The Environmental Challenge

1. EVERGREEN FEATURES AND HISTORICAL GROWTH

The anarchic nature of the international system constraints nations cooperating and co-

ordinating themselves in order to provide public goods because they cannot be provided

otherwise. It is important to underline that public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalrous

‘free-rider

and, because of these two features, they are subject to the problem’. The only way

to provide public goods is through the state through collective actions. There is one good that

is public for definition: the environment. If protecting the environment is now recognized as a

core issue in the global scenario, why is it difficult to have state coordination in this field?

“young issue”

Firstly, protecting the environment is a as it became important only during the

1970s at the Stockholm Conference (1972). This Conference was organized after the

publication of an important book that highlighted the devastating effects of the chemicals in

‘Silent

the environment. It was called the Spring’.

Secondly, some inherent features of this international policy is actually the reason why

co-operation in this field is so complicated. On one hand, there are huge costs associated to the

protection of the environment and they are concentrated in time and in space. Moreover,

benefits are very difficult to measure because the advantages of the environmental policy are

shared with other countries, so the risk of free-riding is potentially immense. This obviously

creates negative externalities and distortions in the market. On the other hand, the lack of an

enforcement mechanism implicates the absence of the fear of sanctions. In fact the costs of

non-compliance are mainly social. As a result, cooperation in this field is only the outcome of

voluntary decisions that must be made by the states themselves. For all these reasons, it is not

surprising that there is a lack of co-operation and the results of state-coordination are essentially

not binding. This is because there is a disproportion between costs and benefits and this

imbalance leads to a suboptimal outcome.

“THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: the Earth’s Protection”

Pathways towards 6

A brief historical overview could be useful to underline the progress that States have

made in regards to protecting the environment. The environmental issue became important in

the U.S. and this was evident during the U.N. first Environmental Conference, the Stockholm

Conference of 1972. The American model was used here to establish the mechanism of

environmental regulation. The outcomes of this event were the creation of the United Nation

Environment Programme (UNEP) as well as the Stockholm declaration, in which some

principles of international law were established, such as the Preventing Principle and the

Precautionary Principle. Only 20 years later, the Stockholm declaration was evolved through

the Rio Declaration which added a new important concept of sustainable development. This

idea of “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs” 2 was the outcome of the Brundtland Report drafted

during the second U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development. During the Earth

Summit of 1992 (Rio Conference), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) was negotiated. It is an international environmental framework treaty

which allows parties to take further commitments regarding the reduction on greenhouse gas

emissions.

Since the UNFCCC is composed by general instructions and general principles, it needs

during the “Conference

further general regulatory instruments to be established, which is done

of the Parties” (COP) . COP takes place every year since 1995. The first important binding

document, the Kyoto Protocol, was established during the third Conference of the Parties (COP

3). This protocol is evidence of the necessity to intervene in order to protect the environment

through the reduction of greenhouse emissions. The Framework Convention stipulates that

“Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations on

2 Brundtland Report. Development, World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987).

“THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: the Earth’s Protection”

Pathways towards 7

the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and

respective capabilities” 3

(United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992).

Furthermore, environmental treaties were agreed and the last two attempts to reach this major

goal were the twenty-first and the twenty-second Conference of the Parties in which States had

tried to reach an agreement for the reduction of greenhouse emissions caused by human

activities.

2. COP 21: A BREAKTHROUGH MOMENT

“A considerable challenge for the creators of international environment agreements is

how to design mechanisms that deter defection without deterring participation” 4 (von Stein,

2008). This challenge was overcome during the first universal agreement that was defined as

the “Agreement and as the “Agreement by the Executive

of Conviction” of Solidarity”

Secretary of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figures. This agreement was reached in 2015 in Paris

during the 21st Session of Conference of the Parties in regards to the U.N. Framework

Convention on Climate Change, known as COP 21. The Paris Agreement was created by

learning from the Kyoto’s lessons and it is considered to be a success for different reasons. But

is this successful model always effective?

