 |
 |
|
|
Treaty Status and Amendments [Top]
Environmental degradation, in all of its myriad
forms, threatens the future of the human species. Among the most
threatening environmental issues are global climate change,
stratospheric ozone layer depletion and acid rain. The negotiations
for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and,
even so, the Protocol on Chlorofluorocarbons, were dominated by the
diverging national positions on scientific aspects and required
measures. The difficulties in reaching a compromise must be
seen in light of the significant national interests motivating the
official positions. The Montreal Protocol was an outgrowth of
the 1985 Vienna Convention, which legitimized stratospheric ozone
depletion as an international environmental issue and established
the basis for negotiation that would eventually lead to the
protocol. However, other factors critical to building international
consensus on the need for substantive measures controlling global
production and use of CFCs were not fully in place in 1985. These
factors were: (1) the evolving scientific understanding of
stratospheric ozone and its influence on policymaking; (2)
increasing public concern based on the threat of skin cancer and the
perception of potential global catastrophe associated with the
discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole; and (3) the availability of
acceptable substitutes. It was the evolution of these factors that
finally opened the door to the Montreal Protocol. A list of the countries that signed the treaties can be found in this table, which originates from the Ozone Secretariat home page.
The treaty has not gone without changes. The Montreal Protocol, with its flexible guidelines was the protocol that made it possible for more States to sign. At the Vienna Convention, the parties had a fairly hard time in reaching agreement amongst them. Especially the differences between the "North and the South" developed and developing countries. Developing countries felt freer to join the Protocol after more flexible phase-out strategies were developed. Sustainable development is a concern to these States and the North countries are finally supporting these efforts of development. The Protocol was only a first step, as was realized at the time. But once it was agreed, events developed with astonishing speed. New scientific evidence showed that very much tighter and greater controls would be needed, and Governments and industry moved further, and faster, than anyone would have believed possible. There have been four amendments added to these treaties. In 1990 there was the London Amendment which was ratified by 145 States, in 1992 there was the Copenhagen Amendment ratified by 120 States, followed by the Montreal Amendment in 1997 ratified by 55 States, and finally last year there was the Beijing Amendment ratified by 6 States in 1999. These Amendments were the products of the meetings of the parties. For example, the Beijing Amendment was added at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties. At this meeting, the parties agreed to increase the Montreal Protocol Fund by $440 million to assist developing countries meet their 2010 deadline for phasing out CFC production. The parties also agreed to a phase-out schedule for HCFCs, with developed countries phasing out production by 2020 and developing countries by 2040. These Amendments clarified some of the Articles that were not clear in the original Protocol. Articles were substituted, deleted and some were added to the original treaty. They brought tighter deadlines to phase-outs. Also, much of the implementation process and enforcement mechanisms were developed at the Meetings of the Parties and added to the treaty as amendments. The Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol represents a unique chance for cooperation with developing countries. If taken seriously and followed through by both sides, a valuable precedent for future endeavors can be set. Structure,
Effective Mechanisms and Behavioral Pathways [Top] Environmental treaties establish specific obligations of State parties, and require of them the necessary commitments for purposes of implementation, timetables and financing obligations. Within the signatory countries treaties call for international cooperation among states through education, training and public awareness. International cooperation is possible through conference of the parties where decision making and information exchange takes place. Prior to conference of the parties the designated states are liable for research and systematic observations. They collect data, and make every international efforts to strengthen capacity and offer support to the developing countries. However, in addition most environmental treaties create their own administrative and policymaking bureaucracy to help the parties fulfill treaty obligations, to help further the treaty's mission, and to provide forum for international environmental governance. These institutions may be permanent or intermittent, and include conferences of the parties, secretariats and subsidiary bodies including technical or expert committees. The conferences of the parties (CoPs) are the primary policy-making organs of most global environmental treaty regimes. The CoPs usually occur once every one or two years and conduct the major business of monitoring, updating, revising, and enforcing the conventions. The CoP shall, at its first session, adopt its own rules of procedure as well as those of subsidiary bodies established by the Convention, which shall include decision-making procedures for matters not already covered by decision-making procedures stipulated in the Convention. Such procedures may include specified majorities required for the adoption of particular decisions. The first session of the Conference of the Parties shall be convened by the interim secretariat referred to in Article 21 and shall take place not later than one year after the date of entry into force of the Convention. The most important function of the Climate Change Convention's CoP has been to periodically review the state of the science regarding climate change and to evaluate the ultimate effectiveness of the