Join the Parties: 25+ Ways to Promote Participation in Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Negotiators of multilateral environmental agreements are frequently faced with the challenge of striking the right balance between stringency of commitment and breadth of participation. A perfect agreement on paper, with strong commitments and a robust compliance mechanism, might attract too few Parties (or too few key Parties) to achieve the agreement’s environmental objective. Conversely, broad participation in a weak agreement might also fail to accomplish the agreement’s goals. This paper focuses on the various ways in which negotiators have worked to encourage participation in multilateral environmental agreements. In some cases, they involve steps taken before and during the negotiation of the agreement. In other cases, they involve the provisions of the agreements themselves (such as various forms of flexibility, incentives to join, and disincentives to remaining outside) or decisions taken by Parties after agreements have entered into force

Setting the Table for an International Environmental Agreement: A Beginner\u27s Guide to Negotiating Mandates

You may be an experienced negotiator of international environmental agreements. Or you may be new to the field and excited to negotiate your very first one. In both cases, you know your precedents, helped craft your government’s positions, and are anxious to get started. But wait … before you negotiate the agreement, you will need to navigate the mandate. A mandate launches the negotiation of an international environmental instrument and sets forth its terms of reference, both procedural (such as where and when it will take place) and substantive (such as what the instrument should address). It is generally issued by the UN General Assembly (e.g., in the case of a new global instrument), a treaty body (e.g., in the case of an amendment to an existing agreement), or another institution (e.g., in the case of an instrument covering a particular region). There is far more commentary on international agreements than on the negotiating mandates that precede them. However, such mandates can be highly significant. They are often the place where key issues are pre-negotiated and, even when they do not go so far, what a mandate says – or does not say – can affect the ultimate design and content of an agreement, as well as its attractiveness to potential Parties. This guide looks at the issues commonly addressed by negotiating mandates1 for international environmental agreements, options for addressing them, and examples of mandate provisions that have been particularly significant in relation to agreements’ outcomes

Climate Change Negotiations: Legal and Other Issues on the Road to Paris

This article is born of a panel discussion from September 18, 2015, regarding Regulating and Treaty-Making: Addressing Climate Change under the Obama Presidency. The article examines issues that affected discussions shortly before the final negotiations at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015

What Happened to Byrd-Hagel? Its Curious Absence From Evaluations of The Paris Agreement

In the midst of the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the U.S. Senate adopted the “Byrd-Hagel Resolution,” co-sponsored by Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Passed by a vote of 95-0, it reflected the Senate’s view that the international climate change agreement then being negotiated by the Clinton Administration was not on the right track. Specifically, it signaled dissatisfaction with an agreement that would contain legally binding greenhouse gas emissions commitments for developed countries without such commitments in the same time period for developing countries. By its terms, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution applied not only to the Kyoto Protocol but also to any subsequent climate agreement. It influenced the approaches of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations to the Kyoto Protocol and international climate policy. Curiously, however, it did not appear to play a role in the evaluation, including by the Trump Administration and the Senate, of whether the United States should continue to participate in the Paris Agreement

I Beg to Differ: Taking Account of National Circumstances under the Paris Agreement, the ICAO Market-Based Measure, and the Montreal Protocol’s HFC Amendment

This paper explores the different ways in which negotiators to three recent environmental instruments accounted for different national circumstances in formulating commitments and other aspects of cooperation in the instruments. The author finds that the negotiators of these instruments have significantly expanded the arsenal of differentiation tools based on considerations pertaining to logic, fairness, limited capacity, and negotiating leverage

10 Questions to Ask About the Proposed “Global Pact for the Environment”

There is no doubt that more needs to be done, both nationally and internationally, to protect the environment. It is tempting, particularly during the Trump era, to welcome any concerted effort to do so. The issue is whether the proposed “Global Pact” is the right vehicle for enhancing environmental protection. The Global Pact was launched this past June in Paris, with support from, among others, President Macron of France and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. At least in its preliminary state, the Pact reflects broad, cross-cutting principles in legally binding form. France intends to seek support at the upcoming UN General Assembly for proceeding with the development of the Pact. The proposed Pact raises numerous issues of both a legal and policy nature that should be addressed in deciding whether to embark on the negotiation of such an instrument. The questions below are intended to provoke at least part of the necessary discussion

Climate Change Negotiations: Legal and Other Issues on the Road to Paris

This article is born of a panel discussion from September 18, 2015, regarding Regulating and Treaty-Making: Addressing Climate Change under the Obama Presidency. The article examines issues that affected discussions shortly before the final negotiations at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015

Comma but Differentiated Responsibilities: Punctuation and 30 Other Ways Negotiators Have Resolved Issues in the International Climate Change Regime

International climate change negotiations have a long history of being contentious, and much has been written about the grand trade-offs that have allowed countries to reach agreement. Issues have often involved, for example, the level of ambition, differentiated treatment of Parties, and various forms of financial assistance to developing countries. This compendium of textual examples focuses on smaller, language-based tools negotiators have used to resolve differences. Presented in roughly chronological order, these examples are drawn from my personal involvement in international climate negotiations -- and are by no means exhaustive. It is hoped that the examples may be of interest to those who follow climate change in particular, as well as of potential use to those who work in other international fields

Act Locally, Reflect Globally: a Checklist of Options for U.S. Cities and States to Engage Internationally in Climate Action

U.S. cities and states are increasingly asking how they can play a more visible and active role in international climate change efforts. Cities and states have obvious incentives to take action to mitigate and adapt to climate change. But why engage internationally? They may seek to demonstrate leadership or gain appropriate recognition for “doing their part.” They may want to inspire others to follow suit or support them in doing so, such as through exchanging best practices. They may seek to join the global march toward low-emission and resilient societies. Or they may want to show the world that U.S. action on climate should not be viewed exclusively through the federal lens, especially given the large percentage of U.S. emissions that are within the jurisdiction of cities and the more populous states. Between the Paris outcome itself and various platforms and processes developed both before and after Paris, U.S. cities and states have several options at their disposal for reflecting climate-related commitments and otherwise engaging internationally. It may also be desirable to strengthen these options and/or create new ones

Climate Reregulation in a Biden Administration

On January 20, 2017, Inauguration Day, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School launched the Climate Deregulation Tracker, the first of what would become numerous online trackers, news reports, academic analyses, and other resources designed to spotlight the Trump administration’s use and abuse of executive authority to pursue its agenda to cut back on government regulations and to promote the extraction and use of fossil fuels. The Climate Deregulation Tracker has had a relatively narrow purpose: to keep tabs on the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the federal government’s climate-related regulations and policies and help inform members of the public so they more effectively voice their views on deregulation. In the almost four years since its launch, the Tracker has logged 159 executive branch actions that fit the bill. President Trump’s actions have frequently taken the form of executive orders that describe national policies, such as prioritizing fossil fuel production and distribution, emphasizing economic uses of natural resources, expediting federal environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, and decreasing emissions and efficiency standards across the board. The President’s executive orders have resulted in numerous agency actions designed to achieve outcomes consistent with the orders’ stated policies. Examples include rules delaying, rescinding, and replacing greenhouse gas emissions standards for power plants, automobiles, oil and gas operations and landfills, and the revocation of policies and guidance that incorporate climate impacts into federal permitting, investment and other decision making