Week 5

1. Week 5 Environmental Policy in the International System

2. Thanks to Kay

3. Intro • Papers- questions? • Film from last week- Blue Gold. • Water as atradeablecommodity. Citizen vs consumer. • Implications for the natural environment in Canada? • Canada as the future OPEC of water. • Federalism (last week) • Multi-level systems/games/constituencies • Harmonizing vs diversifying • Similar debates at international level • We’ll focus on International agreements in Enviro & Trade. Some have led to institutionalization and enforcement.

4. Canada • “In Canada, the quality of our environment depends not only on what we do at home but also on activities outside our borders. Our domestic actions alone are often insufficient to protect our environment, our resources, our health. We need to work with other countries to develop common solutions to international problems that impact us directly.” Commissioner of Env. and Sust. Dvp • Several hundred international agreements that deal with environmental topics. About 230 are primarily environmental, and about 40 are core conventions. • Some Canadian problems are inherently international. Acting along cannot make effective policies that will safeguard ozone, biodiversity, fish stocks, spread of toxic chemicals and arctic protection.

5. Canada • One of about 190 countries. • Mid-level but wealthy power. • Canadian federal policy currently is less multilateral and more focused on consolidating US-Canada ties. • Our climate change policy is ‘famous for its timidity’- VanNijnatten. • Trends from bipartite continentialism, to tripartite and regional. • Implications for building cohesive and coherent enviro. Policy. • Bio-regions taking the lead. Provinces muscular. • E.g., Québec 2006-2012 plan with duty on fossil fuels, emission standards, alternative energy.

6. Actors • International institutions & Governance • Can be formal organizations (UNEP, World Bank) or regimes. • Regimes are “explicit or implicit principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area.” (S. Krasner). • Examples of regimes: Ozone regime to phase out CFCs; Antarctic Treaty System; Fisheries regimes, 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. • International movements (350.org), ENGOs (Greenpeace, Sierra, PETA) • Corporations (Banks, Extractive Industries) • States (Canada, France, etc.) • Blocs of states (UN, G8, EU)

7. Studying the International • Anarchy in the international system. • Global governance fragmented. Often no clear authority. Multiple forums for issues. • Theoretical debates over the prospects and benefits for collective action. • Liberal (co-op, win-win), realist (state conflict, 0-sum), marxist (class, elites) perspectives on IO/IR. • Structured anarchy. • Governance. • These IR debates persist as issues in the fields of international policy-making over the environment. • Agreements as PR, as ‘conditioning frameworks’, as norm developers. • Soft vs hard power.

8. Importance of International Agreements • Interconnectedness • pollution, CC, boundary-less, shared spaces (arctic – e.g. Hans Island). • BRIC, projected increase of GHG emissions 40% by 2030. • Economic globalization, trade agreements • Increase in global commodity chains, transformation of industry, increasing concentration and clustering. • Implications for effectiveness of domestic policy. • Role in political strategies/games/institutional lock-in. • McBride, new constitutionalism. • Costs of opting out of the club can be high. • Costs of ‘doing nothing’ on an issue can be high, materially and politically. • Mutually constitutive (impact ‘up’ and ‘down’).

9. International Agreements: Challenges • Sovereignty • Formal territorial sovereignty rests with states. • Internal vs external; de jure vs de facto. • Implementation • Can’t force ratification, control domestic politics. • Enforcement • No global environmental police! • History • E.g., imperialism, colonialism • Levels of development. • Affect timing, funding, first mover responsibilities.

10. Agreements • Step 1 identify problem, meet to form agreement. • Step 2 ratify, • Step 3 domestic laws/regulationss. • Progress and development has led to incresed reporting, meetings, development of bureaucracies. Some successes (CFCs). • They get increasingly complex over time (see next slides) with understanding of interconnections.

11. Selected Agreements • migratory birds convention (us-cda 1917); • International convention on whaling 1940s; • UN conference on human environment (UNHCE) Stockholm, 1972 (UNEP created), started to talk about Sustainable Dvp (as growth) • convention in international trade in endangered species (1973) • convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter (1979) • World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland Commission) – 1983 –expanded on SD def.

12. Selected Agreements • Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the Ozone Layer 1987 (CFCs). • Enforcement- parties to the protocol are allowed to impose trade sanctions on non-participating countries that produce the banned substances’. • gave rise to ‘global convention on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes (1989) • IPCC established in 1988 • UNFCC 1994 @ Rio (1992 Earth Summit). 150 countries including Canada signed. Came in to force March 1994 • Kyoto Protocol 1997.