regime in meeting its objectives. What is true of the Climate Change Convention is also true more generally: once an environmental regime has entered into force, the CoP provides the mechanism by which new protocols are adopted and amendments and modification made. Thus, the CoPs play a crucial role in the vitality and continuing developments of environmental regimes, adapting those regimes to information and changing circumstances as the need arises. Indeed, it is often through the CoP that the most stringent treaty obligations are created. For example, amendments and modification adopted at a series of CoPs have extended both the scope and the extent of reductions in ozone depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol. At the same time, the CoPs increased the effectiveness of the ozone regime by establishing mechanisms for financing technology conversions in developing countries and for addressing non-compliance problems wherever they occur. CoP are also crucial to addressing environmental crises that cannot wait for the development and entry into force of entirely new conventions. For example, when elephant stocks plummeted in the 1980's and early 1990's the CoP to CITES adopted a moratorium on trade in elephant ivory. Elephant populations have now began to recover, largely as a result of the moratorium. The decisions of the CoPs to the Montreal Protocol were"
These are just of the basic decisions of the CoPs that the treaty regime provides. However, the treaty also provides for Secretariat. Secretariats are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the convention. Among the more common functions are monitoring and reporting on treaty implementation, assisting implementation when necessary, promoting scientific research relevant to the treaty's objectives. and contributing to the further development of the law. In addition, virtually all secretariats serve as conduits for communications among the treaty parties. A treaty secretariat maybe part of an existing institution-for example, UNEP administers the secretariat for the Montreal Protocol. For the purposes of the Protocol, the Secretariat shall: below are the few of many duties,
The CITES Secretariat provides a good example of a
typical secretariat. The CITES Secretariat is a permanent
secretariat, administered by UNEP and located in Geneva,
Switzerland. The CITES Secretariat monitors the implementation of
the convention, assists parties with compliance obligations, and
makes recommendations to the biennial conference of the parties on
the enforcement and implementation of treaty provisions. Secretariats generally lack the authority and the
resources to enforce a convention's obligations. A typical
environmental secretarial has only 20 employees and an annual budget
of 1-3 million dollars, yet the convention it oversees may involve
activities in 100 or more countries. Funds required for the
functioning of the Secretariat shall be charged exclusively against
contributions from the Parties. The treaty also provides for subsidiary bodies and committees that address specific issues. The issue of ozone depletion required UNEP to establish the Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer (CCOL) which undertook the important functions of bringing together scientists from governments, industry, universities, and international agencies to assess the risks of ozone layer depletion. A subsidiary body for the provisions of scientific, technical and technological advice was established to provide the Conference of the Parties and as, appropriate, its other subsidiary bodies with timely advice relating to the implementation of the Convention. This body shall be open to participation by all Parties and shall be multidisciplinary. It shall comprise government representatives competent in the relevant field of expertise. It shall report regularly to the Conference of the Parties on all aspects of its works. Under the authority of and in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Conference of the Parties, and upon its request, this body shall:
With the Montreal Protocol there was a proposition which implied that participating governments need not wait until there is a definitive solution to the CFC problem. Rather this could be designed to provide for periodic reassessments of the evolving science and that would contain built-in mechanisms for revising the controls if necessary. Basically there will be constant monitoring by the parties governments and their scientific communities. Several ambiguous protocol provisions set up special legal group to develop procedures for determining and dealing with noncompliance. It also established work plans for research and development, exchange of information, technical assistance, and public education efforts. A science panel was set up to review and analyze the implications of the most recent measurements and predictive models of stratospheric ozone trends, as well as updating calculations of ozone depletion, chlorine loading, and global warming potential for various chemicals-including those being developed as substitutes for CFCs. A technology panel, which included many industry representatives was analyzing technical options to determining and quantify the feasibility of reducing ozone-depleting substances. And, finally the economics panel would examine the benefits or reduced use of CFCs and halons, the costs of technical solutions, and the implications for technology transfer to developing countries. Then, all of these panel would gather at various meetings and conferences to share and exchange information that would further help solve the ongoing problem of ozone depletion. Sustained Concern and Regime Effects [TOP] The international scientific community, as represented by the
Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone: 1994, believed that
current scientific findings further strengthened the conclusion that
"anthropogenic chlorine and bromine compounds, coupled with
surface chemistry on natural polar stratospheric particles, are the
cause of polar ozone depletion." Throughout his book, Ozone Diplomacy
Richard Benedick stresses the difficulties inherent in elaborating a
preventive approach to environmental problems.
