systemic. If climate change is considered to be systemic, then mitigating climate change can be achieved through acts that reduce greenhouse gas concentrations at any point in the world. 27 166 Global environmental problems and politics • Adaptation, however, is any response that reduces the impact of an environmental change. Analysts generally see two forms of adaptation. The first refers to physical actions or technologies that can reduce the impact of physical environmental changes. For example, a storm shelter or a system of water storage tanks can help reduce the impacts of a flood, storm or drought. The second form of adaptation is to diversify social, economic and cultural behaviour that might make the impacts of change less damaging to people’s ways of life. For example, the potential impacts of rising sea levels might be less if it were possible for people to depend on the sea for incomes instead of agricultural land. Most policymakers, however, agree that adaptation can be hard to achieve in many developing countries where technological capacity is low, or where poverty makes it hard to diversify options. Of course, most environmental policymakers agree that both mitigation and adaptation should be adopted at the same time. But there are still many barriers to both. For example, some deep-green activists see any form of adaptation as a way of avoiding dealing with the underlying cause of change, which is dangerous interference with the earth’s natural limits. Ex-US Vice President Al Gore even took this view in his first book about environment, Earth in the balance. He wrote: believing that we can adapt to just about anything is ultimately a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our skin. (Gore, 1992, p.240) Gore now adopts a more positive approach to the role of adaptation. In an interview in 2008, he said: ‘I used to think adaptation subtracted from our efforts on prevention. But I’ve changed my mind... Poor countries are vulnerable and need our help.’4 But the tensions between mitigation and adaptation raise various important questions for global environmental policy. In philosophical terms, if a society is infinitely adaptable to environmental change, it radically reduces the extent to which an environmental problem is actually ‘problematic’. Of course, very few environmentalists or policymakers suggest that societies should try to become immune to environmental change. There are many ethical, economic or cultural reasons to conserve environments or avoid risks. But the point is that many environmental problems are considered problematic because of assumptions we make about their impact. If we can reduce their impact, or re-evaluate how we see them, then the nature of environmental problems changes too. We return to these themes when we discuss responses to climate change in Chapter 4, and the diverse ways in which we can try to address problems of deforestation in poor countries in Chapter 11. Summary of this chapter/Conclusion This initial chapter has introduced the subject guide by reviewing some basic reasons why the discussion of global environmental problems is political. • Worry about global environmental problems has increased markedly since the 1960s. Yet, calling environmental problems ‘global’ is also a political act because it makes assumptions about the global extent of a problem and the vulnerability of different societies to the problem. • Many deep-green thinkers believe environmental problems are ‘global’ because they believe the world has fixed limits, which we are dangerously close to testing. 28 ‘Adapt or die’, Economist, 13 September 2008, www.economist.com/world/ international/displaystory. cfm?story_id=12208005 4 Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems? • Many historians and sociologists, however, argue that perceptions of global environmental problems reflect social and cultural changes in the more advanced economies that have tended to make people value wilderness and feel uneasy about modern life. • Many development-oriented thinkers, however, believe that we need to see how far different societies are vulnerable to environmental problems before saying any problem is ‘global’. • Historic international negotiations about the global environment have shown a strong division between developed and developing countries, especially concerning the fear that environmentalism might be used as a request for poorer countries not to industrialise. • And in turn, these divisions have led to arguments between different analysts concerning the need to address environmental problems through mitigation (lessening physical changes) and/or adaptation (reducing people’s vulnerability to them). • All of these concerns are relevant to other chapters in this subject guide, and especially global responses to climate change, biodiversity loss and deforestation. A reminder of your learning outcomes Having completed this chapter, and the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • critically evaluate different ways that environmental problems may (or may not!) be described as ‘global’ • outline the various definitions of the word ‘globalisation’ addressing both its economic and cultural implications (and especially how far simply talking about global problems tends to create a common identity and risk for people) • identify and discuss the reasons why certain political actors might wish to represent different environmental problems as ‘global’ or not; and how these political actors are linked to different stages of economic development • describe the difference between mitigation and adaptation as responses to environmental problems using examples of how different policies might encourage either mitigation or adaptation to climate change. Sample examination questions 1. Why is it controversial to refer to environmental problems as ‘global’? (See Question 1 in Appendix 3 for guidance on answering this question.) 2. With reference to examples, explain how tensions between North and South have influenced negotiations on global environmental change. (See Question 2 in Appendix 3 for guidance on answering this question.) 29 166 Global environmental problems and politics Notes 30 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes Chapter 2: Environmental regimes Aims of the chapter This second chapter presents some theoretical groundwork for understanding how international agreements on environmental policy and new approaches to dealing with environmental problems might emerge. The chapter particularly focuses on the concept of ‘regimes’, which are shared forms of responses to environmental problems between different countries and societies. In turn, the chapter also discusses the relative roles of states and non-state actors in the formation of regimes. The chapter ends by describing the emergence of the regime to regulate ozone-depleting substances in the 1980s, which was originally considered by some policymakers to be a good model for making international environmental regimes. Learning outcomes By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • explain the importance of states to international agreements, and the growing and complementary role of non-state actors such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and businesses • define the concept of ‘regime’ and what this means in political science • summarise the three main approaches to creating regimes, namely power-based; liberal, interests-based; and knowledge-based • explain the concept of epistemic community (or communities of expertise), and how these contribute to expertise and knowledge about environmental problems • describe the evolution of the ozone regime with reference to the 1985 Vienna Convention and 1987 Montreal Protocol • discuss how the experience with ozone became a model for other environmental regimes, and how this model was then criticised (i.e. the problems of this model, and the increasing role of sub-state actors in regime theory, will also be discussed in later chapters). Essential reading From your essential textbooks Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2005) Chapters 2 and especially 4. Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) Chapter 2 (and Chapter 3 pp.106–14 for ozone). Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005). Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press, 2004) Chapter 4 (and Chapter 3 regarding ozone). From journals Haas, P. ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination’, International Organisation 46(1) 1992, pp.1–35. 31 166 Global environmental problems and politics Further reading Falkner, Robert ‘American hegemony and the global environment’, International Studies Review 7(4) 2005, pp.585–99. Haas, Peter M. ‘Addressing the global governance deficit’, Global Environmental Politics 4(4) 2004, pp.1–15. Haas, Peter M., Robert O. Keohane and Marc A. Levy (eds) Institutions for the earth: sources of effective international environmental protection. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993). Jasanoff, S. ‘Science and norms in global environmental regimes’ in Hampson, F. and J. Reppy (eds) Earthly goods: environmental change and social justice. (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1996) pp.173–97. Keck, M. and K. Sikkink Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998). Keohane R. and Marc A. Levy (eds) Institutions for environmental aid. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996). Lahsen, M. ‘Transnational locals: Brazilian epistemes in the climate regime’ in Jasanoff, S. and M. Long-Martello (eds) Earthly politics: local and global in environmental politics. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004). Levy, M.A., O.R. Young and M. Zürn ‘The study of international regimes’, European Journal of International Relations 1(3) 1995, pp.267–330. Paterson, M. ‘Institutions for global environmental change’, Global Environmental Change 7(2) 1997, pp.175–77. Sand, Peter H. ‘Sovereignty bounded: public trusteeship for common pool resources?’, Global Environmental Politics 4(1) 2004, pp.47–71. Vogler, John ‘Taking institutions seriously: how regime analysis can be relevant to multilevel environmental governance’, Global Environmental Politics 3(2) 2003, pp.25–40. Young, Oran R. ‘Rights, rules, and resources in world affairs’ in Oran R. Young (ed.) Global governance: drawing insights from the environmental experience. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997) pp.1–23. Concerning the ozone regime Compare the following approaches: Benedick, R. Ozone diplomacy: new directions in safeguarding the planet. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991). Litfin, K. Ozone discourses: science and politics in global environmental cooperation. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994). Works cited Falkner, Robert ‘The global politics of precaution: explaining international cooperation on biosafety’ in Brem, Stefan and Ken Stiles (eds) Cooperating without America: theories and case studies of non-hegemonic regimes. (London: Routledge, 2009) [ISBN 9780415777278] pp.105–22. List, M. and V. Rittberger ‘Regime theory and international environmental management’ in Hurrell, A. and B. Kingsbury (eds) The international politics of the environment. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992) [ISBN 90198273657] pp.85–109. States and non-state actors States The political analysis of global environmental problems focuses on how different actors agree and disagree about matters of global environmental change. In terms of reaching environmental agreements, the most important international actors are states. The most common form of state is the nation state, or the state associated with one country or nation such as the USA, France, Senegal or Brazil. 32 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes In technical language, states are political associations that claim authority over a country. They perform the main duties of government such as running the economy, deciding on foreign policy, as well as forming military or other forces, the judicial (or legal) frameworks of a country, and its administrative apparatuses such as the civil service. States perform two key functions in terms of global environmental problems and politics. First, they are key actors in negotiating international agreements about global environmental problems. Any international agreement such as a convention requires the signature of states. States then have to ratify these agreements within their own government system.1 The second key function performed by states is to formulate and implement new policy approaches to addressing environmental problems domestically. For example, a state might be able to coordinate or encourage activities among the citizens or businesses located within one country that can contribute to achieving the objectives of policy. A state might also take a proactive role in formulating new ideas for environmental policy, such as by working with business partners to develop new technologies, or new means of communicating ideas about environmental problems. The state might then use this approach to address its own population, or take the innovation and propose it to the international community of other states. 