Environment: the long march
towards global management
By Loïc Chauveau
Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, Washington or
Basle Agreements, international texts on the environment multiplied over the last three
decades of the 20th century. The 180 members of the United Nations are thus building, step
by step, a legal corpus that has not yet acquired that title. Today the impact of
environmental issues is stronger than ever before. They affect every sector of human
activity and could not care less about State borders. Whence the emerging idea of world
"governance" capable of imposing respect for our common possession: the Earth.
The first international conventions were
signed at the end of the 19th century. "They were particularly concerned with
preserving a few rare animal species", recounts Marie-Aimée Deana-Côté,
responsible for monitoring international texts at the Ministry of Town and Country
Planning and the Environment (MATE).
In 1930, the Washington convention
prohibiting dealing in wild animal species marked an initial turning point. It is a
world-ranging text that bans trade in exotic animals in general, and in ivory in
particular. While this convention does not provide for a monitoring or sanctions system
for the countries concerned, it is nevertheless recognised by the World Trade Organisation
(WTO), a structure that has its own arbitration court. "It is difficult today to
imagine an African country not complying with the Washington convention, thinks
Marie-Aimée Deana-Côté. The economic retaliatory measures would be too punitive".
This text is therefore an example for countries (including France) that plead for
"observance", a structure or procedure yet to be devised, the role of which
would be to monitor the application of international agreements by the signatory States.
Historic steps
The Montreal Protocol is another historic
step. Signed in 1987, this text imposes the ban on all chlorofluoride (CFC) products
present mainly in domestic or industrial cooling systems. The goal is to preserve the
stratosphere’s ozone layer being eroded by chlorine emissions into the atmosphere. It
is the first time that a text has been signed by every nation in order to resolve a risk
that affects the entire planet to the same degree. The notion of "sustainable
development", which first came into being at the Stockholm Summit in 1970, saw its
first practical expression in this. Facilitated by the good will of the industrialists
(who had replacement molecules for CFCs in their laboratories), the success of the
Montreal Protocol is undeniable. World CFC production was stopped completely in 1994, and
in 1999 an initial reduction was recorded in the hole in the ozone layer above the North
and South Poles. However, the CFCs already emitted will continue to destroy the ozone
layer for decades.
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on the
Environment and Development, known as the "Earth Summit", in Rio de Janeiro,
made official the signing of several international texts as world-ranging as the Montreal
Protocol. The conventions on climate, biodiversity and combating desertification, however,
are much more difficult to apply. Almost ten years after this summit, biodiversity is
still the object of negotiations and combating desertification has remained in a state of
deadlock. The Climate Convention is the one that has made most progress, notably through
the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997.
This agreement provides for the reduction in
the emissions of six greenhouse gases responsible for heating up the planet’s
atmosphere and therefore for climatic changes. This protocol was the subject of fierce
negotiations, notably on the exchange of emission quotas between States and on the
importance attached to carbon holes (forests, crops and oceans), which trap carbon dioxide
present in the atmosphere. Europe’s proactive approach
These negotiations have perpetuated the
grouping of States on the basis of geographical proximity, political philosophy or
economic interest. The Umbrella group federates the most liberal States (Australia,
Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Russia and the Ukraine) behind the United
States. The group of 77, led by India and China, represents the developing countries.
Finally, Europe is forming its identity as being less liberal in economic terms and
clearly more sensitive to environmental issues. Decisions are taken by the fifteen within
the bodies of the European Union (EU) and enlarged as often as possible to include the
countries of Eastern Europe applying for membership.
"This is a realistic approach for
France, explains Bernard Rond of the international affairs department of MATE. If one of
our ideas does not have unanimous support from the fifteen, it has little chance of
prevailing on an international scale".
In March 2001, the unilateral decision by the
United States (responsible for one quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions when they only
represent 5% of the world population) not to apply the Kyoto agreement enabled Europe to
prove its political unity and weight. In July of the same year, the signatory States
decided, in Bonn, to pursue this approach. The issue of the role of carbon holes was
resolved after heated discussions. In November, in Marrakech, the negotiators will make a
start on the legal wording of the agreement.
This proactive approach is a point in the
favour of the European countries. Within the EU, France is close to the commitment made in
Kyoto to maintain its CO2 emissions at the 1990 level. In 2000, it emitted 108 million
tonnes of carbon as against 104.5 million in 1990, despite strong economic growth.
An effort towards harmonisation
Europe has now decided to go even further by
pushing the idea of "governance". In the second half of 2000 during the French
Presidency of the EU, Europeans saw the need to coordinate environmental agreements.
Protocols and international agreements are piling up with no thought of consistency,
whereas structures such as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the
International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO), and even the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) are superimposing their own rules.
"The efforts being made are
unsystematic, meetings are multiplying in the four corners of the world and administrative
procedures are inconsistent", laments Bernard Rond.
