![]()
The United Nations
United Nationsâ treaties are forged in their own world, one that many of us know very little about. Debates over a phrase can extend over years, and an agreement on a single paragraph can be hailed as an important breakthrough. Within this daunting and drawn out process, the treaty itself can unintentionally become the goal. Kyoto fell into this trap, as the original intent to reduce GHG emissions was sacrificed for the sake of reaching a deal, and the practical result is that the Protocol has become little more than a reporting mechanism. What good is a global climate treaty where most nations have no restraints on their GHG emissions? So how did this happen? We begin by examining the framework of the sensitive and complex negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol.
The road to Villach & Toronto
The general issue of borderless pollution problems had been first addressed by the United Nations at the Conference of the Human Environment in Stockholm1 back in 1972. Upon a recommendation from the Stockholm meeting, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was formed on September 2, 1973. Maurice Strong (1929-)2 of Canada, the Secretary-General of the conference, was appointed the first head of UNEP. He was followed by Mostafa Kamal Tolba (1922-) and then another Canadian, Elizabeth Dowdeswell,3 who had been a member of the IPCC and Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC).
UNEP adopted the framework convention4 for international treaty negotiations. I will brief y review the structure of this type of treaty mechanism for those unfamiliar with the jargon, in order to better understand the Kyoto negotiations. The framework convention is a two-stage, multi-year process:
1. 1. Framework Convention â a preliminary treaty, containing a general system of governance, institutional mechanisms and policy guidelines (i.e., the âframeworkâ) describing intent but few obligations (similar to a memorandum of understanding in the business world).
2. Protocol â a modification of the framework convention treaty containing specific legally binding commitments (similar to a contract in the business world). Protocols are often named after the city where agreement was reached.
Each stage of the treaty follows three steps:
1. negotiated agreement
2. national signature (largely symbolic)
3. national ratification (makes it binding).
Actual meetings where the treaty terms are negotiated are the sessions of the:
1. Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for the preliminary framework convention, which usually disbands after the treaty has been signed.
2. Conference of the Parties (COP) for the protocol acceptance and other modifications to the framework convention.
3. Meeting of the Parties (MOP) is responsible for the protocol. In some cases, the COP also acts as the MOP, and is abbreviated as CMP.5
Both the INC and COP are supported by Working Groups and/or Ad Hoc Working Groups; the latter is a âtemporaryâ group dealing with a specific task, especially challenging policies. Draft documents from the Working Groups incorporate âbracketsâ of objected terms and phrases, which allows the discussion to move forward without resolving all contentious clauses. During the Kyoto negotiations, the process degenerated, and the documents became almost comical; drafts were often nothing but a series of brackets, and brackets within brackets within brackets; the originator of a bracket was not identified, and countries often forgot who had objected to what.
After a specified majority of nations have signed on to the framework convention, it is officially in force, and negotiations can begin on amendments of legally binding commitments, called the protocols. The Conference of the Parties (COP) takes over negotiations from the INC at this stage, and the COP is the supreme decision-making body for any modifications to the framework convention. The COP meeting is divided into two sessions. In the first session, bureaucrats hash through the endless administrative duties and develop critical policies. In the second part of the Conference, the high-level meetings take place, which often includes senior ministers and heads of state. Upon reaching the threshold number of signatures by member states, the protocol becomes incorporated into the treaty, which is still called the framework convention. There is no legal obligation until the protocol has been âratifiedâ by the individual national governments.
The first framework convention by UNEP took place in 1976 at the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution. Another early framework convention on the environment was in 1979, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP;6 in 1999, the Gothenburg Protocol was adopted as part of the LRTAP). The treaty to deal with acid rain had been organized through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.7
Acid rain & the flexible mechanisms
Despite the LRTAP, legislation was slow to develop in Europe. The turning point was when Germany, which had resisted any acid rain legislation, discovered in 1982 that acid rain was causing widespread damage to its forests.8 In December 1983, the European Community issued a program to curtail emissions, called the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD). The negotiations over LCPD were typical for such treaties. Among the member states, their political position reflected the impact such legislation would have on their economies.9 The strongest objections came from the UK, which had the largest emissions; they wanted scientific proof before taking action.10 There was a North-South split, with the poorer southern nations in Europe arguing that the richer countries should tackle most of the problem. After five years of debate, a watered-down agreement was reached allowing most states to continue a business-as-usual approach, with differentiated targets for each member.11 Incentives in the UK were provided for coal-f red utilities to switch to natural gas.12 An unintentional by-product of the LCPD was that the UK also began lowering its CO2 emissions well before climate change was on the political agenda.
Acid rain was also a problem in the United States, where a creative approach was adopted: namely a cap and trade system and the related âflexible mechanismsâ of emissions trading. The concept of a market approach to pollution control had been proposed by Ronald Harry Coase (1910â2013) in 1960, and six years later...