At the 11th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 11) to the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, a decision was made that
each industrial country develop strategies for the management of
CFCs, including options for recovery, recycling, disposal and
eventual elimination of their use.
At the previous meeting of the parties, a similar decision
was made for Halons. Many
states show high levels of concern about the ozone depletion.
Sovereign States such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and
other European States are determined to stop the ozone depletion
with their continuous efforts. Scientific cooperation, growing
evidence and the commitment of political leaders have sustained this
concern.
Canada is also very involved in the protection of the Ozone Layer,
for it has vast areas where wildlife is still protected by nature
and humans have not effected the ecology of these places.
But the effects of acid rain, climatic warming and ozone
depletion are combining to cause disruption of ecosystems in
Canadian lakes, according to researchers at the University of
Alberta in Edmonton. This
means Canadian Lakes suffer from a triple blow of human destruction.
This is the reason why this State has been a very eager
participant in solving the problem of ozone depletion. Canada
ratified the Vienna Convention in 1986 and the Montreal Protocol in
1989. The ratification
of the Copenhagen Amendments took place in 1994 and the ratification
of the Montreal Amendments was in 1998.
They also signed the London Amendment in 1990 and the Beijing
Amendments in 2001. As
a party to the Montreal Protocol, Canada is committed to developing
a strategy for CFCs and Halons, that will fulfill their
international obligations. Canada
has proposed a strategy to accelerate the phasing out of uses of
CFCs and Halons and to dispose of the surplus stocks. In 1998, the
Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment endorsed the
National Action Plan (NAP) for the Environmental Control of
Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) and their Halocarbon Alternatives.
The NAP identifies a series of tasks aimed at developing a strategy
for the management of surplus CFCs and Halons, including their
disposal. Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) of 1999
established a secretariat that became the brain of all Canadian
environmental projects.
During 1996, record low ozone amounts were observed over Europe and
measurements for 1997 already indicate that substantial ozone loss
has occurred. This is because the recent Arctic winters have been
particularly cold and undisturbed when compared with earlier years.
Hence the European concern about the ozone depletion issue. European States, especially those, who are members of the
European Community, are actively involved in the problem of the
ozone depletion. The Nordic countries began the phase-out program
The European Community has approved the Vienna Convention and the
Montreal Protocol in 1988, the London Amendments in 1991, the
Copenhagen Amendments in 1995 and the Montreal Amendments in 2000.
Many of the member States of the European Community have
ratified these agreements.
European Commission (EC) research programmes encourage
collaborative projects involving research groups in different
countries.
Most stratospheric ozone research in Europe has
traditionally been carried out with funding from national sources.
Several years ago scientists from many of the European Union and
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries suggested that a
small group be set up to coordinate stratospheric ozone research in
Europe from both the national research programmes and the EU
research programme. EC stratospheric research activities are
undertaken in conjunction with the research programmes of individual
countries and in liaison with the World Meteorological Organization
and the United Nations Environment Programme. They contribute to a
continuing scientific assessment of the causes and the consequences
of stratospheric ozone depletion. This is an obligation under the
Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone layer, to which the European Union and its member
states are party. In April 1989 the European Ozone Research
Coordinating Unit (also known as the Ozone Secretariat) was
established at Cambridge, in order to monitor the many projects
created by different countries. The coordinating Unit is funded by
the Research DG of the European Commission through the Environment
and Sustainable Development Programme. The bulk of the ozone
research is being done by high altitude balloons, which are closely
examined by AERONET network whose goal is to investigate the impact
of aircraft technologies and their emissions into the atmosphere.