"Governance" would therefore
consist of putting all these agreements under one structure for harmonising world
agreements on conserving nature and combating pollution. Logically, the United Nations
Programme for the Environment (UNPE) should be the appropriate place. But the UNPE does
not have UN agency status like the World Health Organisation (WHO), for example.
Contribution by the States is not compulsory and, indeed, is rarely paid, including by
France. The UNPE should therefore be strengthened, given a permanent budget and new
regulatory powers. The idea is on the right track. An intergovernmental group on
governance has already met on three occasions in 2001 and the idea should be put forward
to the States at the tenth anniversary conference of the Rio Summit, which will take place
in Johannesburg (South Africa) in September 2002. Main international commitments on
environmental protection which, to come into force, must be signed and ratified by a
certain number of States: Antarctic Treaties of 1959 and 1980, Ramsar Marshlands
Convention of 1971, London Convention on Waste Processing of 1972, Convention on the
International Trade in Threatened Species of 1973, Vienna Convention on the protection of
the ozone layer of 1985, Basle Convention on Cross-border Movements of Toxic Waste of
1989, the Biodiversity Treaty of 1992, Kyoto Protocol on Climate of 1992, United Nations
Convention on the prevention of desertification of 1994.
DANGER IN DELAY
Water: this vital resource is becoming scarce
not only in the tropics, but also in temperate latitudes. The average available per
inhabitant per year will decline from a little under the 8000m3 at present to 4000m3 in
the next two or three decades. Over a billion people in the world still do not have access
to drinking water. We should remember that less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh
water and that the greater part of it takes the form of ice at the poles. The
overexploitation of the seas and oceans, as well as industrial, domestic and nuclear
pollution seriously threaten their capacity for renewal.
Air: ozone pollution in summer and nitric
oxide pollution in the winter affect the health of the inhabitants of large towns. Asthma
and cardio-vascular problems affect a growing number of citizens. The prime culprit is the
car.
Soil deterioration: intensive farming and the
heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the developed countries, and
deforestation in the tropics are speeding up soil damage, an inheritance that has
sometimes taken millions of years to form. Intensive irrigation every year causes
thousands of hectares to be salinated.
Climate: the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere is currently 360 ppm (parts per million) per m3 of air, as against 280 in the
19th century. Scientists are anticipating 500 ppm in 2050. Climatic changes should be
significant (rise in sea levels due to the polar ice caps melting, more frequent and more
violent storms and rain, temperate zones heating up and the advance of the desert, causing
breaks in food production...).
Extinction of species: by 2050, half the
animal species that we are familiar with today could disappear.
Journalist for L’Express and Science
et Vie, Courtesy,Label France N.O:45/2001.(Embassy of France)
No new foundation
agreement!
Comment by Rudolf von Thadden
The great majority of people in France and
Germany appreciate the value of the friendly relations between our two countries, but very
few are aware of the origins. That is why the 40th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty
should be used as a welcome opportunity to highlight the reasons for the privileged
partnership between France and Germany. It is not enough to simply point to the desire for
reconciliation felt by the war and post-war generation.
A new status
It is against this background that, in recent
weeks, there have been repeated calls stressing the need for a new foundation agreement.
But what can this mean in a fast-moving age? It could hardly be – please forgive my
flippancy – a 40th birthday attempt to be baptized a second time round? A new
foundation would in fact mean supplying the new realities with a new description based on
the old foundation intentions. But the new is a Europe that has continued growing, a
Europe that has not only become bigger but also more deeply anchored within the union.
This is why the privileged Franco-German partnership, le couple franco-allemand, still
carries the same weight, but with a new status. The partnership has a clearly definable
place within the European construction process, but this is not where it exhausts itself.
The Franco-German partnership has an
intrinsic historical value of its own that cannot be restricted to the function of a motor
in the European unification process. But it can certainly help us to define Europe’s
profile more distinctly and to pose the question: what kind of Europe do we want? Under
the current political and social conditions, I think there are at least five recommendable
aims: we want a Europe that retains its historical identity, but still opens up to the new
challenges in the world; a Europe, that welcomed its rediscovered unity after the fall of
the Berlin Wall, but does not desire restoration; a Europe, that sees itself as a
self-confident community but still allows leeway for distinctive national and regional
features; a Europe, that is served by the privileged Franco-German partnership, but still
acknowledges the intrinsic historical value of this partnership; a Europe dedicated to
culture and education, and not merely to material interests.
Acting together
Germany and France do not need a new
foundation agreement. They have to reach compromises, define common political goals and,
above all, act in agreement, against the background of their highly diverse, even
contradictory models – centralism versus federalism, layism versus confessionalism
etc. The Franco-German relationship’s political value for Europe is the unshakeable
desire to move towards unity. This means that, in an enlarged European Union, the
Franco-German partnership will be more important than ever before. Prof Dr Dr h.c. mult.
Rudolf von Thadden is Co-ordinator for
Franco-German Co-operation. |