1 Ratification means passing any international agreement through the domestic parliament or government system to gain the support of the wider government and to make any international agreement legally binding within a national legal system. States therefore perform crucial roles in conducting global environmental politics. But, clearly, there is much diversity between different states in both their international influence and in their domestic capacity to formulate and implement policy. For example, the most powerful state in the world is clearly the USA, and the USA is a key influence on many global environmental problems and their associated politics. Smaller states, with smaller populations, gross domestic products, or contribution to world trade, will have less influence. Similarly, larger states might also have greater domestic capacity (through, for example, domestic industries) to implement policies (see the discussion of non-state actors below). Some theoretical concepts Academic debates about international relations have adopted various terms to discuss the influence of states in international negotiations and governance. It is worth describing some of these terms now as they will be referred to later in the subject guide. Larger states with the ability to influence international negotiations are known as hegemons because they have the ability to instil hegemony, or dominance, over these agreements. For example, the USA is a good example of a hegemon in climate-change politics because it is so important in terms of influencing global greenhouse-gas emissions and international investment that might be related to climate-change policy. But in terms of tropical forests, the USA has less influence. Brazil might be considered hegemonic in this respect because it has so much tropical forest (such as the Amazon), and consequently more ability to control what happens to the world’s tropical forests than many other countries. In these cases, a hegemon is defined as a single power with a predominant position in the international system. If there are various countries with importance, these are generally referred to as great powers, rather than hegemons. It is commonly thought that environmental regimes can only come into existence if a hegemon agrees. However, there is increasing evidence that agreements can still be negotiated even if a hegemon is reluctant to be included. For example, in 2001 the US government withdrew from the UN’s Kyoto Protocol, but this agreement was still ratified in 2005 because 33 166 Global environmental problems and politics a sufficient number of other countries agreed. Consequently, the role of hegemons might not be as powerful as commonly thought. There is a growing literature on the emergence of non-hegemonic regimes (e.g. Falkner, 2009). However, of course, if a regime comes into existence without the involvement of a hegemon, then it is much less able to change things in the short term. A related term is sovereignty. All states have sovereignty over their own jurisdictions and national territories. A sovereign state has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory, and therefore cannot have these rights removed by an international agreement unless the state agrees to this. This is important for global environmental politics because any agreement about international environment is limited to whatever any one state can agree to. Many countries and environmental activists, for example, would like to influence how the USA regulates its greenhouse gas emissions or how Brazil treats its forests. But as these countries have sovereign rights over their domestic policies and territories, no international actors can influence what happens in these countries unless they agree to these requests (see Paterson, 1997). Indeed, sovereignty and the right to develop were enshrined at the Stockholm conference of 1972 (see Chapter 1). Article 21 of the Stockholm Declaration confirmed that states have ‘sovereign right to exploit [their] own resources and to ensure that activities… [do] not cause damage to the environment of other states.’ In turn, the ability to influence states through international negotiations leads to two opposing approaches to understanding how states relate to each other. Academics use the term realism to refer to the belief that international politics will be governed by the influence of hegemons and the principle of self interest between states. If an analyst believes in realism, they will assume that international agreements can only be made through acknowledging that hegemons will always get their way. States may come together to negotiate, but they will do so through a process of conflicting demands. In contrast, analysts who take a liberal approach to regimes believe that cooperation is possible without a hegemon, and that cooperation between states is still possible despite differing interests. This approach, or specific varieties of it, is sometimes also called neo-liberal institutionalism. Liberal approaches to regime theory argue that realists over-simplify the nature of cooperation and competition between states, and that it is possible for states to focus on developing rules that can govern international activities even if individual states are in competition. The study of global environmental problems and politics is full of different analysts who adopt either realist or liberal positions. Moreover, the political responses to environmental problems have varied between different cases. As this subject guide will show, the global response to the ozone crisis in the 1980s has been considered by some analysts to be an example of a successful liberal negotiation between different states (see later in this chapter). Yet, this approach has been difficult to apply to climate change (see Chapters 3 and 4). Activity 2.1 Take a few moments to consider who are the great powers concerning climate change, biodiversity and forests, and whether these are the same as the usual list of the world’s most powerful nations. Do any qualify as hegemons? When did different countries become powerful in each of these areas, and which other states might become important in the future? 34 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes Non-state actors Global environmental politics is not simply a function of states alone. In recent years the role of non-state actors, political actors that are not directly linked to a specific state, has been increasing significantly. They are usually divided into two groups: civil-society actors such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and private businesses such as transnational corporations (TNCs). Some famous environmental NGOs include Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Friends of the Earth (FOE). Some influential TNCs include oil companies such as Exxon and BP-Amoco, or food production companies such as Monsanto. But non-state actors do not have to be large corporations or organisations. They can include smaller social groupings and even individuals such as you and me. Many academic analysts in recent years have become more optimistic about the role of non-state actors in global environmental politics. The role of the state (in activities such as investment or providing infrastructure) has been shrinking globally since the 1980s, while private businesses often have more ability to perform economic activities at a local level – especially in poorer countries. Moreover, NGOs have an important role in lobbying governments and in educating citizens about environmental problems, and consequently influencing states. Yet, at the same time, some other analysts have proposed that states and non-state actors might be more aligned than commonly thought. For example, some businesses might influence state policy in ways that lead to an alliance between states and specific industries. This claim has been made concerning the oil and coal industries in the USA and the US participation in climate-change policy in the 1990s (a theme that is discussed further in Chapter 5). Also, some NGOs might reflect the interests of certain parts of society or social classes more than others. As discussed in Chapter 1, some critical social scientists have argued that certain environmental values linked to wilderness or environmental conservation might be connected to long-term changes in urbanisation, industrialisation and overall development. Consequently, the agendas of some NGOs might be based mainly upon the views of some social classes rather than all sectors of society, and indeed there might be conflicts between social groups. For example, critics have suggested that large conservationist NGOs such as the WWF have promoted policies about forests in countries such as Indonesia, Tanzania and Brazil that have not always reflected the interests of poorer people living on forest margins. NGOs are key actors in liberal approaches to global environmental politics because they seek to share ideas and bring states together to make new agreements. But critics worry that the more powerful NGOs might in effect become hegemons within civil society, and crowd out voices from less powerful NGOs and citizens. (This theme is discussed more below in regard to knowledge regimes, and the role of NGOs as actors in environmental regimes is discussed in Chapter 9.) International organisations International, or intergovernmental, organisations can also play an important role in global environmental politics. They include organisations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. They perform important duties in overseeing areas of international activities such as trade, aid, economic monitoring, and in creating the arenas for international environmental agreements to be negotiated and then implemented. This subject guide discusses the role of international financial institutions (the World Bank and Global Environment Facility) in Chapter 7, and the World Trade Organization in Chapter 8. 35 166 Global environmental problems and politics Activity 2.2 Write 300 words on the relative importance of different political actors for environmental politics in your own country. For example, how involved is the state? Are there different state agencies and ministries with different areas of responsibility? Are international organisations involved? What kind of environmental civil society is there, and how far is this controlled by domestic or international organisations? Are there any conflicts between local and international actors? What kind of business sector is there, and is this controlled by transnational or domestic investors? What is a regime? Most global environmental problems are addressed through regimes. A regime is a name given to unified behaviour across different states that can address a political problem. The political theorist Oran Young defines regimes as: Social institutions that consist of agreed upon norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that govern the interactions of actors in specific issue areas. (Young, 1997, pp.5–6) And two earlier writers wrote: [a regime is] a form of collective action by states, based on shared principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures, which constrain the behaviour of individual states in specific issues areas. (List and Rittberger, 1992, p.86) There are various themes here that need to be explained. • A regime is a form of institution. An institution is a concept in political science that refers to shared behaviours or norms that regulate social activity. They can be composed of formal rules (such as official statebased legislation), or informal behaviour (such as activities that people adopt, but which are not enforced by law). The Nobel-prize winning theorist, Douglass C. North defined institutions as follows: Institutions are the framework that humans create to structure human interaction. They are made up of formal rules (constitutions, laws, and regulations) and informal constraints (conventions and norms of behavior) and the way both are enforced. (North, 2000)2 • An environmental regime may therefore be comprised of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors can converge where there is a given environmental problem or issue. At times this might mean sharing the same behaviour, or adopting different means of achieving the same end point. • They can be state-based activities, such as the adherence to an international agreement on an environmental problem. • They can also be comprised of informal activities that are not regulated by international agreements, but which nonetheless help address environmental problems. • These informal activities in