The first major task the Unit undertook was assisting the
coordination of a large-scale field campaign, the European Arctic
Stratospheric Ozone Experiment (EASOE), which was composed of
research projects under the EC ENVIRONMENT
Programme. The campaign
aimed to understand the causes of the observed ozone losses in the
Northern Hemisphere. From November 1991 to March 1992 over 60
research groups (mainly from Europe, with a few from the USA, the
USSR and Japan) performed experiments to investigate the Arctic
stratosphere. The Second European Stratospheric Arctic and
Mid-latitude Experiment Many European countries, such as Germany and Sweden are very active in ozone depleting substance reduction. Germany was one of the first counties to have an environmentalist organization, Die Grunen. Sweden actually is not producing any ODSs. Sweden monitors and controls ODS emission in other States around Europe. The ex-Communist Eastern European countries are considered developing countries and are still aided by the Western European developed countries. For Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic it is especially important to reduce their CFC emissions, for they are applicant to the European Union, but they are only going to be accepted as members if they reach the required low levels of emissions in their countries.
The U.S. Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO) is also a very valuable tool for the coordination of data collected by various organizations. In an article titled "Ozone over America thins to record low", it is clearly discussed that the ozone layer above the US suffered unprecedented losses during 1993, according to scientists doing ground-based monitoring at various sites in the US. Scientists show that ozone losses have occurred much farther from the poles and much later in the year, than previous measurements indicated.
In April 2000, a European Commission-sponsored study indicated that
global warming may be offsetting the benefits of phasing out
ozone-depleting chemicals. The premise is that warm air is being
trapped at lower levels in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, and
therefore, the upper levels of the atmosphere are much colder,
promoting the chemical reactions that destroy ozone. The U.S.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) participated in
this study. This kind of cooperation is key to problem solving in
ozone depletion issues.
INTERSUN is a collaborative effort between the World
Health Organization (WHO), the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Agency on
Cancer Research (IARC) and the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Its mission is reducing
health and environmental effects from enhanced ultraviolet radiation
exposure due to stratospheric ozone depletion.
In response to Agenda 21, the participants of INTERSUN, have
published an environmental health criteria monograph that identifies
gaps in knowledge about UV exposure impacts on health and the
environment, recommends research needs to fill these gaps, and
provides an updated assessment of health hazards from UV exposure.
This monograph forms the scientific basis for WHO's INTERSUN UV
Project. This monograph has been followed by various publication on
UV-induced health risks, UV protection programmes and public
education.
As the executive summary of UNEP titled Environmental Effects of
Ozone Depletion in 1996, which came between the Assessments of 1994
and 1998 on Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion, points out:
recent research has confirmed the conclusions of the earlier
assessments and shown an increase in reports of new findings since
the last Assessment.
Given the price of CFCs in the market, the outlook for
continued price increases, and the continuation of CFC-12 production
in developing countries (allowed under the provisions of the
Montreal Protocol until 2010), the lure of illegal trade in CFC-12
is obvious. Smuggling into the United States, where the CFC tax
caused CFC prices to be higher than in most other countries which
did not impose similar taxes, was already noticeable as early as
1994. In response, in late 1994, several government agencies began
an intensified anti-smuggling initiative. Involved are the EPA, the
Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Commerce
Department and the Justice Department. This initiative has been
strongly supported by the U.S. Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric
Policy, a trade group of producers, distributors, and users of CFCs
and their alternatives. A recent report by the London-based
Environmental Investigation Agency argues that the illegal trade in
CFCs has moved from Russia, where progress in controlling exports
has occurred, to China. Successful exports of CFCs from China to the
United States and Europe are accomplished through tactics that
include false labeling, counterfeit paperwork, and bogus export
corporations
The United States played a leadership role in the formation and maintenance of the ozone layer depletion regime. While Europe debated the wisdom of regulating ozone depleting CFCs, it is generally undisputed that the United States was a leader on the issue. Eventually, the developing states, particularly China and India, created their own leadership role regarding funding and technology transfer in the negotiations for adjustments and amendments to the Protocol. Non-State actors, such as UNEP the World Bank and GEF had a huge role as catalysts in the formation and maintenance of the ozone layer depletion regime. Non-governmental organizations, such as Natural Resource Defense Council and Friends of the Earth lobbied successfully in the United States for the banning of CFCs. Transnational corporations, such as Hewlett-Packard and Compaq also play a very important role in the making of the regime. Many techniques of environmental protection had been put into effect, such as environmental decision making as a global community, accountability, surveillance and monitoring, trade restrictions establishment of an organizing or organ, special area management, development assistance, pollution restriction, penalties and education. Mostly the same states have been evincing concern, but now days, as the developing countries are starting to take off and become part of the developed countries, more and more States are getting involved in this Global Problem. The States that