Lectures International Environmental Politics (IEP)
Inhoudsopgave
Meeting 1 (11-11): Introduction on international environmental politics ........................................................ 2
1 International environmental politics: emerge, development, theoretical perspectives................................... 2
2 Organisation of the course .............................................................................................................................. 4
3 guest lecture Cebuan Bliss: International biodiversity governance in the age of extinction............................ 5
Meeting 2 (18-11): Emergence and development & actors, institutions and procedures ................................. 8
1: EU environmental politics: emergence and development .............................................................................. 8
1: 1970s: first steps ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2: 1980s: further development and legal bases ............................................................................................ 9
3: 1990-2010s: environment on the waves of European integration .......................................................... 10
4: 2020s: environment and climate at the centre of European integration ................................................ 11
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 11
2: EU environmental politics: actors, institutions and procedures ................................................................... 11
Decision making: OLP................................................................................................................................... 12
Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Meeting 3 (25-11): 2 guest lectures ............................................................................................................... 17
Gastspreker Raoul Beunen: Open University – implementation of Natura 2000 ............................................. 17
What is Natura 2000 .................................................................................................................................... 17
History.......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Implementation NL ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Explaining the implementation experiences ............................................................................................... 18
Way forward? .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Gastspreker Taru Leppanen, European Parliament (the role of the EP/ the making of the Just Transition Fund)
.......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Meeting 4 (2-12-22) ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Meeting 5 (9-12-22): Global and EU climate politics ...................................................................................... 21
Paris 2015 (COP21): a “historic” agreement? ................................................................................................... 21
Climate politics: early beginnings ..................................................................................................................... 22
Between Copenhagen 2009 and Paris 2015 ..................................................................................................... 24
Paris 2015 and beyond ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Paris in Perspective ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion: is Paris a “historic” agreement? .................................................................................................... 25
Conceptualisation of leadership for mini seminar ............................................................................................ 25
Meeting 6 (16-12-22): Convergence of national environmental policies ........................................................ 27
Leadership model.............................................................................................................................................. 27
Convergence of national environmental policies .............................................................................................. 27
The exam .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
1
,Meeting 1 (11-11): Introduction on international environmental
politics
Today
1 Lecture: international environmental politics: emerge, development, theoretical perspectives
2 Organisation of the course
3 guest lecture Cebuan Bliss: International biodiversity governance in the age of extinction
1 International environmental politics: emerge, development, theoretical perspectives
Brief history of IEP
2 major events:
- 1972: UN conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), Stockholm
o Often regarded as the start of formal environmental politics
- 1992: UN conference on environment and development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro
o Start of the framework convention of climate change
à See also O’Neill ch1&2!
Pre-Stockholm era until 1968: mostly non-existent. No explicit international environmental policy.
Some isolated measures, often under ‘other umbrellas’ (cultural policy or health policy et).
But: biologist start to warn! Key publication is “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. She warned for the
silent spring; excessive use of pesticides.
In that period also the environmental NGO’s started to come up.
3 era’s: Stockholm era, Rio era, After Rio
Stockholm era (1968-1987)
- Rise of environmental consciousness:
o Disasters, e.g. Torrey Canyon
o ‘acid rain’
o ‘Limits to Growth’ report to the Club of Rome, 1972: very pessimistic scenario’s.
à environmental problems don’t stop at borders! Urge for international action led to the
first UN conference in Sweden. Sweden was especially the victim of transboundary pollution:
acid rain. Also, most of the emissions responsible for that did not come from Sweden.
- United nations conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), Stockholm, 1972.
o First big event! Almost every country represented in this Cold War period
o Principles incl. ‘principle 21’: sovereign right to exploit natural resources but no
damage to environment. The fact that this thing was accepted by so many states
was already an important step.
o Institutional build-up (UNEP: United Nations Environment Program).
- In the years after Stockholm this institutionalisation went on with various specific treaties
(air, water etc)
o Other general institutions start environmental policy (EU, OECD, etc).
Rio era (from 1987)
- More global issues (ozone, climate), countries must work together for these issues
- Problematic North-South divide. South says: North is responsible for most of these problems,
so they should solve the most or at least help us with the problems.
- In parallel, one could say that ‘Globalisation’ increased in that period. So altogether; there
was a good reason for countries to work together in the environmental field. à Reason for
Rio 1992
2
, - ‘sustainable development’ (Brundtland report, 1987)
o ‘Development’ but ‘sustainable’
o Implies that there is some reconciliating between economy and ecology
o Intergenerational equity
o Technological optimism. It’s believed that technology can save us.
- UNCED, Rio, 1002:
o Increased role for ‘other actors’, meaning: other than State. NGOs, labour unions
were all represented. There were tens of thousands of ppl
o Agenda 21 (incl. Local agendas 21)
o UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Rio was the startpoint of
formal climate policy. The COP’s are still taking place in the context of this summit.
After Rio
- Implementation gap. It was a relatively quiet period.
- Follow-up in Johannesburg 2002. Attempt to re-vitalize the Rio. No very effective.
- Rio+20 Rio de Janeiro, June 2012. Again they tried to create new momentum for global
environmental policy. Not successful. Still unbinding document.
- 2015: new momentum:
o UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) sept 2015
o Paris Agreement on Climate Change, dec 2015.
à Both are still unbinding, but are leading for sustainable policies.
o Also; more room for bottom-up. Involving more than States. Also focus on not only
making nice promises, but more managerial approach where states can to some
extend follow their own.