particular might involve non-state actors such as businesses, civil society organisations and citizens. These actors might be involved by following state-based rules or guidelines in accordance with domestic or international legislation; or on a more voluntary, non-coerced basis. For example, many states might regulate the sale of ozone-depleting substances following the Montreal Protocol (1987), which is a formal interstate agreement. This treaty makes 36 2 www.hoover.org/ pubaffairs/dailyreport/ archive/2866156.html (accessed 15 July 2009). Chapter 2: Environmental regimes it illegal to buy or sell products that damage the ozone layer. But many citizens might choose voluntarily to perform environmentally friendly tasks where there is no international agreement, such as in the recycling of household waste. In this case, states or NGOs might assist this process by providing information and guidelines, but there are still relatively few laws concerning recycling of everyday items. • The creation of an environmental regime, therefore, need not necessarily require the signing of an international agreement, if actors within different states can be persuaded to behave in certain ways. But sometimes an international agreement is the most effective way to create change in how societies and actors operate within states. • Regimes, by definition, challenge the sovereignty of individual states but they also imply a step towards cooperative behaviour. The international-relations theorists Levy, Keohane and Haas (1993) wrote that ‘environmental regimes may limit the scope of governments to act unilaterally, [but] they also facilitate collective state-based problem solving’. • Regimes may be reached by various routes, and can be agreed even if there are disagreements or competition between states. The next section discusses different approaches to creating environmental regimes. Three routes to regimes Analysts usually argue that there are three main ways of achieving environmental regimes, which reflect different emphases on realism, liberalism, and the role of generating knowledge (such as by NGOs). These are called power-based, interests-based and knowledge-based approaches to regime formation. Power-based approach The power-based approach adopts a realist vision of international relations under which any possibility of reaching environmental agreements has to acknowledge the reality that all states will focus on their own interest. In particular, it will be difficult to persuade hegemons to change their behaviour if there are no strong pressures upon them to do so. Alternatively, a hegemon might coerce other states to agree to a regime the hegemon itself is proposing by using techniques such as threatening to withdraw assistance, market access, or other benefits that smaller states might enjoy from the more powerful state. Academics within international relations might use further specific terms to refer to power-based regimes. For example, the concept of ‘Hegemonic Stability Theory’ (HST) assumes that interstate agreement is only possible if a single actor (the hegemon) has a preponderance of power. Some hegemons might be considered ‘benign’ if they are facilitators for regimes (for example, by bearing costs of agreements, or offering technical assistance). Hegemons might be considered ‘malign’ if they consider only their own short-term interests, or if they use their influence to resist the construction of a regime. For example, some analysts have debated whether the USA might be considered a hegemon in global climate-change policy. The USA withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 citing that it was not in its interests to be a party to it. If the treaty failed as a result of this action, the USA might be called a hegemon, but other states were able to ratify the agreement. Consequently, some other authors have argued that the USA might not be called a hegemon in this respect (see Falkner, 2005 and see discussions in Chapters 3 and 4). 37 166 Global environmental problems and politics These approaches to power-based regimes are influenced by the realist perspective, which assumes that states will inevitably compete and protect their own interests. A different approach stems from neo-Marxist thinking about global capitalism and the relationship between developed and developing countries. Under the neo-Marxist approach to regime formation, the most important source of power is not the willingness of states to protect their own interests, but the influence of global capitalism as a key factor in deciding the location of economic power. This approach to regime theory has been influenced by Dependency Theory, which was an approach to international development proposed in the late 1950s and 1960s. Dependency Theory argued that economic growth in the richer, northern countries took place at a cost to the poorer, southern countries. Consequently, as countries in Europe and North America grew rich by trade with countries supplying raw materials, the developing countries that supplied resources became progressively ‘under-developed’. Proponents of this neo-Marxist theory therefore argue that the Northern great powers (such as in Europe and North America) are linked closely to the forces of global capitalism, and that they will always act to protect their control over trade and economic production. We discuss some of these arguments in Chapter 5 (about business) and Chapter 7 (about trade). Interests-based approach The interests-based approach to regime formation is influenced by liberal perspectives on international relations, and the ability of states to create new regimes despite competition and unequal power relations. Sometimes, these regimes might be based on the belief that collective action is necessary in order to avoid a communal disaster. For example, some theorists of climate-change policy have suggested that a regime has emerged because states appreciate that not responding to scientific information will result in damage to all. Academics sometimes use different terms to refer to behaviour by states acting in cooperative ways. For example, ‘rational-egoistic’ behaviour by one state might occur if it acts to persuade other states of the need to follow its advice about environmental problems. For example, the European Union has adopted a position of demonstrating international leadership on matters of climate change by setting itself higher targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the USA, Japan, or other states. ‘Rational-harmonic’ behaviour might occur when a state and others negotiate and act to reach mutual agreement on certain matters. Sometimes, international-relations scholars use the terms ‘neoliberal institutionalism’ and ‘cooperation under anarchy’ in order to indicate occasions when states can come together to maximise their collective interests, even when there are incentives for individual states not to act this way (Keohane and Levy, 1996). Knowledge-based approach The third approach refers to the generation and communication of knowledge about environment as a means to achieve regimes. This approach moves away from the concerns of traditional interstate politics and instead emphasises the role of global consensus and social movements. In turn, this approach also refers more to non-state actors than the preceding theories about regimes. A knowledge-based theory of regimes argues that the production of scientific or environmental knowledge is most important in creating regimes because it can influence actors’ responses to problems. For 38 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes example, the production of scientific reports, or the communication of ideas through media, NGO activism, or social movements can result in making people more aware of environmental problems. In turn, this can have one or two practical effects on creating an environmental regime. First, it might influence a state to take action, perhaps to acknowledge the growing public support for action about environmental problems. Second, it might persuade various non-state actors such as citizens and businesses to take action regardless of an interstate agreement. Both of these results are, in effect, the creation of an environmental regime. There are many advantages to understanding regimes through a knowledge-based approach. First, it stresses the increasing role of nonstate actors such as pressure groups in defining and communicating concern about environmental problems. Second, it gives welcome attention to domestic politics as a key influence on international politics. Third, it shows that the understanding of environmental problems is often dynamic and evolutionary: regimes usually do not occur because of government reports and decisions; more often they result from public debate and worry. One of the most important questions about knowledge-based explanations of regimes is ‘where does the knowledge come from?’ This, in turn, leads to two further concepts that are important for global environmental problems and politics. First, the term epistemic communities is used to refer to sources of authoritative knowledge that can drive knowledge-based regimes. The term is often attributed to the international-relations theorist Peter Haas, who wrote: An epistemic community is a network of professionals with recognised experience and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue area… What bonds members of an epistemic community is their shared belief or faith in the verity and the applicability of particular forms of knowledge or specific truths. (1992, p.3) Many political analysts assume that epistemic communities refer to formal scientific bodies or networks, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, bodies such as these regulate membership, perhaps by stipulating that members be invited to join, or by insisting that members have a widely recognised reputation as a publisher of scientific research. Yet some social scientists have also suggested that this interpretation of epistemic communities is too narrow, and should include all sources of knowledge that are de facto taken as authoritative (e.g. Jasanoff, 1996). For example, many officially recognised scientists or scientific bodies can still make claims that are criticised. And many NGOs or activist groups can also make claims that influence policy. In other words, epistemic communities do create knowledge that influences policy. But it is not always clear what is, and isn’t, an epistemic community, and different actors sometimes make strong claims as to who should (and should not!) be respected as authoritative sources of knowledge. The second concept related to knowledge regimes is advocacy coalitions, or the extension of knowledge via networks and coalitions, often by larger NGOs in collaboration with smaller NGOs or citizen groups. According to the writers Keck and Sikkink (1998, p.215): international advocacy coalitions allow ‘ecological values to be placed above narrow definitions of national interest’. Accordingly, the extension of environmental 39 166 Global environmental problems and politics or scientific knowledge to new societies or countries might be used to indicate growing support for an environmental regime. But sometimes the advocacy coalitions communicating this knowledge are NGOs and activists (rather than formal scientific bodies); and sometimes these coalitions might reflect environmental values in one location rather than be thoroughly agreed locally (this point was discussed in Chapter 1). See Lahsen (2004) for one illustration of this problem in Brazil; we return to these dilemmas in regards to biodiversity, forests and conservation in Chapters 10 and 11. Activity 2.3 Write 300 words defining and giving examples of epistemic communities in any environmental field of your choice. Who are the experts? Are they based in government, or universities? Or in NGOs or international organisations? Are they foreign? This exercise might indicate how it is sometimes difficult to make firm rules for who might belong to an epistemic community. The case of the ozone regime The ‘ozone model’ The international environmental regime to counter ozone depletion is a good example of how an environmental regime came into being. Indeed, the relative speed and success of this regime at the end of the 1980s gave the impression to many policymakers that these events could present a ‘model’ for regime formation in the future (Benedick, 1991). The climatechange negotiations tended to follow this model during the early 1990s (see Chapter 3). However, events proved that the so-called ‘ozone model’ was not as applicable as policymakers had hoped. The model, of course, is a simplified version of real events. But the essence of it can be summarised in the steps outlined in Box 2.1. Figure 2.1 also summarises this model. Stage 1: Forward-thinking scientists produce information about an environmental problem [first step towards making an epistemic community]. Stage 2: Interested politicians and NGOs take this knowledge further and communicate it to the policy process [strengthening of the epistemic community]. Sometimes this stage experiences strong resistance from some actors (such as businesses) who fear that environmental reform might affect profits or encourage inflexible regulation. Stage 3: International organisations take on the role of facilitating meetings and the first steps towards an environmental agreement. Stage 4: An international conference occurs, in which a Framework Convention is signed by different states [the Framework Convention has no fixed targets, but acknowledges the existence of a problem and commits states to take further steps eventually]. Stage 5: A further conference produces a Protocol to the Framework Convention that specifies hard targets for states [a ‘Protocol’ is an amendment to a ‘Framework Convention’]. Stage 6: Business actors respond by changing products to comply with the Protocol. Stage 7: Further interstate meetings lead to a strengthening of the targets, and an increase in countries that are Parties to the Convention [this is the principle of incrementalism]. 