The Montreal Protocol – UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change – Land-based Marine Pollu-tion – ConvenPollu-tion on Straddling Fish Stocks – Biodi-versity Convention – Declaration of Forest Principles – Plant genetic resources – Desertification Convention – World Population Summit in Cairo – World Confer-ence on Women – World Summit on Human Settle-ments – Human Rights Summit – GATT/WTO – World Food Summit – World Summit for Social De-velopment
2.1
Atmosphere
2.1.1
The Montreal Protocol
Strictly speaking, the Montreal Protocol on Sub-stances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is not part of the Rio process, in that the first version was agreed upon as early as 1987, following adoption of the underlying Vienna Convention in 1985. However, the Montreal Protocol has acted in important ways as a model for other regimes, and is closely connected to the Rio follow-up process through the various amendments and adjustments of 1990, 1992 and 1995.
For the industrialized countries, the definitive ban on most ozone-depleting substances has been imple-mented, with only a few essential CFC uses, such as asthma sprays, being excepted.
In 1987, the developing countries were granted an extension period of ten years; most of these countries will have fulfilled their commitments by the respec-tive deadline. This was made possible above all through the industrialized countries’ promise, in the 1990 amendment to the Protocol, to meet “all agreed incremental costs” in this area and to set up a special Multilateral Fund to finance implementation of the Protocol. A welcome provision in the amended ver-sion of 1990 concerns the balanced representation of the Parties in decision-making, according to which further-reaching measures require the simple
ity of the developing countries and the simple major-ity of the industrialized nations.
However, further action still needs to be taken.
Given existing chlorine concentrations in the strato-sphere, the reduction schedule for the groups of sub-stances that have only been included since 1992, es-pecially methyl bromide and partly chlorinated fluo-rocarbons, should be speeded up as a matter or ur-gency in order to bring forward the target for resto-ration of the ozone layer. In the light of experience in North-South negotiations at the last two Conferen-ces of the Parties, however, this will probably require additional contributions to the Multilateral Ozone Fund.
2.1.2
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force in early 1994; since then, however, the Parties have failed to set specific time scales and reduction targets for the industrialized countries’ commitment under the Convention to re-duce their greenhouse gas emissions. At the first Conference of the Parties, held in Berlin in 1995, the signatory states agreed to continue negotiations (the so-called Berlin Mandate).
That said, the Berlin conference succeeded in es-tablishing some key foundations for the current ne-gotiation process. The outcome of the latter is to be an international legally binding instrument that com-mits the signatories to greenhouse gas reductions within specific time frames. New commitments for the developing countries going beyond the general, non-specific climate protection commitments in Arti-cle 4.1 of the Convention have not been an item of negotiation to date, because the per capita emissions of the industrialized countries exceed those of the de-veloping countries many times over. However, to gain experience with joint implementation of activ-ities to meet reduction targets, a pilot phase for this new instrument was started in 1995.
27 Hydrosphere C 2.2
A binding legal instrument might possibly be adopted in December 1997 at the third Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, either in the form of an addi-tional Protocol to the Convention, or as an amend-ment of the convention.According to currently avail-able drafts by some individual states, it is likely that two different kinds of reduction commitment will be agreed for industrialized states for the period after 2000: negotiations center on proposals that the indus-trialized countries commit themselves in their post-2000 climate policies to so-called QELROs (Quan-tified Emission Limitation and Reduction Objecti-ves). A number of industrialized countries are calling here for differentiation of commitments between in-dividual industrialized countries, which could be based on indicators such as GDP, energy efficiency or per capita emissions of greenhouse gases. The USA, in particular, is demanding that trading in emissions permits between states be allowed and that such trading be made an integral component of the new instrument. Another issue under debate is to commit industrialized countries to joint policies and meas-ures to combat climate change, such an agreement on certain technical standards. The EU has put forward a comprehensive proposal in this regard. However, there is no telling to what extent these political meas-ures will be legally binding; one conceivable ap-proach could be that only some categories of meas-ures are binding, or that the states are granted the op-tion to select measures from a “menu”.