originally have been involved are still active participants in problem solving, especially because of their positions near the "ozone holes". These nations have the most to loose. Australia and Canada are very near the poles, which places them in extreme danger of harmful UV rays. The North States are more active in this problem solving process, for they have the necessary resources for financing research and cooperation with other States. The gap of concern between the North and South States is decreasing, for now even the developing countries realize, that the road they take for their economic well being cannot destroy the Earth. In my opinion, in the future, we will see more concern from the South American States, especially those near Antarctica, such as Chile and Argentina. There are not many political leaders that show great involvement in the ozone depletion problem, but rather States and Governments are involved, which are encouraged by their citizens. Scientific research, discussion panels, and Meetings of the Parties are also very important in drawing attention to this issue. Many States cooperate in their effort to stop the depletion of the Ozone Layer. In Antarctica, many international research groups work hand in hand sharing data on the Ozone Hole. Environmental damage is also a very important push for some of the Signatory States and also for others that became involved in the 1990s by suffering environmental damage caused by the Ozone Depletion. The activities of NGOS are the most important factors in problem solving, for they have the capabilities to bring public awareness to the specific concerns. They have an international membership and their network is beyond any one sovereign States capabilities. Domestically, they are the lobbyists of the environment and their voice can be clearly heard in State Governments. The whole world has watched with horror the increase of the Ozone Hole above Antarctica and the thinning of the ozone layer in all over the world. New findings and reports by prominent scientists give a very good insight into the process of problem solving, and how effective the measures taken by the parties have been. As of 2001, the problem of the Ozone Depletion have not been solved. The Ozone Layer is getting thinner every day. In order to eliminate this problem for good, Global cooperation of all States is needed. It's Capacity,
Stupid! Sources and Variation [Top] The participation of non-state actors has been a significant factor in shaping the Montreal Protocol. Both industry and non-governmental environmental organizations have closely monitored the Protocol's development and provided the critically important impetus for rapid implementation. In case of ozone depletion most of the capacity building occurred when EPA began to organize small working groups of industry experts to appraise the technical feasibility of phasing out CFC solvent use. These workshops eventually led to the formation of the International Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection (ICOLP). ICOLP is an association of international electronics and aerospace corporations created to find economically viable and effective alternatives to the use of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). ICOLP essentially functions as an international clearinghouse to generate, gather, and distribute relevant information on alternatives. To distribute information about these alternatives ICOPLP's strategies included conducting research on development of alternative technologies, writing and publishing, usually with USEPA, manuals on alternative technologies. They provided a database for open access to all pertinent information; sponsoring and conducting workshops that teach alternative production techniques; and assisting companied in developing countries to change the ozone-safe technologies. ICOLP first extended its efforts internationally by conducting several projects in Mexico designed to promote information exchange and spread alternative technologies. In many ways, Mexico was an ideal location for technology cooperation projects. Spurred by a desire to strengthen its position in the NAFTA negotiations, Mexico had recently embarked on an ambitious program to coordinate economic and environmental policy goals. Mexico was the first country to ratify the Montreal Protocol and had continued to be a leader among developing countries in implementation. However, Mexico's electronics industry-one of the fastest growing sectors of its economy-remained largely dependent on ODS. The Mexico technology cooperation project began in 1991 by a partnership of the Mexican environmental agency (SEDUE), USEPA, ICOLP and Northern Telecom. The project was launched in Tijuana, where over 20 Mexican companies publicly committed to enlist in the program. Technology workshops provided a forum where specialists discussed new alternatives. The Mexican government financed the project with funds from the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund. While project approval and funding from the government and the World Bank have been somewhat slower than expected, many companies ultimately invested in new, ozone-safe technologies. ICOLP assisted Thai Airways in eliminating its uses of ODS. The Swedish EPA helped prepare a feasibility study for the phase out, and British Aerospace helped to develop a technical manual to assist all airlines to substitute alternative substances and technologies. Often times enforcing international law at the Sovereign state level is difficult. The negotiations over the Montreal Protocol regime reflected a major conflict between the North and South. Ozone depletion clearly could not be solved without the full cooperation of all countries, particularly India, China and Brazil. This gave them additional power in the negotiations requiring innovative compromises to meet their demand. These developing states can be called "laggards" or "avoiders" because they either don't contribute at all or hope to escape the constraints of the theory. These countries choose not to contribute because they don't have the money to implement CFC substitutes. This scares the developed countries and so they agree to increase the Multilateral Fund by 80 million if India and China choose to comply. The developed countries agree to provisions for technology transfer and for financial co-operation because they need everybody's effort.