40 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes Stage 8: A fund is created to assist developing countries to implement the agreement. Stage 9: Adherence to the targets, and increased membership, mean that the environmental regime has been created and that environmental behaviour has been changed. Box 2.1: The classic ‘ozone model’ of environmental regime formation. In the case of the agreements about ozone, the initial Framework Convention was the Vienna Convention of 1985. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 provided the first hard targets for states. The London Agreement of 1990 then added to these targets and allowed more countries to join. But before we discuss this model further, let’s review the events leading to the ozone regime in more detail. We shall then discuss how far analysts agree this model really works. The ozone hole and the global response Most discussions of the ozone hole start with the work of two inspired scientists in California: Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina. These gifted men conducted research in 1973 to study the impact of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the earth’s atmosphere. CFCs are particles used in various household and industrial uses, usually to act as a propellant for other chemicals (such as in the use of aerosol sprays). The scientists discovered that CFC molecules would remain in the atmosphere, typically for 50–100 years before being broken down by ultraviolet radiation to release a chlorine atom. These chlorine atoms would then attach themselves to ozone (O3) in the stratosphere, thereby reducing the amounts of ozone. Molina and Rowland, and another scientist, Paul J. Crutzen, were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work. Ozone in the stratosphere has the effect of absorbing solar radiation. Reducing the layer of ozone therefore exposes the earth to more solar radiation, which might bring increased risks of skin cancer, as well as potential impacts on crops and sea organisms such as phytoplankton. Facing initial opposition from industry leaders, Rowland and Molina published a key paper, and then testified at the US House of Representatives in 1974. Further scientific research then supported their findings. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) started issuing bulletins about ozone. In 1985 Antarctic researchers published evidence of a growing ozone ‘hole’ around the southern pole. This hole was partly the result of the lack of global circulation in the atmosphere above Antarctica (most ozone is created at the earth’s equator where solar radiation is strongest; it then circulates around the world, but less in Antarctica where the cold land mass slows circulation down). But the evidence suggested the ‘hole’ was getting bigger. The publicity about the ozone hole greatly increased public concern about ozone depletion. In 1985, 20 nations signed the Vienna Convention, which established a framework for negotiating international regulations on ozone-depleting substances. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol gave the first target for Member States to reduce CFCs by 50 per cent of 1986 levels by 1990. The Toronto meeting in 1988 launched an NGO ‘action plan’ to reduce CFCs. The London Agreement of 1990 then consented to phase out CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride by 2000, and methyl chloroform by 2005. In 1991, the EU regulation 594/91 brought forward this requirement by banning CFCs in the EU by 1997. And in 1992, a 41 166 Global environmental problems and politics further meeting in Copenhagen brought forward these dates again. This process, in which targets are improved with each meeting, and the number of countries joining also increases, has been called incrementalism. Financial assistance Activism by NGOs and leading intellectuals, politicians Scientific research [epistemic community] Initial blocking moves by business Inter-state negotiations Framework convention Further agreements increase members and targets Complementary business interests Figure 2.1: The ‘ozone model’ of environmental regime formation, specifying different roles for actors, and the incremental nature of agreements. Meanwhile, two other factors also helped the emerging regime. Developing countries were assisted in implementing the Montreal Protocol by the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol. And business actors – initially hostile to the concerns about regulating CFCs – had developed new products that did not deplete the ozone layer. These products were attractive to businesses for two reasons. The products could be patented, and hence guarantee profits to the manufacturer if used widely. And they could also be used with an eco-label, or labelling on the packaging of the product that communicated to consumers that the product had an environmental benefit; it could also therefore command a higher price. Reassessing the ‘ozone model’ Together, these steps leading to the ozone regime have been called a model for constructing environmental regimes. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the ozone regime ‘perhaps the most successful environmental agreement to date’. In a book published in collaboration with the WWF called Ozone diplomacy, Richard Benedick (1991) argued that the experience of negotiating this regime carried important lessons for how regimes could be formed, based upon the complementary role of actors such as scientists, NGOs, concerned politicians, states, and eventually businesses. In particular, Bendick emphasised the role of an influential epistemic community to guide political action, and the principle of incrementalism as a way to take small steps first. These small steps could then be followed by more serious action when international organisations, states, public opinion, and business responses had set up funds and information, and when a knowledge regime had been established to convince people of the need for action. This view has been influential in global environmental politics, and has been used especially by NGOs to indicate the need to communicate scientific findings into an epistemic community. (Chapter 9 discusses the role of NGOs and knowledge regimes.) Indeed, similar steps were intended to negotiate a climate-change regime in the early 1990s (see Chapter 3). 42 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes However, this view has also been questioned as somewhat simplistic compared with what actually happened in the build up to the ozone regime. Indeed, it is possible that this representation of the ‘ozone model’ is a rather convenient summary of various events that presents roles for actors such as scientists, states and NGOs that may not necessarily be the only way to achieve agreements. In another influential book, entitled Ozone discourses, Karen Litfin (1994) proposed that the ozone agreements should be seen as a series of linked events, rather than as one ‘model’ of how to achieve a successful environmental regime. In particular, she also argued that the role of the epistemic community was overstated. Litfin confirmed that scientists played an important role in facilitating political agreement. But she claimed that the role of science was mediated by two key factors. First, negotiations were facilitated by a group of ecologically minded knowledge brokers associated with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA and UNEP. Second, negotiations were highly influenced by the publicity surrounding the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Before 1987, the scientific evidence coming from computer models or other environmental assessments was not as conclusive as it was claimed after the event. But the ‘discovery’ of the ozone hole provided a political impetus for states, businesses and citizens to see the need for an ozone agreement as legitimate. The image of a ‘hole’, after all, is very emotive: it suggests something is missing, or that there is a risk of further damage. The presentation of all the various concerns about ozone into a single image of a ‘hole’ therefore helped to facilitate the agreed ‘solution’ of reducing the use of CFCs and related chemicals. Litfin’s arguments emphasise that context and discourse are important in regime formation, rather than the wisdom and certainty of environmental activists such as NGOs. In simpler language, the ‘ozone model’ gives the impression of a relay team passing the baton between each other on the way to a known destination (in this case, the ‘baton’ is the message that CFCs cause ozone depletion, and members of the relay team include scientists, NGOs, policymakers, international organisations and businesses). Instead, Litfin described the ozone regime as less organised, like a creative soccer team passing the ball between each other until a goal is scored. Indeed, one important factor in the emergence of the regime was an increasing adoption of the ‘precautionary principle’3 in environmental politics rather than clear-cut scientific proof that reducing CFCs would decrease the ozone hole. She wrote: Without taking into account the political implications of scientific discourse, an interest group approach alone does not contribute much to an understanding of the evolution of the ozone regime… epistemic community approaches underestimate the extent to which scientific information simply rationalises or reinforces existing political conflicts. (Litfin, 1994, pp.184, 186) The debate about the ozone model is important. The ozone model influenced attempts to create a similar regime for climate change. Yet there are various important differences between the nature of ozone depletion and climate change in terms of the variability of the problem, the number and nature of actors involved, and the cost of controls. Moreover, the roles given to different actors under the ozone model may not always achieve the same outcomes as for ozone. For example, there are strong divisions between different NGOs concerning climate change (see Chapter 9). The precautionary principle is an approach to environmental politics that seeks to introduce environmental protection on the basis of precaution in the face of negative scenarios rather than on the ability to achieve consensus that these negative trends will indeed occur. The principle is based on the belief that it is better to be cautious and wrong than to take no action when damaging environmental changes might be occurring. 