13. Global Environment Facility • Established in 1991 • 1BN Pilot Program of World Bank. Goal to provide for ‘environmental sustainable development’. Grants and funding to cover the costs of ‘greening’ a development project. • Moved out of WB in 1994 in response to critiques from developing nations. • Financial mechanism for framework convention on biological diversity (1992) and framework convention on climate change. • Also financial mechanism for The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (2003).

14. Trade-Environment Debate • 5 principles of free trade. • 1. Comparative advantage (each does what they’re best at, trade, end up with more, everyone better off). ‘effficiency and competition thrive off each other’. • 2. Private sector better than state (public)- wasteful gvt. • 3. Living standards rise under free trade. Trickle down. • 4. consumer choice • 5. efficiency. • Competing perspectives. • 1.Trade increases growth, so need to re-localize production, trade less (e.g transport costs). • 2. Trade is not the problem, just need tougher rules to prevent race to the bottom. • 3. Trade and economic growth will increase wealth and lead to a preference for environmental ‘goods’. (EKC). • A big debate is whether to incorporate environmental considerations within trade bodies (WTO) or establish separate institutions.

15. Trade-Environment Debate 2 • Environmental critique of free trade: • contra to decentralization, sustainability, reduced consumption. • Enviro costs of transportation (the bottled water example). • .Trade transport 1/8 of worlds oil consumption. • Pollution • Tropical timber, whole economies geared to exploitation. • Many other critiques. One is that specialization may be efficient but not resilient. • Trade agreements are some of the only ones with real ‘teeth’, sanction. See WTO dispute settlement, NAFTA dispute settlement. • Trade is broadening. • Tariffs, non-tariff measures, agriculture, labor standards, environment, competition, investment, transparency, patents etc (Doha).

16. WTO • Started as GATT. Negotiating rounds. • Uruguay round 1986-1993, Doha round 2001- now • Doha stalled. Many states turning to bilateral and regional trade agreements. • Canada signed an FTA with Peru in 2008. • Some argue trade could lead to increased environmental protection- if countries were required to meet particular standards as a precondition of trade.

17. WTO • Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) • Can’t use processing methods in import country as a reason. • Burden of proof is on the enacting gvt.

18. NAFTA • A 1994 (1988 CUFTA) trade agreement with far-reaching effects for environmental policy & sovereignty. • Key principle: national treatment. Exemptions for culture and environment (narrowly interpreted). • (NAAEC), North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation • “price Canada and Mexico had to pay for congress passing NAFTA” (McK) • side agreement (they didn’t want to reopen nafta). • North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (cec.org) • Can be used to make countries enforce their own laws (not change them). • Great book on the strategic side of things Cameron & Tomlin (2000), The Making of NAFTA: How the Deal was Done. Cornell UP. • In it Cameron argues that countries were of significant unequal power. • 1995 Mexico’s GDP was 3.2% of the NA economy, Canada’s was 7.3% and the US was 89.5%. • In some ways Mexico held out for more (constitution prohibits foreign ownership of energy.) • Proportional sharing (compulsory exports based on 3 year averages, in perpetuity or until supplies exhausted ) • Covers crude oil and natural gas. • divided (federal) government can be a major bargaining asset.

19. NAFTA • Chapter 11 of NAFTA • Investment chapter, allows companies to sue countries if the expected returns on investment are reduced by government actions. Chapter calls ‘expropriation’. Very broad concept of ‘expropriation’. • Ethyl sued gvt of Canada for $350 million banning MMT, retracted ban, settled for $13 million. • Methanex 1996. • Vancouver company suing California. In 2005 ruling went in favour of California. No damages. • Metalcladcase • U.S co. purchased Mexican co. in 1993. Wanted to construct hazardous waste landfill. Had gov’t permits. Not local. Conflicting scientific opinions. In • In 97 they went to Ch11 arbitration which ruled MX to pay 16.7MM (instead of 90MM). • Mexican government collusion with Metalclad against domestic interests?

20. NAFTA • CEC (includes some public involvement) directed by governments to “stay away from climate change policy”. • Canada and MX tried to limit its scope. Meagre budget (3million from each)- budget not changed since 1994, real value decreased 20%. • NAFTA exempts subsidies for Oil and Gas under trade challenges. • Security and Prosperity Partnership- extending NAFTA • Goal to increase NA integration. • Cancelled in Aug 2009.

21. Discussion Qs Does Canadian participation in international conventions and agreements strengthen or hamper our sovereignty? How and when? Are their sufficient justifications for this? Do you think a greener WTO answer to addressing the enviro-trade conflicts, or a WEO (world environment organization). Why?