=====================================================================================
Abstract:
This paper tries to trace the thinking processes which influenced contribution of United Nation Systems in formulating the discourse and International Legal Regime of Environmental Issues and Climate Changes. This paper has been inspired by Silent Spring written by Rachel Carson in 1960s where she warns us about how difficult will be our journey while dealing with environmental crises. She says, “The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lays disaster. The other fork of the road…offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth." (Page 277 of Silent Spring) Further, this brief study tries to focus on how the initiatives of United Nations motivated different periodic summits which guided International Policy Making Institutions to finalize (1) holistic perspectives, (2) agenda setting, (3) regime formation, (4) regime effects, and (5) transnational networks.
=====================================================================================
Origin of National Awareness about Environment Legislations on Global Scale:
First major post-second world war effort in this direction was launched with the leadership of UNESCO in 1948; ‘International Union for Protection of the Nature’. The seeds of further cooperation were sown when United Nations Conference on Conservation and Utilization of Resources (UNCCU) was launched. This conference laid emphasis on ‘continuous development and techniques of conservation’
At the end of 1960s; scientific studies raised general public awareness of dangers threatening the biosphere. The resulting mobilization of public opinion was unfrequented in two ways. First, it was grass roots phenomenon, only later founding a power base when several governments officially adopted environmental policies. Second, movement was transnational from the beginning. The global grass roots effort emerged from a changing philosophical and ethical consensus, incorporating new ethical and social values in reaction to new Post War “Consumer Society”, Rejecting traditional ideologies that to the degree that they were seen as materialistic, the ecological movement spanned all political factions and political parties. In consequence, many environmental laws were adopted unanimously by national legislatures.
The Power of ‘Technical Communication, Leadership Initiative and Awareness Building’:
The major contribution Rachel Carson and Loren Eiseley made in their critical writings about the nature not being mechanistic and there is certain limit to it’s efficiency really made international community to think in the direction of visualizing the future degradation of natural resources and limiting the human intervention through different instruments of developments i.e. industrialization.
The required leadership for establishing that “Earth is one but World is not” was given by United Nations. In late sixties when whole world was dealing with the different pollution challenges, United Nations initiated in General Assembly for comprehensive review of concept of Human Accountability towards nature and protection of human rights through the virtue of conservation and preservation of natural resources and environment.
In order to create massive institutional mechanism to ensure the timely information dissemination and education media, Stockholm Conference directed United Nations to create diversified platforms such as WHO, FAO and UNESCO. Further this year gave rise to Paradigm Shift in how world looks at environmental issues and this was emphasized by creation of United Nations Environment Programme. (UNEP)
The success of United Nations in organizing the international community on one table is noted by Oran Young. He contests the analytical perspective of science and technology dealing by dividing the problems into subparts and rewarding efforts to tackle them separately by experts. He asserted the ‘holistic perspective which recognized interdependencies and linkages among large clusters of factors.’ Going ahead he emphasizes the uncertainty and bargaining possibilities’ in interdependent consultative and decision making mechanism. He maintains, “Central prerequisites for regime formation are a thick veil of uncertainty, the existence of solutions that are both salient and acceptable to all participants as equitable, the existence of clear cut and reliable compliance mechanisms, exogenous shocks and crises, and individual leadership.”
New Approaches to Environment and Development :
‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’ laid the foundation for further introspection regarding New Approaches to Environment and Development. This report realized that human progress depended on technical excellence and an ability for cooperative action directs to strengths deployed to achieve development and environmental progress: in different pollution control and in increasing the energy efficiency.
In a major intervention, Brudtland Report observes that failures to manage the environment and to sustain development threaten to overwhelm all countries. Continuing the much needed holistic line of enquiry and thinking which we discussed above, Commission emphasized repeatedly Environment and development are not separate challenges; they are inexorably linked. This understanding was based on evolution of international consensus that Development cannot happen when a depleting resource base and the environment protection cannot happen as growth goes out of account the costs of environmental degradation. These problems cannot be treated separately by fragmented institutions and policies. They are linked in a complex system of cause and effect.
Regime Effects:
Different institutional mechanisms powered by niche expertise in the specific areas of development, economics and environment enabled United Nations to really utilize the resources for the coordination of the efforts of understanding the gravity of problem. This is being done consistently by institutionalized coordination of research and periodic assessments of the relevant discipline, the existence of ongoing forum for addressing issues, the systemic collection review and assessment of national policies.
Question of Coordination:
Different mechanisms for awareness building and participation are built in some countries to get involve a wider range of social actors into debate, communication and interaction, there are very few who are capable to shift power away from groups supporting a less proactive version of Sustainable Development. Environmental policy is globalized now looking at total no. of agreements coming into force regularly. Global trade, signified most pointedly by the power of the WTO, now observes as a locus for disputes over environment and development priorities, a move that in effect deprioritizes the environment as a focus of serious political action.