3 43 166 Global environmental problems and politics The rest of this subject guide discusses the problems of creating environmental regimes, and the complexity of addressing climate change, biodiversity and deforestation. Characteristic Ozone Climate Scientific uncertainty High Varied Distribution of costs and benefits Fairly even Uneven Cost of controls Moderate Very high Major actors North North and South Visible crisis Yes 1990: no... but increasing...? Table 2.1: A simple comparison of ozone and climate regimes. Source: adapted from Litfin (1994) Summary of this chapter/Conclusion This chapter has summarised debates about the creation of environmental regimes. It acts as a theoretical background for the rest of the subject guide. It also summarised the emergence of the ozone regime, which is considered by some to be a good model for building regimes. • An environmental regime is a shared policy or environmental behaviour between different states and societies. • Classically, international relations scholars have theorised regimes in terms of interstate agreements. Increasingly, however, the role of nonstate actors such as NGOs and businesses is increasing. • Many scholars identify three approaches to explaining regimes: power-based (based on a position of realism, or acknowledging the power that some states hold); interests-based (reflecting liberal beliefs about how states might sacrifice short-term interests in order to build regimes); and knowledge-based theories (focusing on achieving shared knowledge about problems, often resulting from the actions of states and non-state actors such as NGOs). • An epistemic community is an important component of a knowledge regime, as it is composed of a body of experts such as scientists who can advise policymakers. However, the definition and breadth of this term is debated, and might include NGO workers or lay experts who are not considered sufficiently expert or separate from politics for some observers. • The evolution of the ozone regime in the late 1980s and early 1990s is considered by some analysts to be a good ‘model’ of how to build an environmental regime because it was apparently based on good cooperation between willing states, and concerned epistemic communities and NGOs. This initial intent then led to a process of incrementalism, in which the targets and extent of the regime increased over time. However, some analysts have criticised this model, suggesting that the real events were less coordinated and more haphazard, and that the role of epistemic communities was exaggerated. • These themes are relevant for other chapters, and can be discussed for the evolution of all other environmental policies. 44 Chapter 2: Environmental regimes A reminder of your learning outcomes Having completed this chapter, and the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • explain the importance of states to international agreements, and the growing and complementary role of non-state actors such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and businesses • define the concept of ‘regime’ and what this means in political science • summarise the three main approaches to creating regimes, namely power-based; liberal, interests-based; and knowledge-based • explain the concept of epistemic community (or communities of expertise), and how these contribute to expertise and knowledge about environmental problems • describe the evolution of the ozone regime with reference to the 1985 Vienna Convention and 1987 Montreal Protocol • discuss how the experience with ozone became a model for other environmental regimes, and how this model was then criticised (i.e. the problems of this model, and the increasing role of sub-state actors in regime theory, will also be discussed in later chapters). Sample examination questions 1. With reference to examples, how have approaches to environmental regimes changed over the years? 2. What are epistemic communities, and what role do they play in creating environmental regimes? (See Question 3 in Appendix 3 for guidance on answering this question.) 45 166 Global environmental problems and politics Notes 46 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC Aims of the chapter Anthropogenic climate change is the most important and widely discussed global environmental problem. This chapter summarises some of the basic political dilemmas concerning international agreements about climate change, and some of the history of the negotiations leading up to the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. The next chapter then takes the discussion of climate change further by focusing on the Kyoto Protocol and current dilemmas of climate-change policy. Learning outcomes By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • explain why climate change raises so many important political dilemmas and uncertainties • describe the history of climate-change policy until the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 • explain why the discussions about climate-change policy are so controversial with regards to economic development and North–South relations. Essential reading From your essential textbooks Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2005) Chapter 6. Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) Chapter 3, pp.115–27. Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005). Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press, 2004) Chapter 3. Further reading Cullet, P. and P. Kameri-Mbote ‘Joint implementation and forestry projects: conceptual and operational fallacies’, International Affairs 74(2) 1998, pp.393–408. Demeritt, D. ‘The construction of global warming and the politics of science’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2) 2001, pp.307–37. Depledge, Joanna ‘The opposite of learning: ossification in the climate change regime’, Global Environmental Politics 6(1) 2006, pp.1–22. Grubb, M. et al. (eds) The ‘Earth Summit’ agreements: a guide and assessment. (London: Earthscan for the RIIA, 1993). 47 166 Global environmental problems and politics Ha-Duong, M., Rob Swart, Lenny Bernstein and Arthur Petersen ‘Uncertainty management in the IPCC: agreeing to disagree’, Global Environmental Change 17(2) 2007, pp.8–11. Harris, P. (ed.) Global warming and East Asia: the domestic and international politics of climate change. (New York, London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003). Harris, P. (ed.) Confronting environmental change in East and Southeast Asia: ecopolitics, foreign policy and sustainable development. (London: Earthscan, 2005). Harrison, K. and L. Sundstrom ‘The comparative politics of climate change’, Global Environmental Politics 7(4) 2007, pp.1–18. Liverman, D. ‘Assessing impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: reflections on the Working Group II Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Global Environmental Change 18(1) 2008, pp.4–7. Lohmann, L. ‘The Dyson effect: carbon “offset” forestry and the privatisation of the atmosphere’, Briefing number 15, The Corner House. (Sturminster Newton, UK, 1999) www.cornerhouse.org.uk Miller, C. and P. Edwards (eds) Changing the atmosphere: expert knowledge and environmental governance. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001). Risbey, J. ‘The new climate discourse: alarmist or alarming?’, Global Environmental Change 18(1) 2008, pp.26–37. Wuebbles, D. and N. Rosenberg ‘The natural science of global climate change’ in Rayner, S. and E. Malone (eds) Human choice and climate change. Volume 2: Resources and technology. (The Hague: Springer, 1998) Chapter 1, pp.1–78. Additional resources International Human Dimensions of Global change guide to climate change science: www.aag.org/HDGC/www/intro/toc.html Tiempo: an online resource considering global warming and developing countries: www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/ International Institute for Sustainable Development resource on Climate Change: www.iisd.ca/process/climate_atm.htm What is climate change? Climate change is integral to most of the other problems discussed in this guide, including degradation of forests and loss of biodiversity. The policies used to address it are also influential as they are closely linked to economic growth, social vulnerability and agricultural development. All of these are hugely controversial. This subject guide has two chapters dedicated to climate change. This first chapter introduces the basic controversies, and provides a history of climate-change politics until the late 1990s. First, what is climate change? And why is it so problematic? Climate change itself is not new. The Earth is some 4.5 billion years old and during this time there have been significant changes in climate. The most recent dramatic changes were the end of the so-called Ice Ages at the end of the Pleistocene age, some 10,000 years ago. The causes of these climate changes were decidedly not caused by humans because the influence of early people at that stage was so small. Scientists are uncertain about the exact cause of climate change then, but many attribute it to the so-called Milankovitch cycle, which is when the earth tilts on its axis, causing shifts in how the Earth receives solar radiation. Anthropogenic (or human-induced) climate change is different. It is caused by the release of so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, which act as insulation around the earth’s atmosphere. Again, the greenhouse effect is not new. During the early stages of the earth’s formation, many gases such as carbon dioxide 48 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC were released through volcanoes or the decomposition of vegetal matter on the earth’s surface. These gases then settled in the atmosphere around the earth and had the effect of preventing much of the earth’s heat from escaping. Indeed, this level of the greenhouse effect has been beneficial, allowing temperatures to remain high enough for the earth’s current life forms to develop. But if there are too many of these greenhouse gases, the earth’s temperature is likely to rise further. Human activities impact on climate change by releasing greenhouse gases. The most common of these activities is the conversion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas to energy. These fuels contain large quantities of carbon stored from previous geological periods, which when released as carbon dioxide will increase atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Other sources of greenhouse gases include deforestation (which has the impact of releasing carbon dioxide, as well as reducing the ability of landscapes to recover – or sequester – carbon dioxide), land-use changes and construction work (which releases nitrous oxide), and the decomposition of organic matter and fermentation in rice fields (which releases methane). Indeed, nitrous oxide and methane have significantly higher levels of impact on heating the atmosphere (also known as global warming potential) than carbon dioxide. Figure 3.1 indicates the basic model of carbon circulation in the earth and shows some key greenhouse gases. Table 3.2 shows their comparative global warming potential. Changes in the Atmosphere: Composition, Circulation Changes in Solar Inputs Figure removed due to copyright restrictions Changes in the Hydrological Cycle Clouds Atmosphere Air–Ice Coupling Heat Wind Exchange Stress Precipitation– Evaporation Air–Biomass Coupling Terrestrial Radiation Human Influences Sea Ice Ice–Ocean Coupling Rivers Lakes Ocean Land Changes in the Ocean: Circulation, Biogeochemistry Biomass Land–Biomass Coupling Changes in/on the Land Surface; Orography, Land Use, Vegetation, Ecosystems Figure 3.1: The earth’s climate system. Source: IPCC, 1988 Rising temperatures are the most obvious impact of anthropogenic climate change. But climate change is more than just ‘global warming’ – and indeed, that term is now no longer used in official scientific reports. ‘Global warming’ implies a gradual heating up of the earth’s temperatures, possibly in a uniform way across space. This image is now considered to be too simple. Rather, scientists represented on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have reported that climate change is most likely to result in a more erratic pattern. This prediction means that there may be more storms and more unpredictable, higher-magnitude weather events such as cyclones and droughts. Some climatic zones will shift in geographical location over a gradual period. Yet, to achieve this change there may be associated events such as fires in landscapes that used to have trees and shrubs, but which are gradually becoming drier. These fires 49 166 Global environmental problems and politics will also cause damage and disturbance to other ecosystems. Indeed, some observers claim that recent forest fires in Indonesia, or bush fires in places such as Australia and California are most likely evidence of long-term shifts in climate-vegetation zones taking place. Carbon dioxide (CO2) Fossil-fuel burning, wood fuel, deforestation, land-use change, cement manufacture Methane (CH4) Gas/oil/coal production, enteric from ruminants (cows etc.), wetland rice cultivation, landfill waste, burning/decay of biomass Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Solvents, refrigerants, aerosols etc. Nitrous oxide (N2O) Fertilisers, fossil-fuel burning, deforestation, new agriculture Also: nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide (fossil-fuel and biomass burning), non-methane hydrocarbons (solvents etc.) Box 3.1: Some key greenhouse gases. Gas Lifetime (years) 20 years 100 years Carbon dioxide variable 1 1 Methane 12 72 25 Nitrous oxide 114 310 298 HFC-23 270 12,000 14,800 HFC-134a 14 3,830 1,430 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 16,300 22,800 Table 3.1: Global warming potential (examples). Source: IPCC, 2007 Another concern is that climate change might raise sea levels by melting polar and land-based ice, or by heating the water and increasing its volume accordingly. These are serious concerns, and they might impact on coastal communities in various ways. For example, in Bangladesh, agricultural land near the coast will become more saline (salty) as the sea level rises. This requires local farmers to adapt by using crops that are tolerant of sea water. Coastal zones might also experience higher levels of tidal surges (the short-term rise in water) during storms. These events might impact on vulnerable populations in developing countries, as well as richer cities such as in Florida. Longer-term inundation of currently dry land on a permanent basis might take longer. Changed climate patterns could impact on the distribution of disease vectors such as mosquitoes. They could also lead to a relatively rapid decline in biodiversity if living conditions and habitats for some species have insufficient time for adjustments to take place. The main source of information about climate change comes from the IPCC, which was set up in 1988. Its objectives were not to conduct research itself, but to bring together all research and analytical discussions about climate change within academic and applied scientific bodies in order to reach a consensus about trends. Its first report in 1990 proposed that the global economy should reduce emissions by 60 per cent in order to avoid climate change. Follow-up reports were published in 1996, 2001 and 2007. 