What is clear in any case is that developing coun-tries will not take on any commitments that involve specific reduction targets. Uncertainty continues to surround the future status of eastern European coun-tries, which are allowed a “certain degree of flexibil-ity” in Article 4.6 of the Climate Convention in order to enhance their ability to address climate change.
Other important areas of negotiation relate to the fi-nancial support for developing countries in the field of climate protection, the financial compensation of developing countries that suffer economic disadvan-tages as a result of future climate policy, and future dispute-settlement procedures in connection with implementation of the convention.
It is difficult to tell from the current state of nego-tiations whether a legally binding instrument will be adopted at the Kyoto conference. The Council con-siders it imperative that the parallel debate on har-monization of policies and measures does not detract from the central purpose of climate protection poli-cymaking, namely the agreement of quantitative and legally binding reduction targets for greenhouse gas-es.
2.2
Hydrosphere
2.2.1
Protection of the Seas from Land-based Pollu-tion
Progress has been achieved since 1992 regarding protection of the oceans (Chapter 17 of AGENDA21).
In 1995, as part of the Rio follow-up process, a new instrument was created to limit land-based marine pollution, which accounts for up to 80% of total ma-rine pollution – the Washington Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environ-ment from Land-based Activities. This non-binding action program is based on older UNEP guidelines that were recognized as inadequate in the course of UNCED. The global action program is now being translated by the states into national action pro-grams, but the developing countries are being given too little financial assistance from the Global Envi-ronment Facility (GEF) (WBGU, 1996).
The Washington Global Programme of Action and the Washington Declaration call on the international community to negotiate a legally binding convention on twelve groups of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The intention is to subject particularly haz-ardous POPs, which are mostly prohibited in Ger-many, to a globally binding reduction regime or to ban them entirely. A model for such a regime, to which reference was often made during preliminary negotiations, is the Montreal Ozone Protocol.
The Council welcomes both the Global Program-me of Action as well as the planned POP Convention as a first significant step towards the International Convention on Protection of the Seas recommended in the 1995 Report (WBGU, 1996). Consideration should be given to widening the scope of the POP Convention to include not only those groups of haz-ardous substances currently under discussion (the
“dirty dozen”), but other groups of substances as well; the Council sees major research gaps in this area. As with the Montreal Protocol, it is essential that the POP Convention enable rapid adjustments to be made as scientific understanding advances.
2.2.2 Overfishing
Another key outcome of the Rio follow-up pro-cess concerning protection of the seas is the Agree-ment for the ImpleAgree-mentation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of
28 C 2 International policymaking in response to Global Change
10th December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The aim of this new agreement on fisheries is to limit states’ authority over fisheries zones and to lay down some general obligations regarding cooperation and consultation.
The Council continues to view overfishing of the seas as a serious challenge for biodiversity and marine protection policy, and lays particular stress on the so-cial dimension of the problem. Experience with mar-ket-based measures to combat overfishing – e.g. fish-ing ground licenses – indicates that such instruments can have positive impacts. Another instrument could be international regulations for reducing driftnet and similar fishing methods, which cause excessive dam-age to marine biodiversity due to the other organisms which are caught in the nets.
2.2.3
The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in Hamburg
An important role in international dispute settle-ment could be performed by the new International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, which commenced work in Hamburg in 1996 and which decides on dis-putes over interpretation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – provided, of course, that states bring their conflicts before the tribunal. This makes it the second major UN institution, along with the Cli-mate Convention Secretariat, to be sited in Germany.
On the whole, the world’s seas have not been as-signed the position they deserve in the international
“hierarchy” of problems, especially in light of prob-able trends in the future (WGBU, 1996a). Nor is pro-tection of the seas granted adequate consideration as yet in multilateral financing programs such as the GEF.