Just as the representatives to Stockhom wrestled with seemingly competing issues of environment and trade, so did the policy-makers at Rio. In the twenty years between the two summits, trade/environment debate did not wane but rather intensified. This growing tension warranted further exploration of institutional remedies; thus it became apparent that any future world conference would have to treat environment and development issues simultaneously and that coordination rather than reconciliation of these two issues would be the challenge.
Historical analysis suggests that coordination and institutional needs for environment and sustainable development issues have changed according to the three periods demarked by Stockholm, Rio and Johannesburg. Today institutional landscape has become so complex that it is longer sufficient to think of coordination and institutional arrangement through a singular approach, such as creating ‘World Environment Organization’ though some European countries tried to do it unsuccessfully in later 1990s.
Salzburg Consensus formed after seminar in 1991 which was part of Rio-conference preparation reflects: “States in principle with the UN Charter and the principles of international law, have the sovereign right to use their own discretion addressing to their own environmental and developmental concerns, and with commitment to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”
Multilateral Environmental Agreements:
Despite their variety in subject matter and geographic scope, environmental treaties have common characteristics, use similar legal techniques and often are interrelated. The main features they share are 1) An absence of reciprocity of obligations 2) Interrelated or cross-references provisions from one instrument to another 3) Framework agreements
4) Frequent Interim Application 5) The creation of new institutions or the utilization of already existing ones to promote continuous cooperation 6) Innovative compliance and non-compliance procedures and 7) Simplified means of modification or amendment
Some scholars have identified the weaknesses in the multilateral environment treaty making: First of all, representative privileges do not guarantee that all countries and interests are taken care of. Also, politics surrounding scientific facts and perspectives are not balanced to ensure well reasoned understandings to codify in agreements. There is some observed lack of linkages among the concern over implications of environmental hazards and other adaptive policy approaches. Going ahead this criticism observes that effective monitoring and enforcement arrangements are not implemented.
Most environmental treaties are initiated by international organizations lead by United Nations. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been major driving force to produce Convention on Ozone Layer in 1985 and Basel Convention later in 1989. The Earth Summit which was officially conducted under supervision of UN Conference on Environment and Development but it was moreover a product of UNEP`s efforts. Though Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 does not specify who should initiate the efforts in the direction of treaty making, treaty enforcement and indicting the states who are not following the states, the United Nations is equally responsible for creating global awareness and realization to enforce international consensus in responding to the widespread challenge of environmental degradation.
Consensus building for UN Conventions and Protocols:
An initial approach of scientific evidence is established in series of expert meetings. These meeting also discuss draft framework convention. Subsequent meetings of signatories focus on preparation of detailed protocol. Convention-Protocol approach allows countries to “sign on” at the outset even if there is no agreement on the specific actions that must be taken. Even if Convention does not set the targets or timetable the subsequent meetings will consider the results of ongoing and evolving scientific inquiries and evidence so as to explore the possibility of adopting specific implementation measures. In the mean time some countries voluntarily adopt the standards of implementation mechanisms and this really affects the future negotiations of the international treaty negotiations and enforcement.. Because the efforts of the countries trying to set some norms in consistency with the internationally agreed Convention sets criteria of applicability in actual in following time period.
Post- Rio and Agenda 21:
The Earth Summit resulted in Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and Convention to Combat Desertification. Based on these documents, significant efforts are being made to reverse the tide of environmental decline. While the importance of these agreements and like many other agreements should not be minimized, what is missing is the holistic perspective and approach not only to environmental problems per se, but also to how they are connected to fundamental trends of economic globalization. Always environment is addressed in isolated manner completely different from economic approaches. There is fundamental inconsistency between uneven environmental regulation systems and comprehensive character of environment itself.
According to the Principal Two of the Rio Declaration: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” This was the first serious effort on international level to develop consensus on front of International Environmental Jurisprudence.
Continuing our discussion about Convention-Protocol approach actually motivates “hard bargaining” tendency and does little to discourage the countries to misrepresent their interests. It is not designed to encourage countries to separate the tasks of having mutual gains from the task of securing agreement. Further it focuses more on informal alliances, agreements, coalitions before formal meeting. These are well known negotiating problems often surfaced in international treaty making.
Few countries maintained the resources for developing technically sound and politically informed perspectives on every policy issue which has aroused globally. Some officials involved in the institutions concerned with the changing environmental policy regime express their unhappiness about regular international briefings or strategic advice being not available to countries which need them. These could be provided by transnational scientific associations, international businesses organizations, and consortia of non-governmental organizations and most importantly different services of United Nations. Some analysts have observed that there are no efforts made in Agenda 21 to develop the capacity in developing countries.