50 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC Box 3.3 presents a brief summary of the predicted impacts of climate change, according to the UNFCCC, based on the 2007 IPCC report and updates shortly afterwards. Check the website at the base of the Box to see further updates. •• Even minimum predicted shifts in climate will be significant: the minimum warming forecast until 2100 is more than twice the 0.6 degree increase observed since 1900. •• Extreme weather events are increasing and sea levels have risen by 10–20 centimetres over pre-industrial levels. Extra tropical storm tracks are projected to move towards the poles of the earth, changing historic wind, rain and temperature patterns. •• Large food producing areas are more likely to be drier in the future, including the US crop belt and food-producing areas of Asia. •• Salt-water intrusion will be a problem in many productive deltas such as the Mekong in Vietnam and Yangtze in China. •• Endangered species will be under further threat because of changes to habitats and changes to migration patterns. •• It is likely that vector-borne diseases such as malaria will also change in incidence. Box 3.2: Future effects of climate change. Source: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2905.php Activity 3.1 Write 300 words on any one country (possibly your own) to identify: (i) the key contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, including which industries or activities contribute most heavily, (ii) the key ‘sinks’ or sources of sequestration such as forests or water bodies, (iii) the key areas of vulnerability, such as low-lying land close to the sea, or specific ecosystems or climates that might be affected by climate change. Political disagreements about climate change Uncertainties about climate change This subject guide is not intended to be a thorough guide to the physical science of environmental change (see the IPCC website for summaries). It is worth noting, however, that there are controversies and uncertainties about projected climate change. Indeed, some critics still refer to ‘climate change’ as a ‘theory’ to indicate that it is still unproven, and that the basic proposed cause (of human-induced releases of greenhouse gases) might not be the cause of observed changes to date. For example, some climate change ‘sceptics’ have argued that the major changes in historic climates have not been driven by carbon dioxide, and that according to historic trends over geological time periods, the Earth is more likely to cool down from current levels than become warmer. Another concern is that possible current changes in climate might result from Milankovitch cycles, rather than human activities. A further contention is that changes in solar radiation are still too poorly understood to be discounted as a cause of current trends. Some debate about this refers to the so-called Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere in approximately 1600, which was when Europe suffered years of frozen winters, recorded in the paintings of artists such as Breughel. According to some analysts, historical records show that the sun during this period had very few sunspots or signs of activity on its surface. This compares 51 166 Global environmental problems and politics with the late twentieth century, when the number of sunspots had risen markedly. Of course, records of solar activity from the earlier period are not very reliable, and some contemporary scientists have argued that there is still no proven link between sunspots and trends in climate change. More controversially, some critics have suggested that the evidence for climate change has been represented in ways that minimise attention to uncertainty. For example, much worry about climate change has come from the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph that shows global temperatures more or less constant until the twentieth century, and then rising sharply in the manner of a hockey stick. Some critics argued that this chart does not indicate the extent of variation in records. At the same time, some critics (such as prominent US Senator Chuck Hagel during the late 1990s) have criticised the IPCC for not having scientific or political neutrality. The IPCC, for its part, has tried to emphasise that its work is not connected to politics and it has sought to increase its membership to include more social scientists and representatives of developing countries in recent years. On the other side, many environmentalists argue that sceptics are simply acting on behalf of oil or coal companies who are funding research and publicity to discount scientific research about climate change. We discuss this further in Chapter 5. These questions about climate change are worth considering. Yet it is also worth noting that the IPCC report in 2007 claimed 90 per cent certainty that recent trends in climate change are indeed caused by human activities, and that this level of certainty has risen since the first report in 1990. Indeed, some scientists are worried that the IPCC is underestimating rates of climate change. This course on global environmental problems and politics does not expect you to answer questions about scientific analysis of whether climate change is occurring or not. But you are encouraged to consider how far climate change might give rise to different forms of environmental risk (such as discussed in Chapter 1), and which countries or people might be more or less vulnerable to these risks. This is important for considering which policy responses might be appropriate, and for whom. Similarly, you are encouraged to consider how disagreements or different experiences of the problems posed by climate change might influence the kinds of policies proposed. For example, people who are most convinced about the speed with which climate change is happening might propose policies that achieve rapid mitigation, such as reforestation in tropical areas, or reductions in energy use. People who are more cautious might propose a more gradual transition to technologies and land uses that emit fewer greenhouse gases, but also allow a more general process of sustainable development at the same time. Both groups might represent scientific debates about climate change in ways that support their preferred policy options. Activity 3.2 Take a few moments to summarise what you have learned about climate change so far. Have you noticed any disagreements about climate change or policies relating to the issue? What policies have been proposed to deal with climate change in your own country, and who (if anyone) has resisted these? This information might indicate how many debates about the scientific knowledge underlying climate change are connected to debates about policy options, and vice versa. 52 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC Is climate change a systemic or cumulative global environmental problem? Some of the biggest controversies about how to manage climate change relate to whether it is considered to be a ‘systemic’ or ‘cumulative’ problem. In Chapter 1 we reviewed the suggestion of Turner (1990) that global environmental problems could be called either systemic or cumulative. A systemic problem is one that is linked to an interconnected physical system that means causes and solutions might be applied in different places. A cumulative problem is one that is global only because it is happening in many places around the world, but not necessarily connected to a physical system. Climate change is usually considered to be a systemic problem because the global climate and carbon cycles are systems and the process is induced through increased concentrations of greenhouse gases at the atmospheric level. Consequently, any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the world would reduce the rate of concentrations and any act to sequester (or store) carbon at the earth’s surface (through activities such as planting trees) would have a global impact. Yet despite the simple logic of this argument, many social scientists have suggested that we need to see climate change as more than a simple system. First, it is clear that there are ethical and developmental dimensions to the way in which we view some emissions. Agarwal and Narain’s (1991) influential book, Global warming in an unequal world (see Chapter 1) argued that we need to differentiate between emissions coming from ‘livelihoods’ (such as food production, or from subsistence economies) and ‘lifestyles’ (such as from luxury consumption, or high standards of living). In the same way, some forms of carbon sequestration (such as plantation forestry) might be considered to be of different value to local people in different locations around the world. Second, the level of risk arising from increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases differs between different places and contexts. Climate change might indeed result from changes in the atmospheric system. But the risks to people, ecosystems and property resulting from these systemic changes will vary according to the concentrations of people; the nature of storms, droughts or other physical hazards; and the vulnerability of different populations to any of these. Climate change will not result in one single risk applying to different locations. Rather, there are numerous risks that will affect diverse places in different ways. Indeed, this diversity of risk is one important way in which climate change is a different physical threat to the risk posed by the deterioration of the ozone layer (see Chapter 2). Together, these points have caused some social scientists to argue that climate change ought to lead to a more diverse and locally relevant approach to risk. Demeritt (2001), for example, has put forward the view that rather than simply predicting changes in temperature or increases in events such as storms, modellers of climate change may need to address the risk arising from it by trying to understand the changes that are likely to impact on local people and how those people are vulnerable. 