2.1 A widespread universalism

The deal reached in Paris was a global agreement that, for the first time, involved the

participation of all nations and recognized the importance of the environmental threat. 195

States made a collective effort, signing a global cooperation for a new era, on one of the most

important and controversial issues that continuously affects humanity. Probably two factors

3 Article 4 of the UNFCCC (1992)

4 von Stein, J. (2008). The International Law and Politics of Climate Change: Ratification of the United Nations

Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Conflict Resolution (pag. 243)

“THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: the Earth’s Protection”

Pathways towards 8

drove Paris: the concrete and tangible risk brought by the global warming, and the possible

The “green conscience” to “a pragmatic deal that

benefits of clean-energy. was raised and it led

delivers what is needed”, as the C2ES Executive Vice President Elliot Diringer said. Among

these 195 nations, the U.S. leadership played an important role, reversing its course pursued

for the Kyoto Protocol and persuading China and other states to actively participate at the COP

22. As a result, this deal distinguishes itself not only by the participation of the largest emitters

but also by its universal nature. This is a strength of the Paris Agreement and was a clear

breakthrough at the time.

If Kyoto represents a compromise between nation-states, then the Paris Agreement was

the outcome of “thicker” negotiations. The participation of non-state actors made this deal

universal not only at a horizontal level but also as a vertical one. Thanks to the Non-State Actor

Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA) platform, which was created at COP 20 in Lima, initiatives

from companies, cities, regions, investors and civil society organization were included in the

meeting in Paris. In summary, with the Paris Agreement there was a clear shift because it was

the result of a more bottom-up approach to multilateral climate governance than the Kyoto

Protocol, which was, instead, the outcome of a top-down process.

2.2 A wide range of outcomes

During the twenty-first U.N. Conference on Climate Change, parties reaffirmed the

long-term mitigation goal of limiting global temperature increases below 2 C°, promising to

undertake the required efforts in order to limit temperatures to 1.5 degrees. This is the main

general goal that all the parties have to reach, establishing their own ways to pursue it through

the commitment to “prepare, communicate and maintain” their Nationally Determined

Contributions (NCDs). According to article 4 of the UNFCCC, NCDs are instruments needed

to “pursue domestic measure with the aim of achieving the objectives”.

“THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: the Earth’s Protection”

Pathways towards 9

The UNFCCC’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective

capabilities” is implemented in a different manner than it was in the Kyoto Protocol. The

difference between developed (Annex I) and developing countries (Annex II) is still in force

but it is embodied in a less divisive way, in fact, the international architecture has shifted from

a situation of strong differentiation to one that is much more nuanced. The Paris Agreement

does not exclude developing countries but provides a strong support through a financial system

carried out by developed countries and voluntary contributions from other ones. Different

national interests for protecting the environment are also embodied in the extension of the

Mechanism for Loss and Damage, previously established.

2.3 A binding agreement with a released core

The most controversial issue is the binding nature of this deal. The Paris Agreement is

universally recognised as an international treaty, a binding treaty. It establishes a set of

procedural commitments such as the preparation of the NCDs and the regular report of the

states’ progression in implementing them. Moreover, according to Paris, all countries have to

submit new NCDs every five years which should “represent a progression” beyond the previous

ones. Once a state has fulfilled their obligation, what will happen if they do not achieve the

goals that they have established themselves? The compliance of these obligations are not

legally binding. Furthermore, there is not an enforcement mechanism to sanction states that do

not respect their obligation. Using this approach, elements of soft law and hard law are kept

together in a single document which clearly represents a win-win situation for all the parties

that joined the meeting in Paris. In other words, this legal structure leads to a paradox that is

“a

the result of a compromise: binding procedural commitments but non-binding achievement

of them.”

“THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: the Earth’s Protection”

Pathways towards 10

Another element that can undermine the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement is the

absence of minimal goals or contributions that each state has to reach. In comparison with

and the implementation of the treaty’s

Kyoto, the goals are vaguer aim is not compulsory. If

Kyoto is considered to be “too little, too fast”, the Paris Agreement can reveal itself as “too

slow&rdq