2.3 Biosphere
2.3.1
Convention on Biological Diversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodi-versity Convention) was agreed in Rio de Janeiro, came into force in 1993, and has since been ratified by more than 160 states.
It is a cross-cutting convention aimed not only at preserving biodiversity, but also at the sustainable use and equitable sharing of the benefits deriving from such use (WBGU, 1996). Given this range of
tasks, it is inevitable that conflicts will arise between the protection and use of biodiversity resources, as in agriculture and forestry, for example.
The three Conferences of the Parties (1994 in Nas-sau; 1995 in Jakarta; 1996 in Buenos Aires) have set special emphases in this respect – decisions have al-ready been adopted on the preservation of biodiver-sity in agriculture (especially on combating genetic erosion), on coastal and marine biodiversity and on forests.
The convention has also established a new legal basis for regulating access to genetic resources, which are no longer deemed to be commons property to which there is free access; instead, states have sove-reign rights over and explicit authority to govern ac-cess to their genetic resources. The interests of indus-trial enterprises seeking sources of genetic resources, the rights of local and indigenous communities with their traditional knowledge about this diversity, and the sovereignty of states must be harmonized with each other (Henne and Loose, 1997). Some states have passed legislation implementing the provisions of the convention as national law, in order to ensure this balance of interests and above all equitable shar-ing of the benefits derived from genetic resources.
Negotiations are currently being conducted on a supplementary protocol relating to biosafety. The Convention has a financing mechanism, which the GEF is administering on an interim basis. However, the funds required exceed the financial resources of the GEF to such an extent that the Conference of the Parties is now compelled to find new sources of fi-nance.
Integration into existing multilateral structures has been improved by building bridges to the other Conventions and organizations of relevance to biodi-versity (e.g. CITES, the Ramsar Convention, the FAO; see Fig. C 2-1). In addition to specific work on implementation, the negotiation process itself is op-erating as a forum for activities aimed at the preser-vation and sustainable use of biological diversity.This function is further supported by a clearing house mechanism for promoting the exchange of informa-tion and technology.
The convention process has led to open and con-structive discussion, stimulating fertile debates and activities within nations as well. Germany took an ac-tive part in setting up the clearing house mechanism and in promoting cooperation with the private sec-tor. The Council welcomes the efforts being made to encourage environmentally compatible forms of tourism, since this promotes the economic valuation of biological diversity. On the whole, however, Ger-many is lagging behind in implementing the Conven-tion. Neither the re-enactment of the Federal Nature Conservation Act, which has been pending for a long
29 Intergovernmental Panel on Forests C 2.3.2
time now, nor the development of a national strategy for implementing the Biodiversity Convention have been completed. Politicians and researchers in Ger-many are realizing only slowly that the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is not a problem peculiar to nature conservation policy, but is a cross-cutting task in environmental and development poli-cy.
2.3.2
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
In the field of forest protection, efforts to engineer a Forests Convention in the run-up to UNCED met with failure. All that was agreed was a “non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest”
(the Declaration of Forest Principles). In an attempt to revive discourse, the CSD established the Inter-governmental Panel on Forests (IPF) in 1995. The IPF was asked to deliver a report to the Fifth Session of the CSD in April 1997, containing
recommenda-tions on the management, preservation and sustain-able use of forests.
The IPF’s efforts to institute a Forests Convention continue to be dogged by the opposing interests of stakeholders. For precisely this reason, many non-governmental organizations consider this to be an in-opportune time to be negotiating a Convention.They argue that the final outcome might be based on the lowest of common denominators, and that the nego-tiation process itself is liable to delay any form of ef-fective action.
Very little real progress has been made so far. Nei-ther conceptual issues (interpretation of “sustainable forestry”) nor procedural issues (continuation of ne-gotiations beyond the current mandate of the IPF) have been clarified. The work of the IPF has more to do with the preparation and management of discus-sions between governments, non-governmental or-ganizations and the public. Forests have been put back on the political agenda. In many countries, de-bate has received new stimulation above all through the improved technical knowledge generated by the IPF process and through the discussions on certifica-tion and indicators.