53 166 Global environmental problems and politics Mitigation and adaptation A related question is the emphasis given to mitigation and adaptation. In Chapter 1, mitigation was defined as reducing the physical causes of an environmental problem. Adaptation was defined as taking steps to make the impacts of the change less problematic. Or, in the words of the IPCC, mitigation is any ‘anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gasses’ (IPCC, 2001, p.379), and adaptation is the ‘adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2001, p.365). Climate-change mitigation means reducing the core cause of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations – either by reducing emissions at source (by actions such as increasing fuel efficiency, or replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, etc.) or by sequestering greenhouse gases through activities such as planting trees or storing carbon. If we see climate change as a systemic problem, it does not really matter where these acts of mitigation take place. Accordingly, many climate-change policy analysts have proposed that the most costefficient way of mitigating climate change is to adopt practices that reduce emissions or increase sequestration in the cheapest locations worldwide, even if these locations are not the same places as the origins of the emissions. Indeed, this suggestion is the origin of the debate about flexible mechanisms of climate change that we shall look at more in Chapter 4. A systemic approach to climate-change policy, however, is controversial because it implies that some countries might be allowed to continue emitting greenhouse gases if they can undertake acts of mitigation in other locations, including other countries. As we shall see, some developing countries have accused richer countries of avoiding responsibility for reducing emissions, and of imposing policies such as plantation forestry in other countries. Adaptation to climate change, however, is a response that makes the changes arising from increased greenhouse gas concentrations less damaging. As discussed in Chapter 1, adaptation has usually taken two routes. The first route is to build engineering solutions such as sea walls or storm shelters, or to find ways of managing irrigation that allow people to continue pursuing economic activities despite climate change. The second route is more influenced by international development and poverty alleviation, and aims to increase people’s economic opportunities under conditions of climate change, and hence make societies less economically vulnerable to rapid environmental change. Both approaches can be seen in Bangladesh, for example, where some coastal villages have sea walls, fresh-water tanks and storm shelters to help them withstand tidal surges and storms. At the same time, development workers are also encouraging long-term change by increasing the options for villagers to earn livelihoods from non-agricultural sources (such as working in cities); or helping farmers to switch to sea-water friendly land uses such as fattening crabs for market. Adaptation, however, by definition is not a uniform process and only works when people in specific localities can reduce their vulnerability to climate change. Accordingly, adaptation is effectively a cumulative response to climate change because it addresses various forms of climatechange risk in many contexts worldwide. This is a different approach to climate-change mitigation, which – again by definition – aims to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmospheric system. Consequently, 54 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC as discussed in Chapter 1, putting adaptation first might appeal to more ‘development’ minded policymakers than the kinds of environmental activists who see the world as a fragile system with hard physical limits. Of course, most analysts propose that forms of mitigation and adaptation should be undertaken at the same time. But it is worth noting that there are some deep disagreements about how to integrate mitigation and adaptation, For example, at an international conference on climate change in Tokyo in 1997, I witnessed a representative of China say that climatechange policy should include more direct assistance to help industrialising countries such as China adapt faster to climate change and that developed countries should provide greater technological assistance to poorer countries. In response to this statement, a representative of the USA stood up and urged delegates to remember that the climate-change convention was about ‘climate change’ and not ‘development’. Accordingly, he urged all discussions to see the main objectives of climate-change policy as reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. In other words, the USA at that time was urging mitigation through any means possible, rather than adaptation. In addition, some critics have argued that some forms of mitigation might prevent adaptation if it damages people’s overall access to development. For example, some radical environmentalists have suggested reducing economic growth, which would impact on less developed countries’ ‘right to development’ (Chapter 1). Some forms of reforestation for climatechange mitigation have also been criticised for taking up agricultural land, which might provide food and employment for people. We discuss this theme further below concerning the question of offsetting emissions. What kind of targets? Most scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is caused by increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, climate-change policy should try to reduce these concentrations. It is useful to measure these concentrations, and the ways that different states and actors can contribute to reducing them. Similarly, there is no point reducing concentrations without some idea of what kind of level is needed. Much climate-change policy, therefore, is based on the idea of having targets to reduce concentrations. But how can we define these targets? And should there be different targets for different countries? As we discussed in Chapter 1, many early climate-change policymakers looked at the national contributions to greenhouse gas emissions through activities such as industrial use and deforestation. Yet, as shown by the controversy between WRI and CSE (in Chapter 1), some critics suggest that it is unfair to ask developing countries to be measured on the same basis as richer countries. They say it is unfair because many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were put there by richer countries many decades ago; there is no accounting for historic deforestation in richer countries; and many uses of fossil fuels or forest land by poorer people are for reasons of subsistence rather than luxury lifestyles. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show some examples of per capita greenhouse gas emissions for different countries. This table shows that some of the highest per capita uses come from countries with high levels of resource-based industry and extreme weather (e.g. the Middle Eastern oil states and Canada). But there are important differences between these countries, many European states such as the UK and Germany, and then the poorest countries such as in SubSaharan Africa. 55 166 Global environmental problems and politics Accordingly, three questions about targets have been posed: • National targets or per capita targets? • How to set targets? (How large, and for what time period?) • Should there be ‘differentiation’? (i.e. different targets for different countries) • Or (most recently) should targets focus on overall greenhouse gas emissions, or on the means of achieving reductions, such as through commitments to renewable energy technologies? Most analysts agree that it is currently too difficult to impose per capita targets. National targets are more achievable, but for which countries? In the 1990s, many developing countries insisted that they should not be expected to achieve targets to reduce greenhouse gas emission. As we discuss in relation to the UNFCCC, the initial viewpoint was that the richer, more developed countries should have targets, but it was hoped that developing countries should gradually start to have targets in time (see next section on UNFCCC). Why should developing countries not have targets for reducing greenhouse gases? Various reasons have been proposed, which are summarised in Box 3.3. Most importantly, it was considered unfair to expect the poorest developing countries to have targets when their per capita emissions were so much smaller than those of developed countries, and when the problems of climate change were largely caused by historic emissions by richer countries. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Stockholm Conference in 1972 enshrined the principle of the Right to Development. No developing countries wish to support an international agreement on climate change without this right. In practical terms too, reducing emissions requires technical capacity to measure emissions and implement policies; many poorer countries do not yet have this capacity. Despite these arguments, it is worth noting that the question of targets – and the lack of targets for many poorer countries – was one of the reasons the USA later pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. We discuss this more fully in Chapter 4. 1980 2003 Australia 13.9 18.0 USA 20.1 19.8 Canada 17.2 17.9 UK 10.5 9.4 Norway 8.2 9.9 France 9.0 6.2 Germany … 9.8 Italy 6.6 7.7 Greece 5.4 8.7 Russia … 10.3 Ukraine … 6.6 Poland 12.8 7.9 Table 3.2: Per capita greenhouse gas emissions for middle-income and transitional economies, 1980 and 2003.1 Source: UNDP figures, average consumption of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, gas flaring and the production of cement, tons per capita per year 56 http://hdr.undp.org/ hdr2006/statistics/ indicators/202.html (accessed 15 July 2009). 1 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC 1980 2003 Saudi 17.3 13.0 Bahrain 22.6 31.8 China 1.5 3.2 (excl Hong Kong) India 0.5 1.2 Thailand 0.9 3.9 Jamaica 4.0 4.2 Argentina 3.8 3.4 Mexico 4.2 4.0 Brazil 1.5 1.6 Egypt 1.0 2.0 Congo 0.2 0.4 Tanzania 0.1 0.1 Table 3.3: Per capita greenhouse gas emissions for some Middle-Eastern, African, Latin American and Asian economies, 1980 and 2003.2 Source: UNDP figures, average consumption of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, gas flaring and the production of cement, tons per capita per year http://hdr.undp.org/ hdr2006/statistics/ indicators/202.html (accessed 15 July 2009). 2 For updates to these tables, see: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/items/4146.php http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/climatechange •• Per capita argument: emissions per capita in developing countries are approx. <2 t C pa; in USA approx. 20 t C pa •• History argument: climate change is the result of historic as well as current greenhouse gases, therefore older industrial powers are responsible •• Industrial maturity argument: one of the reasons for choosing 1990 as the baseline is that many countries were judged to be at economic maturity from this time (defined as GDP growth without growth in energy consumption) •• Right to development argument: are emissions reduction targets designed to stop future competitors? •• Technology argument: the responsibility should be how to avoid further problems now, such as through technological change, rather than arguing over levels of economic growth Box 3.3: Why should developing countries not have emissions reduction targets? Activity 3.3 Look at the statistics above and write 300 words on general trends in the per capita rates of different countries. What factors might underlie the differences between countries? How important are technologies; levels of development; dominant fuel sources; and the social interest in environmental problems? 57 166 Global environmental problems and politics Market mechanisms and carbon offsetting The accumulation of these various controversies has also led to the debate about how far specific countries can achieve their own targets for reducing greenhouse gases through market mechanisms, or via undertaking activities in other countries. If we define climate change as a systemic environmental problem, it does not matter where climate-change mitigation takes place: it could occur in any place in the world as long as there are net reductions in greenhouse gas concentrations. Accordingly, many policymakers have proposed that it is faster and more efficient to mitigate climate change in locations where it is cheaper to do so. In other words, it is cheaper to undertake climate-friendly activities such as changing fuel sources, or planting forests, in many developing countries rather than in richer countries where technologies are already in place and land and labour are more expensive. In turn, the idea of one country achieving a target by acting in a different location has become known as ‘offsetting’. We discuss offsetting in more detail in Chapter 4. But at this stage it is worth noting that the ability to offset, or achieve climate-change policy through investing or trading with another country, has been one of the most controversial aspects of climate-change policy. Many richer countries support this kind of activity because it gives them the means to take some kind of action without locking them into long-term and costly changes to their economies. But many developing countries have resisted these policies because of what they see as the unwillingness of richer countries to reduce emissions within their own territories. Moreover, critics have claimed that some forms of offsetting impact badly on local populations, and might even decrease their own ability to adapt to climate change. We discuss this theme further in Chapter 4, and in the section on forests in Chapter 11. The possible ways to integrate climate-change policies with industrial technology transfer is discussed in Chapter 6. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) The UNFCCC was signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The early stages of this convention were similar to the ‘ozone model’ discussed in Chapter 2. In other words, there was a belief among many policymakers that the climate-change convention should follow a process of achieving scientific consensus; creating political leadership; signing an initial framework convention to establish some basic objectives; signing later protocols and agreements to increase adherence to these objectives; and gradually getting non-state businesses and citizens to follow the agreement as well. The initial stages of the climate-change policy process were indeed similar to the ozone model, the first uniform scientific monitoring of climate change started in the 1960s. The First World Climate Conference took place in 1979. In 1988, the main epistemic community for climate was created in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation). The remit of the IPCC was to prepare information in order to create international agreements. In 1990, the first IPCC report called for a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the second World Climate Conference in Geneva allowed 137 states to sign a declaration urging action. The scene was therefore set for the signing of the UNFCCC at Rio in 1992. 58 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC But climate change is not like the depletion of the ozone layer. The causes of climate change, and the risks associated with it, are more diverse. The range of countries involved is far broader. There was no obvious visual prompt to climate change in the manner of the ozone ‘hole’. Unlike with the ozone problem, many important businesses were opposed to taking action. The implications of these dilemmas were important problems in making the UNFCCC operational. We discuss these mainly in the last section of this chapter, and in Chapter 4. But for now, what did the UNFCCC say? First, the UNFCCC was a classic framework convention. It brought states together to agree on the need to do something about climate change, but it did not specifically identify hard targets or policies. It was agreed that these targets and policies would be agreed at the Third Conference to the Parties of the Convention, which turned out to be at Kyoto in 1997 (the term ‘Conference of the Parties’ is referred to as COP). Secondly, it indicated that not all countries would be expected to have greenhouse gas reduction targets. The world was divided into two parts, known as Annex I and non-Annex I. Annex I countries were richer and were considered capable of achieving targets to reduce emissions. It was expected that these countries should achieve their targets and therefore prepare the way for developing countries to sign up for later targets in the future. This is the principle of incrementalism, which was demonstrated successfully under the ozone agreements. The richer Annex I countries were defined as: Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK and the USA. It should be noted that some larger developing countries were not included, notably South Korea, China, India, Brazil and Taiwan. Some aspects of the UNFCCC were still unclear or controversial. Perhaps most importantly, many green activists worried that the convention did not go far enough to stop anthropogenic influences on climate change in themselves, but instead sought to make these influences less damaging. (Of course, it is debatable whether it is possible to stop climate change anyway.) Article 2 of the UNFCCC (regarding objectives) stated: The ultimate aim... is to achieve... stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. This statement was controversial because it was not yet clear what was ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’. The statement implied that some change was inevitable. It was also not clear what ‘adapt naturally’ meant. Article 3 (concerning principles) stated that targets for greenhouse gas reductions should be set: on the basis of equity and in accordance with [states’] common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead... 59 166 Global environmental problems and politics This statement implied that all countries should take action eventually, but that some countries should take more responsibility than others in the short term. Clearly, some countries have contributed more to climate change through past and present actions but the statement was to prove very controversial and contributed to the withdrawal of the USA in 2001. Article 4.2(a) (concerning implementation of the UNFCCC) reiterated the ability to achieve some proportion of targets by investing in other countries. It stated: … developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I may implement… policies and measures jointly with other Parties and may assist other Parties in contributing to the objective of the Convention… Other sections of the UNFCCC described potential roles for the World Bank, the need for environmentally sound technology, and the possibility for carbon offsetting (although these were not specified at the time). Ultimately, 153 states (including the EU) signed the UNFCCC in 1992. It was an impressive achievement in a short time. It also indicated a cooperative style of regime by indicating that developing countries were only bound if the richer countries fulfilled their commitments. But it did not yet have hard targets, and it also relied on the willingness and ability of richer countries to take action. The first hard targets for climate-change policy came under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. We discuss this specifically in Chapter 4. But first, what steps were taken in between the UNFCCC and Kyoto? Activity 3.4 Go to the UNFCCC website http://unfccc.int/ and spend some minutes answering these questions: how many countries have now ratified the UNFCCC and associated Kyoto Protocol? What was the most recent Conference of the Parties (COP), and what did it discuss? What are the most important themes for the next COP? This website is a useful source of official information about climate change. The road to Kyoto The UNFCCC was signed in 1992. But legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were only agreed under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 (the third COP to the UNFCCC). Yet two important areas of controversy emerged between North and South during this period. First, many developing countries argued that they were not benefiting enough from investment that sought to encourage climate-change mitigation in developing countries. Under the first COP in 1995 in Berlin, countries agreed that emissions targets could be achieved by investing or trading in different countries. This theme is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. But the pilot phase for this investment (known as Activities Implemented Jointly, AIJ) was criticised for only being focused on countries that attracted a lot of foreign investment (such as Mexico) rather than the poorer developing countries that needed new climate-friendly investment. Some NGOs also thought that these projects focused excessively on so-called carbon ‘sinks’ such as forest protection and reforestation, rather than the transfer of environmental technologies. These controversies set the tone for later debates about technology transfer and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (to be discussed in Chapters 4 and 6). 60 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC The second theme of controversy related to the calculation of targets for different countries. The UNFCCC had stated that countries had a ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ to mitigate climate change. But how to do this? In 1997, the EU developed a collective climate policy known as the EU Bubble. The Bubble was a way for the entire EU (which in 1997 had 15 members) to commit to a collective target of a 15 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2010. The EU hoped that this relatively high commitment would be able to convince other states, such as the USA, that other countries were willing and able to take action. Table 3.4 shows the agreed targets under the EU Bubble. The UK government later unilaterally increased its own unofficial target to 20 per cent. Luxembourg -30 % Sweden +5 Austria, Denmark, Germany -25 Ireland +15 Belgium, NL, UK -10 Spain +17 Italy -7 Greece +30 Finland, France 0 Portugal +40 Table 3.4: The EU climate-change Bubble, agreed in 1997. Targets based on 1990 levels to be achieved by 2010, using a basket of three greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Yet, as we discuss in Chapter 4, the Bubble sent the message that it was possible for some countries to have radically higher targets than others. As Table 3.4 shows, Portugal and Greece were initially allocated increases in emissions of some 40 and 30 per cent. Some countries, such as France, received a relatively generous target of zero per cent because it had already made the transition from coal-powered electricity to nuclear power. And the UK was already in the process of changing its dependency on coal to gas and nuclear. Partly as a result of these debates, Brazil made two controversial proposals in 1997 before the Kyoto Summit. The first proposal was that targets for greenhouse gas reductions should be based on historical emissions. The index used by Brazil was based partly on the year when a country first went through the industrial revolution. Unsurprisingly, the United Kingdom achieved the highest proposed target of more than 60 per cent. Developing countries, clearly, had much smaller targets. This proposal was not accepted in the interstate negotiations. The second proposal was for a ‘Clean Development Fund’ that would be collected from penalty fines imposed on any Annex I country that did not reach its target. These fines would then be spent on installing cleaner technologies in developing countries. This suggestion was not accepted, although a similarly named Clean Development Mechanism was accepted at Kyoto as a means for Annex I countries to achieve their targets (see Chapter 4). And again, around the same time in 1997, the US Senate passed the ByrdHagel Resolution, which proposed that the USA should not sign a climatechange treaty without the active participation of developing countries. It was passed 95 votes to zero in the Senate. As we shall see in Chapter 4, 61 166 Global environmental problems and politics this resolution made it very difficult for the USA to ratify any agreement that was based on giving targets to richer countries alone (as indeed happened). Moreover, as we shall see in Chapter 5, some of the beliefs underlying this resolution were influenced by clever advertising campaigns and lobbying by private businesses. Consequently, the approach to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was full of important disagreements between North and South, and about the levels of targets and means of achieving them. Summary of this chapter/Conclusion This chapter has summarised the key problems posed by climate change and the main political barriers to agreement. It has also described the UNFCCC in 1992 and negotiations before the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. • Climate change is a global problem, but difficult to classify simply as either systemic or cumulative. • From a physical science perspective, changes in climate occur from systemic changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Mitigation of climate change might therefore be achieved through climate-friendly activities in any location worldwide. • Yet, from a developmental viewpoint, different localities and people are vulnerable because of social and economic circumstances, and there is variability in the nature of physical risks. Addressing these risks by mitigation therefore might not deal with these underlying vulnerabilities, and some form of adaptation is also required. • The UNFCCC attempted to address this wide range of concerns by proposing that richer countries should have targets to reduce greenhouse gases first, and then poorer countries should follow once these targets have been met. • But discussions before the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 were increasingly divided between North and South, with many developing countries claiming that richer countries were not willing to reduce emissions at source, or to assist developing countries. The main richer countries such as the EU and the USA, however, were already making plans to achieve targets by thinking systemically about how one country might be able to achieve targets in collaboration with others. A reminder of your learning outcomes Having completed this chapter, and the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • explain why climate change raises so many important political dilemmas and uncertainties • describe the history of climate-change policy until the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 • explain why the discussions about climate-change policy are so controversial with regards to economic development and North–South relations. 62 Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC Sample examination questions 1. Why is climate change such a difficult problem to address through political solutions? (See Question 4 in Appendix 3 for guidance on answering this question.) 2. What were the key political barriers before signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change? 63 166 Global environmental problems and politics Notes 64