The countries that were "compliers" or even
"overachievers" were United States, Canada and the Nordic
countries that took dramatic actions to reduce emissions of CFCs.
The U.S. government set the example by being the first to take
regulatory action against the suspect chemicals. Later, it developed
a comprehensive global plan for protecting the ozone layer and
tenaciously campaigned for its international acceptance through
bilateral and multilateral initiatives. The progressive U.S.
policies on ozone, reinforced by the size and importance of the
United States as the largest single producer and consumer of CFCs
and halons, enabled it to play a formative central role in the drive
for international control. Other nations, however, also had a share
of leadership and influence. The Federal Republic of Germany, for
example, was instrumental in turning around the European Community's
initially negative position. Canada and Norway were consistent
leaders from the very start in pushing for strong measures to
protect the ozone layer, and Australia , Finland, and New Zealand
played major roles in decisions to strengthen the treaty in
1990. National and International government agencies played and important role in ICOLP. They provided technical assistance, financial support and created massive contacts to develop the concept and spread it to other countries. The World Bank approached ICOLP with a request of managing additional projects on technology cooperation in Brazil, China, India, Turkey and Thailand. Mexico was the country that pursued all links to push for environmental control. It took the initiative, even if it had personal reasons like strengthening its position in the international world. What ICOLP managed to do was show how sharing information and other forms of voluntary technology cooperation within industry can effectively address the environmental and economic consequences of stratospheric ozone depletion. ICOLP's success has been based on environmental technology cooperation. This approach utilizes long-term business-to-business partnership to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. Companies in industrialized countries worked together with the developing countries to devise environmental strategies that would target particular needs of each company and region. To better benefit the interested parties ICOLP created OZONET database that had pertinent information in an easily accessible format about ODS. In conclusion, the Montreal Protocol has not proven a total success, but its adoption and implementation does represent a diplomatic breakthrough. In no other treaty have so many disparate actors in international society successfully cooperated and compromised to address a global environmental threat. Capacity-building efforts are conducted both within and outside specific treaty regimes. They involve the cooperation of international organizations, development institutions and national development agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development. (US-AID). Performance: Assessing Compliance and Effectiveness [Top] What determines whether an international regime is effective or not, i.e. what makes the law "work"? We are most interested whether treaties produce the environmental improvements that motivate their negotiations in the first place. Well compliance and behavioral change are valuable only if they lead to accomplishment of treaty goals However, compliance is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for effectiveness. Non-compliance with an ambitious goal may still produce positive results that would mitigate, if not solve an environmental problem. High compliance levels with rules that reflect political rather than scientific realities, will prove inadequate to achieve the hoped-for environmental improvement. For example, compliance with the Montreal Protocol may prove perfect but too late to avoid irreversible harm from stratospheric ozone loss. A treaty can be identified as the cause of compliance, yet still fail to lead to the desired environmental improvement. However, a treaty that successfully brought a halt to an environmentally harmful behavior might not preserve the environmental resource if other human behaviors and natural factors influencing environmental quality caused the resource to be depleted. No matter the outcome of a treaty, compliance can provide a valuable proxy for effectiveness. An international environmental law may be considered effective if it contributes to improvements in environmental quality or at least prevents further environmental degradation. In evaluating the effectiveness of an environmental treaty, it is also important to recognize that many environmental problems do not admit of short-term solutions. International action often begins slowly, with information exchange, cooperative scientific effort, the establishment of consultation procedures, or simply the announcement of shared principles. Evaluating the effectiveness of law and institutions requires that we understand how they generate creative solutions on a continuing basis. Three conditions are essential for effective action on environmental problems: "high levels of government concern, a hospitable contractual environment in which agreements can be made and kept, and