Factors influencing International Environment Policy Regime:
The economic goal of trade liberalization and environmental policy are the same. Both policy interventions ultimately aim to promote structural economic change. It has inherent trade element in it and all the major initiatives regarding Benefit Sharing in Convention on Biodiversity and Carbon Trading in UNFCC are driven by clear focus on economic component of environmental policy. The entire argument about comparative advantage in strengthening production system to make countries more competitive in globalised economy in trade literature is being applied to changing policy regime of environment. Moltke says that “…the implied criteria of efficiency are different in trade (productivity, economies of scale, cost reduction) and environment policies (conservation, environmental quality, emission reduction)” Going ahead confidently Moltke asserts that the international agenda is no longer dominated by the perceived needs of security and ideology. Rather, it is increasingly defined the needs of an emerging international civil society supported by both economic policy and environmental management.
Moving towards understanding of implications of current Environment Regime:
International environmental management presents a substantial challenge to established innovative approaches to dynamics of construction and operation of international relations. International environment policy responds to different dynamics than those to which security or economic policies respond. The conflict between trade and environment policy creates a number of challenges to international governance. It has to be realized that plethora of international environmental agreements and regime of environment management is still to come up with clearly visible and tangible channels of enforcing comprehensive measures of environmental processes of conservation, preservation and sustainable development which go beyond any trade related aspects.
The biggest decisive factor is unpredictability and uncertainty of physical nature of Climate Change. This understanding is arriving due to grave realization about the nature of evolution of environmental regime. There are many issues which truly overlap with other policies which may attract conflict with other members of international environment negotiating framework e.g. trade, strategic policies, consumer policies etc. Also, environmental agenda is based on uncontrollable developments in the natural environment and frequently driven by unanticipated occurrences. Secondly scientific knowledge about environment is also continuously evolving. So addressing these issues in a time phased short term and unpredictable longer term presents us a biggest challenge to explore the solution to our problem of understanding complex, multivariable analysis of Climate Change.
Conclusion:
While all this analysis has been covered in literature published up-till now, it will be interesting how the new negotiations round to be taken up in Copenhagen at this year end will evolve in new possibilities. As described earlier about clarity in targets, it is the aim of the UN that the UN climate conference in Copenhagen agrees on a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, as it has no targets on emissions reductions further than 2012.
International Community is hoping to achieve some results in this direction by addressing following questions: 1) How far are the developed and industrialized countries ready to cut emissions of GHGs.? 2) Upto what extent major emerging economies China and India will limit the growth of their emissions? 3) What is the financial mechanism (help) is going to come to deal with reduction of GHGs and adaptation. and 4) What are the probablities for financial management and procurement in this regard. With last two questions clearly directing towards the trade issues once again, it remains to be seen whether or not we will be able to curb the curve of the greenhouse gas emissions before 2020... We have to watch carefully whether in Copenhagen we recall the proverb “Promises to keep and dreams to be fulfilled!” or we end up in asserting once again pessimistic message of “Promises to forget and dreams to be shattered!”
===================================================================
References:
[1] Sands, Philippe; Principles of international environmental law, Cambridge University
Press, 2003
[2] Kiss, Alexandre and Shelton, Dinah; International Environmental Law, United Nations
Environment Programme, 2004, Transnational Publishers, Inc
[3] Michael A Bryson. (2003). Nature, Narrative, and the Scientist-Writer: Rachel Carson's
and Loren
[4] Eiseley's Critique of Science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(4), 369-387.
Retrieved June 7, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 551572171)
[5] Oran Young, International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless
Society, Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press, 1994, 221 pp.
[6] Michael Zurn, The Rise of International Environmental Politics: A Review of Current
Research, World Politics, Vol.50, No.4, (1998), pp. 617-649
[7] Victor, David G., Abram Chayes, and Eugene B. Skolnikoff. "Pragmatic Approaches to
Regime Building for Complex International Problems." In Global Accord: Environmental
Challenges and International Responses. Edited by Nazli Choucri. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1995, pp. 453-74.
[8] Lafferty, W., Meadowcroft, J. (Eds.), Implementing Sustainable Development: Strategies
and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 422–
459, 2000
[9] Chambers, W. Bradnee, Interlinkages and Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental
Agreements, (P. 24) United Nations University Press, 2008
[10] Susskind, Lawrence; Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective Global
Agreements, Oxford University Press, 1994
[11] Human development and the environment : challenges for the United Nations in the new
millennium / edited by Hans van Ginkel, Brendan Barrett, Julius Court, and Jerry
Velasquez, Tokyo : New York : United Nations University Press, 2002 pp.284
[12] Moltke, Konrad Von; Institutional Interactions: The Structure of Regimes for Trade and
Environment, Global Governance, Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience,
ed. Oran Young, The MIT Press, 1997 , pp. 250
[13] Agenda of UNFCC for Copenhagen 2009