- Wider change in IEP
o More involvement of ‘other actors’ (business, consumers, NGOs, etc) more self-
commitment
o ‘managerial approach’ (O’Neill c4): flexible and differentiated rules, soft law,
assistance, funding etc
o From ‘government’ to ‘governance’
Theoretical approaches
2 classical theories:
1. Realism (state is central)
a. States central:
Sovereign: 1) if it has a territorial basis. So there is a territory where government
controls what happens. 2) And within this territory the state has legitimate
monopoly of violence.
Unitary and rational “the state is doing this and that”.
b. Main interest: (military) security.
Only if relevant for security, countries will cooperate.
c. Hierarchy of interests
à billiard balls ‘balance of power’ – states just clashing but hardly interacting.
If you have this view of the world, then the Stockholm plan is already
revolutionary.
- Maintaining security is the first interest in this theory. Other interests like developing
economy/protecting environment are always subordinate to this basic security goal.
- Only if it’s relevant for security, these countries cooperate with others.
2. Neo-liberal institutionalism (also known as ‘idealism’ or ‘neo liberalism’)
a. States, but also other actors relevant: Multinationals, trading countries, academics,
students, tourists etc.
3
, b. Various interests, incl common interests. Not only security but also raising standard
of living, wellbeing, economy etc. one could say that this makes countries dependent
on each other for all kinds of cooperation.
ß Duncan’s ‘complex interdependence’ sculpture.
c. Cooperation possible; military threat often not credible
à complex interdependence. Here, military is hardly an option. The threat within
the EU is not valid. In Europe we won’t use force. Institutions play a role to organise
agreements. For that purpose, the concept of international regimes is important.
§ International regime: “principles, rules, norms and procedures around which
actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations”
• In other words: set of interrelated ideas about problems, solutions,
legal principles, agreements, organisations, etc.
• Around for instance biodiversity, seas & oceans or climate
à ‘institutions matter’: regimes.
A ‘new’ theory: Polycentricity
- Elinor and Vincent Ostrom (1960s)
- Next to formal state institutions, various task-specific agencies, special district etc in US local
government. Like schools and hospitals working together, crossing administrative
boundaries. Almost governed themselves. That’s what polycentricity is.
- “Polycentric systems are characterized by multiple governing authorities at different scales
rather than a monocentric unit. Each unit within a polycentric system exercises considerable
independence to make norms and rules within a specific domain”
- Happens a lot in Switzerland or Scandinavian countries. But also, the Dutch Waterschappen.
- Later extended to global scale:
o Normative argument: top-down treaties don’t work
o Empirical argument: many polycentric initiatives observed
- To some extent reflected in Paris Agreement 2015
Weaknesses of polycentricity according to Ostrom:
- Could lead to leakage (shifting of polluting activities)
- Inconsistency and inefficiency (re-inventing the wheel)
- Free-riding
à also polycentricity requires institutional context
Summing up:
• Top-down realism and neo-liber institutionalism vs bottom-up polycentricity are not
mutually exclusive
• Instead: they enhance and sometimes need each other
à Complex interdependence!
2 Organisation of the course
See syllabus
4
,3 guest lecture Cebuan Bliss: International biodiversity governance in the age of
extinction
1 Biodiveristy loss: the problem
We’re in the 6th mass extinction as we speak, and it’s caused by our unsustainable development
habits. Described as a ‘wicked problem’. No clear solution.
2: international biodiversity governance
Conventions:
1975: Ramsar, Cites
1983: CMS
1992: convention on biological diversity
Notable: US did not sign to CBD.
Other international actors: it’s not only states, but polycentric actors. Many NGO’s.
SLIDE
3: Transnational biodiversity regimes
Beyond the states to a polycentric realm. There’s different actors to work on biodiversity loss. Can be
seen as a regime. There’s an emerging landscape outside of the formal structure of the CBD.
Cooperitive governance. Types of inter/transnational biodiversity governance.
- Monitoring targets
- Providing knowledge
SLIDE
In the middle you see increasingly an overlap
Other functions of cooperative initiatives: SLIDE
4: case study: governance of invasive Alien species
“Species whose introduction and/or spread outside their natural past or present distribution
threatens biological diversity”.
It’s the 5th direct driver of biodiversity loss.
The CBD inter-agency liaison group on invasive alien species.
Promotes cross-sector cooperation to address gaps and inconsistencies of frameworks.
SLIDE
You need all of these actors to cooperate in order to solve the problem.
Governing invasive alien species: SLIDE
In her research she found that different regimes can interact and be interdependent.
- Synergies e.g. policy coherence, sharing of resources and information
- Trade-offs e.g. conflicting policy objectives and discourses.
o She found: seeing them as invasive and need to eradicate them while others see
them as an individual animals. This can be a conflicting discourse
o More cooperation on the idea of One Health: the idea that environment-human-
animal are all interlinked.
5
, From bombs to biodiversity: do we need a conceptual shift in ‘security’ to protect biodiversity?
5: the future: possible solutions
- December 2022: Cop 15 – Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: a new deal for nature
and people? Very anthropogenic oriented (human centered)
- EU Green Deal/ Biodiversity Strategy 2030
- Transformative biodiversity governance:
o Rights of nature in Ecuador/Biolivia
o Rewilding: UN Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021-2030
o Multi-species justice
6