sufficient political and administrative capacity in national governments. Governmental concern must be sufficiently high to prompt states to devote scarce resources to solving the problem. Concern generated by political action within societies is insufficient without active network of individuals and groups, linked to the political system, pointing out environmental hazards and demanding action on them. Second, hospitable contractual environment means that states must be able to make credible commitments, to enact joint rules and to monitor each other's behavior at moderate cost. Finally, political and administrative capacity includes the broader ability of actors in civil society to play an effective role in policymaking and implementation. One key variable accounting for policy change, is the degree of domestic environmental pressure in major industrialized democracies. States either choose to comply or not to comply with international law. Since treaty is a consensual instrument, it has no force unless the state has agreed to it. It is therefore a fair assumption that the parties interests were served by entering into the treaty. Nations often negotiate treaties to promote their national interests, and to avoid legal obligations that might be harmful to them. A notable example is the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. At the time the Montreal Protocol was negotiated the United States, Canada, and the Nordic countries took dramatic actions to reduce emissions of CFC's. These states were leaders in negotiating stringent international controls precisely by pressuring their economic competitors to lower the production of CFC's. If their competitors chose to refuse to lower U.S. would have face significant pressure from domestic industries to abandon it's CFC control. Because the United States was able to come to a global agreement it was able to maintain an environmental policy that might otherwise have been abandoned. Why do
states fail to comply with international law? Some states choose not
to comply because the benefits of compliance simply do not outweigh
its costs. Most non-compliance with international environmental law
is due to institutional incapacity. Developing countries often lack
the financial, administrative or technical capacities for meaningful
compliance. Political changes could lead a country to switch its
position regarding a specific international treaty. Changing
economic conditions could make a country unwilling or unable to
fulfill its obligations. Domestic crisis could delay or interrupt a
country's implementation efforts. States may consciously sign
treaties in response to strong domestic and international pressures,
but they chose not to comply, particularly if they can gain the
benefits as a free rider of other's compliance efforts. Finally,
non-compliance may result despite best efforts because the
compliance steps were inadequate. A country may levy a stringent
carbon tax to meet the Kyoto Protocol goals for greenhouse gas
emissions, yet still fall short of the required emissions
reductions. What would have happened without the Montreal Protocol? Well one measure of success of the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent Amendments and Adjustments, according to the Assessment, is the forecast of "the world that was avoided" by the Protocol:
Furthermore, all of the above impacts would have continued to grow in the years beyond 2050. It is important to note that while the provisions of the original Montreal Protocol in 1987 would have lowered the above growth rates, recovery (i.e., an improving situation) would have been impossible without the Amendments and Adjustments (London, 1990; Copenhagen, 1992; and Vienna, 1995). The success at Montreal can be attributed to the indispensable role of science in the ozone negotiations. Scientific theories and discoveries alone, however were not sufficient to influence policy. Close collaboration between scientists and government officials was also crucial. Political and economic decision makers needed to understand the scientists, to fund the necessary research, and to be prepared to undertake internationally coordinated actions. Second, the power of knowledge and of public opinion was a formidable factor in the achievement at Montreal. A well-informed public was the prerequisite to mobilizing the political will of governments and to weakening industry's resolve to defend the chemicals. Both UNEP and the U.S. government undertook major public education campaigns on ozone and CFCs, using traditional diplomatic channels as well as various communications media. These efforts aimed at both governments and citizenries helped influence several countries to change their initial positions on the need for regulations. Finally, individual nations' policies and leadership made a major difference. The United States undertook such leadership in achieving international agreement on ozone protection. The U.S. government set the example by being the first to take regulatory action against the suspect chemicals. The Montreal Protocol was deliberately designed as a flexible and dynamic instrument, economic, environmental, and technological assessments. In conclusion, the ozone accord broke new ground in its treatment of long-term