1 / 34

Environment

Environment. Collective goods and regimes. Collective goods are hard to provide. Free rider problem Everyone has individual incentive to “consume” Collective welfare suffers “Tragedy of commons” Garrett Hardin

lupita
Download Presentation

Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environment Collective goods and regimes

  2. Collective goods are hard to provide • Free rider problem • Everyone has individual incentive to “consume” • Collective welfare suffers • “Tragedy of commons” • Garrett Hardin • A neo Malthusian argues that individual rationality will doom the collective good

  3. Tragedy of the Commons

  4. Averting the tragedy? • Legal-coercive* • Positive sanctions* • Privatize* • Educate • Institutions* • Unilateral action* • (Often solutions are a mix of two or more)

  5. Legal-coercive • Regimes & Conventions • For example: CITES • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species • There is a legal framework, but punishment is indirect and must be wielded by states, typically through economic sanctions

  6. Process of regime building 4. Strengthening 3. Bargaining 2. Fact finding 1. Issue definition

  7. 1. Issue definition • Agenda created: • by one or more states • by an IGO • eg 1977 Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) conference sponsored by UNEP • by an NGO • Framework Climate Change Ctee has a long list

  8. 2. Fact finding • Sometimes coordinated by IGO • May be challenged and bargained • UNEP set up coordinating committee to evaluate scientific research on ozone

  9. 3. Bargaining • Outcomes depend on strength of coalitions • Most issues have a leading group & veto group • If consensus not reached: regime may go ahead without key players … but weak • eg Climate Change and US “veto”

  10. 4. Strengthening • Continuous process • Science may help • “Protocol” to set targets/timetable • Convention • Review Conference may push for stronger action

  11. Ozone Depletion • 1985 Vienna Convention strengthened by • 1987 Montreal Protocol • “far-reaching restrictions” • “precautionary principle” • Industrial countries agreed to cut CFCs in half by 1998

  12. Strengthening ozone regime • 1990 London : full end to CFCs and HCFCs by 2000 • interim multilateral fund $240m for LDCs • 1993 Bangkok: phase out bromide • 1995 Vienna: methyl bromide

  13. Still strengthening • 1997 Montreal: 9th review of protocol • celebrating 10th anniversary • but 1996 Antarctic hole bigger than ever • illegal trade in ODS ozone depleting substances • worries about underfunding

  14. Why strong ozone regime? • Solutions simple • cut cfc production • Clear compliance mechanisms • monitor production and trade • 1/5 CFC trade in black market in 1995 • Effective leadership • UNEP Tolba • External shocks or crises • Image of ozone layer + cancer rates

  15. Image of ozone depletion

  16. Climate Change issue definition • A weaker image • Clearlyexponential • But proof of human cause?

  17. Climateregime? • No simple solutions • CO2 emissions linked to overall economic activity • Have to challenge assumptions of capitalist growth • Modest targets and uneven compliance

  18. Climate change politics • Global climate, but sovereign interests • Lead group: EU • Two veto coalitions: • LDCs • [especially India & China] • JUSCANZ • Japan, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand • BBC chart on emissions

  19. Kyoto 1997: WeakConference of Parties [COP] to Framework Convention on Climate Change • industrialized countries to cut by 5.2% from 1990 levels between 2008-2012 • Range of targets • +8% for Australia, -8% for Europe (on average) • Trading in emissions credits allowed • Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) • Allows companies to get credits for clean energy projects in LDCS • Carbon sinks • Credits for forests!

  20. Kyoto -> compromise • No LDCs commitments to reduce emissions • No reporting, enforcement, penalties • Reductions agreed were too low to have effect! • No Rules/cap on emissions trading

  21. Kyoto eroding • George Bush pulled US out • March 2001 newsclip • US voluntary approach (Pew Centre) • Russian ratification needed to give Kyoto legal status • Framework Convention on Climate Change ratification “barometer”

  22. Latin treaty text Common name search Appendix I,II,III Lists of Parties Biannual Conference Sample proceedings Article VIII measures penalize trade/possession confiscation reimburse record report CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

  23. Criticism of CITES • Ineffective • Drives trade underground • “Reserves” are like zoos • Tourism cost-benefit

  24. Example of bargaining: ivory • 1988 WWF and Conservation international called for world ban • NGOs wanted elephants on Appendix I • Sustainable: 50m tons ivory per yr (consumption 770m tons/yr)

  25. CITES Ivory Aftermath • Japan expected to veto, but complied under pressure from NGOs, US & EU and cut all imports • Ivory prices plunged 90% • Southern Africa not an effective veto coalition: market forces led to change • Some illegal trade persists

  26. Whales • weak initial regime permitted virtually unregulated exploitation of an endangered species • Now “global conservation regime” despite veto coalition led by Japan

  27. International Whaling Commission • IWC began as a “Whalers club” • Secret meetings • “Quotas” allowed kill rate to double 1951-62 • World Council of Whalers • No consensus on facts • IWC “science” committee supported kills • Meanwhile, blue whale almost extinct

  28. Action • US lead state • Impelled by own 1969 Endangered Species Act • Declared 8 species endangered in 1970 • 1972 moratorium at Stockholm conference • IWC defeated similar proposal 6-4 (4 abstentions) • Veto coalition: Norway, Japan, USSR, Iceland, Chile, Peru • Non-whaling states were recruited onto IWC • Created ¾ majority needed for IWC ban

  29. Veto coalition action • commercial whaling ended by 1987/88 • But Japan, Iceland & Norway began “scientific” hunt • No US response • no sanctions on Japan (trade reprisals?) • No sanctions on Iceland (USAF base Reykjavik) • Consumer action achieved halt until 1991 • USSR continued as before, with false reports

  30. Regime strengthened? • 1994 IWC meeting: long-term ban on whaling below 40 degrees south • Sanctuary for 90% estimated 3.5m remaining great whales • Japan and Norway defy ban • 1997 Norway killed 5x as many as in 1992 • Japan hunting in Antarctic sanctuary • 300 minkes a year “scientific” catch • Sales of $50m in 1997!

  31. Regime change • 1997 Ireland proposed ending ban and bringing commercial whaling back under “Revised Management Procedure” • Allow catches up to 1% estimated population • Whale population estimates • NGOs worried that Irish plan would increase commercial whaling • Urged moratorium for 50 yrs

  32. Dilemma • To endorse commercial whaling and reduce kill • Or to ban it, while whale kills are still rising

  33. ClimateLinks • IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Speech by Chair at 20th Session Feb ‘03 • Reports • BBC quiz! • UNFCC

  34. UNEP conventions WMO World Me. Org WWF World Wildlife Fund Greenpeace Sierra Club Other Links

More Related