1. International Air Pollution

2. Outline  Introduction  concepts  Acid Rain in Europe the Problem: the Problem: Convention: LRTAP Convention: LRTAP Implementing LRTAP Implementing LRTAP Evaluating success Evaluating success  Ozone Depletion Initiatives in responding to the ozone problem Initiatives in responding to the ozone problem Negotiations Negotiations Montreal Protocol, 1987. Montreal Protocol, 1987.

3.  Introduction  Scope Acid rain in Europe Acid rain in Europe Ozone depletion Ozone depletion Climate change Climate change  The challenge: Formation of an international environmental governance regime in the absence of an international government.

4.  - Hypothesize that a country will (not) participate depending on: a) its calculation of factors such as: 1. Metrics [interaction] of ecological vulnerability and abatement costs 2. Preferred emission reduction strategies [question of design of proposed regime] 3. Sense of honor? 4. National interests 5. Problem validity = epistemic controversy regarding cause and mitigation [sometimes invoked opportunistically] and, b) the higher the density of interaction of these factors in the negative direction, the more difficult it will be for a country to get on board.

5.  Strategy by designers of a regime - Specify how signatories must act, -incentive structures  Key concepts (Framework) Convention (Framework) Convention - Establishes general principles, norms and goals. Protocol Protocol agree on more specific targets than the general provisions of the parent convention.  Signing and,  ratification [binding within national jurisdiction]

6. Acid Rain in Europe  Problem: Transboundary transport of pollutants and their effects  - How international? Europe: Europe: - Britain’s impact on Scandinavian countries. - 1977 OECD study showed that the problem was transboundary. North America: Disproportionate flow of NOx from U.S. to Canada;North America: Disproportionate flow of NOx from U.S. to Canada; - ecosystem damage in Canada. -Resultant concern motivated international drive to forge a convention, hence LRTAP.

7. Convention: LRTAP.  Leaders: a) Scandinavian - initiated debate thro’ ECE; US and Canada members] - Result: 1972 OECD commissioned a study; findings published in 1977 b) France and Italy - no problem contracting because were in hydro and nuclear energy.  Laggards: Britain, Poland, and U.S. a) Britain- - international and costly abatement measures not favored. - 90% energy was fossil fuels, clear cost/benefit issue - action would benefit others

8. - Britain argued: - science on source inconclusive; more research. - no binding commitments, just general statements. b) Germany- initially, but later changed  discovery of black forest in the 1980s + Green Party effects.  Ambitious sulfur reduction target (50% in 10 years)  Emission limits for large industrial utilities  Requirement to adopt Best Available Technology

9. LRTAP Convention, 1979. -Parties – European states [32 +E.U., now almost 50], U.S. and Canada. -Aim: - [["endeavor to limit and, as far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent air pollution, including long-range transboundary air pollution... [using] the best available technology which is economically feasible …." Provisions include: monitoring and research. e.g. Regulations  Emission ceilings/caps [country-specific]  Best Available Technology standards [sources]  Ecosystem sensitivity assessments [critical loads= threshold beyond which there will be damage to ecosystem sensitive to ecosystem]

10. Implementing LRTAP: Protocols a) Protocol on general Issue.  - 1984 Protocol to fund EMEP: European Monitoring and Evaluation Program [Role of Information]  - Model air emissions transfers and depositions  - EMEP “Blame Matrices:” sources and receptors of pollution in Europe  - Helped reduce scientific uncertainty about transboundary factor in acid rain in 1980s.

11. B) Pollutant-specific Protocols  Sulfur dioxides [Helsinki, 1985 [force 1987] -reduce emissions or transboundary fluxes of sulfur at least 30 % (from 1980 levels) by 1993.; -second sulfur protocol (Oslo 1994). reduce the gap between existing and critical loads 60 percent by 2000.  Nitrogen oxides [Sofia, Bulgaria 1988 [force, 1991  Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCs] [Geneva 1991  Gothenburg Protocol [1999] -Cuts in SO2, NOx, VOCs, and ammonia emissions by 2010 from 1990 levels [ceilings assigned individually] [table].

13. Acid Rain Regime a success? a) Sulfur dioxide  Europe: - upto over 80 % in some countries; others more than halved; others reduced by more than one-third. - E U average: nearly 50% reductions of emissions.  North America - Canada cut emissions by one-third; - United States (power plants 40%; total 28%) - United States (power plants 40%; total 28%) b) Nitrogen oxide - Major reduction was in rage of 21-26 %. - Other countries increased emissions by 15 to 40 %. - European average was just 2 % [problem: growth of road traffic and nitrogen emissions from agriculture.

14. Accounting for success? a) Focus on Information –EMEP - improved scientific understanding: - reduce variance on sense of vulnerability b) Dramatic opportunities – post-communism, E.U membership and geographical expansion of CLRTAP. Caution: role of forces unrelated to regime –for some countries. - changes in energy policies - Netherlands, Britain: conversion to domestic natural gas. - fundamental economic and industrial changes - E.U. process.

15. OZONE DEPLETION [Vienna convention (1985 )and Montreal Protocol, 1987]

16. Solving/Responding to the Ozone Problem  Two major initiatives: U.S and global U.S. initiatives: a) Domestic front Ready to ban before international action Public concern and organized pressure? b) Internationally  1972 U.S. raised issue at UN Conference on Human Env. at Stockholm; call for research on the ozone problem.  U.S. tabled issue at NATO Conference in 1975 [EPA initiative].  1977 UNEP’s coordinating committee on Ozone layer.  Negotiations on a binding agreement began in 1981. -difficulties

17.  Difficult Negotiations: - scientific uncertainty still high. E.g. 1984 international scientific program still lacked a consensus by 1985. E.g. 1984 international scientific program still lacked a consensus by 1985. - Large producers: Britain, France, Italy, and Spain, therefore, resisted stringent Measures vs. countries that wanted strong controls [Toronto Group: Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden  - 1985 Vienna Convention signed. Provided for: cooperation in research, monitoring and information exchange  - 1985 discovery of ozone “hole” in Antarctica

18. Montreal Protocol, 1987.  Aim: regulate and phase out Ozone Depleting Substances [ODS]  Negotiations a) impact of domestic actors [U.S. industry] b) Epistemic community- inconclusive opinion [fed into tactics of industry lobbyists. - By 1987, near unanimity on adverse effects, gave credibility to proponents of ban. c) Issue played into N.-S. divide on Env. & Development

19. How they managed to secure an agreement  Financial mechanisms Support diffusion of technology on substitutes for ODS in developing countries.  Role of hegemon [ U.S. took lead]  Carrot and stick strategy - cushioned developing countries [10 years delay] - Control of trade in ODS with non-participants.  Dramatic opportunity: possibility of substitutes for CFCs, so industry softened, especially with financial mechanism promising a market in developing countries.

20.  Industrial countries cut production and consumption of CFCs to 50% of 1986 levels by 1999  Significance First application of principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. First application of principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Financial mechanism first of its type in IEA. Financial mechanism first of its type in IEA.

21. Montreal Protocol Success?  Developing countries not prohibited [but then it was the only way they’d participate]  Compliance problems [illegal trade-Russia

22. Post-Montreal Protocol developemnts  Shift towards complete phaseout of CFCs - Further development in scientific evidence - 1988 Ozone Trends Panel released study showing human-generated chlorine species responsible for decrease in ozone. - In U.S., Du Pont’s announced a CFC manufacturing stop by century end; so U.S. called for a complete phaseout by 2000. - Britain: softening due to pressure by environmentalists and parliament. PM hosted a meeting where EU resolved to back U.S. in calling for phaseout.