risks and in its reconciliation of difficult scientific, economic, and political issues. In view of the many complexities and uncertainties involved, the Montreal Protocol was achieved with astonishing rapidity. The signing occurred 13 years after the first scientific hypothesis on the ozone layer was published in 1974-and only nine months after formal diplomatic negotiations began in December 1986. The protocol entered into force as planned on January 1, 1989, and within the next 19 months a total of 62 countries had ratified it. So, the protocol proved very effective and the work it put in motion promises to continue well into the future. Governments would undertake general obligations for policies and actions to mitigate and adapt to global warming. In sum, after the London revisions there were new five groups of controlled substances, under the Montreal Protocol; the original five CFCs and the halons, plus ten new CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. All of these were now scheduled for varying interim reductions and phaseout in 10 to 15 years, with clear indications that even these schedules could be accelerated on the bases of early reassessment. The extent that the negotiations in London achieved a meaningful strengthening of controls is dramatically evident. Not only is chlorine loading now held to peak of slightly over 4 ppb, but the pre-ozone hole level of 2 ppb should be attained by 2075. However in the next 10 to 15 years the success of the Montreal Protocol will be evident with the achieved freeze of methyl chloroform in 1993, reductions of 30 percent in 1995 and 70 percent in 2000, and phaseout of hydrochlorofluorocarbons as agreed by the partied would be accomplished by 2010 or 2020. This agreement promises more and better results in the near future because the international community has realized the dangers of CFCs. In the words of Richard Benedick, " The Montreal Protocol may thus be the forerunner of an evolving global diplomacy, through which nations accept common responsibilities for stewardship of the planet." Benedick., E. Richard, Ozone Diplomacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, and London, England, 1991 Hunter, Davis, Salzman, James and Zaelke, Durwood. International Environmental Law and Policy. New York: Foundation Press, 1998. Sarma., K. Madhava, and Bankobeza., M. Gilbert, The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Published by, Ozone Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme. Fifth Edition, 2000 Jurgielewicz, Lynne M. "Global Environmental
Change and International Law" University Press of America.
1996. |
There are many
lessons of the Montreal Protocol that can be applied to solving
other global environmental issues. The Protocol
mandated specific timetables for every country to phase-out their
profitable "wonder" chemicals. This signaled to industry
that these chemicals have no future and led to development of
alternatives quickly. This "technology forcing"
accelerated the phase-out. The Protocol created markets for the
alternatives. Another
important lesson of the Protocol is on how to act on issue when
there is no scientific certainty. In 1987, there was considerable
uncertainty about the extent of the ozone depletion, its adverse
effects and availability of alternative technologies. The
ozone-depleting chemicals were used in many industries and were
considered irreplaceable. In order to deal with this uncertainty,
governments took a small step first of a partial phase-out and
involved the scientific community to advise them periodically on
the further steps needed to protect the ozone layer and on the
availability of alternate technologies. Four times so far in the
last 10 years, the governments changed the Protocol in accordance
with such scientific advice. For the first time, the scientific
community has a front seat in environmental negotiations. One more
lesson of the Protocol is in promoting universal participation,
including of the developing countries in the Protocol by
recognizing "common and differentiated responsibility."
It was realized early that it requires global participation to
protect the ozone layer. While the developing countries had a
small share of the consumption in 1986 (and, hence little
responsibility for ozone layer depletion), their increasing
consumption would have nullified the efforts of the industrialized
countries to phase-out these chemicals. It was also realized that
the developing countries may not have the skills, technologies or
resources to implement the Protocol in time. Hence provision was
made for a grace period, technology transfer and the Multilateral
Fund. These steps resulted in almost all countries committing
themselves to protection of the ozone layer.|
Last
updated
August 16, 2001 |
Copyright
© Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, and Inna Verdiyan, 2001. All federal and state
copyrights reserved for all original material presented in this
course through any medium, including lecture or print. Graphic design
by Maureen Coulson and Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, from an
original design by Eric Chua, Jared Menke, and Geoffrey
Wandesforde-Smith.
Web development also assisted in part by a grant to UC Davis from the Mellon Foundation.
|