Forests Declaration of Forest Principles
Framework Conven-tion on Climate
Change (FCCC) Desertification
Convention (CCD) UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty
Atmosphere Seas,
freshwater resources
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Desertification, soils
Antarctica Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
Biodiversity Prospecting (UNCTAD, UNEP)
Rights of Plant Breeders (UPOV)
Balanced and equitable sharing of benefits Sustainable use
Preservation of biological diversity
Global System for Preservation and Sustainable Use of Plant-genetic Resources (FAO)
Biosphere Reserves (MAB-UNESCO) Biosafety (UNEP, WHO, UNIDO)
Intellectual Property Rights (WTO, TRIPS)
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF)
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO)
Wetlands (Ramsar) Migratory Species (CMS)
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ILO) Rights of Farmers (FAO)
Figure C 2-1
Linkages between the Biodiversity Convention and other global environmental regimes.
Source: Gettkant et al., 1997
30 C 2 International policymaking in response to Global Change
In view of the IPF’s problems in renegotiating a Forests Convention, it is worth asking whether – in place of a new, independent convention – a protocol to the Biodiversity Convention would be the more appropriate instrument for regulating, in a legally binding form, the preservation and sustainable use of forests (WBGU, 1996).
2.3.3
Negotiations on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture form a small but highly important component of glo-bal biodiversity that has become increasingly endan-gered in recent decades, above all through the mod-ernization of agriculture (“genetic erosion”). The 1983 FAO International Undertaking on Plant Ge-netic Resources represents a first, albeit non-binding regulation to protect these resources as part of the human heritage, to collect, research and to make them accessible as commons property for all interest-ed parties (e.g. research into plant breinterest-eding). The coming into force of the Biodiversity Convention in 1993 has produced a need for adjustment, in that the convention places genetic resources under the juris-diction of sovereign national states (see Section C 2.5), although not without specifying cer-tain framework conditions governing access to such resources. The necessary reform of the International Undertaking and some complex issues associated with it (e.g. farmers’ rights, access to ex-situ collec-tions) are currently being dealt with in a new negoti-ation process administered by the FAO. The result may be a legally binding protocol on plant genetic re-sources within the framework of the Biodiversity Convention; however, the outcome is still uncertain.
The Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources organized by the FAO in Leipzig (June 17–23, 1996) marked an important step forwards towards a global system for managing these resources. In the run-up to the conference, the FAO presented the first report on the state of global plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (FAO, 1996a).
Access to genetic resources and equitable benefit-sharing are controversial issues, since the Biodiversi-ty Convention does not regulate access to existing ex-situ collections (e.g. gene banks and botanical gar-dens). The issue of farmers’ rights, meaning the rec-ognition of the services performed by local farming communities that have long been breeding plant va-rieties of their own, has a direct bearing in this con-text.
The most important outputs of the conference were the consensus on a common policy message to the World Food Summit – the Leipzig Declaration – and the Global Plan of Action on the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Re-sources for Food and Agriculture. The Leipzig Decla-ration states that crop biodiversity (including gene banks) is under threat, even though this is the basis for food security and hence for the “survival and well-being of humanity”. However, implementation of the various technical measures listed in the Glob-al Plan of Action is hampered by the fact that no agreement was reached on the source of additional funding.
2.4
Lithosphere/Pedosphere
At UNCED, the lithosphere and pedosphere were discussed above all with respect to soil degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid zones (Chapter 12 of AGENDA21). It was also decided to draw up an international convention containing legally binding
At UNCED, the lithosphere and pedosphere were discussed above all with respect to soil degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid zones (Chapter 12 of AGENDA21). It was also decided to draw up an international convention containing legally binding