Second thoughts on WEO

I originally thought that it would be best to have a centralization model and establish one main world/global environment organization. However after reading Najam’s article again more objectivity I believe that he really brought up some important points and it seems that what we have now with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) is something that should be improved upon rather than becoming the core of a new organization and dividing regimes covered by the organization into “multilateral and pluilateral agreements” as said by Biermann.

For example I’m going to have to go down some of my favorite points by Biermann in his article he says that it is plainly unfair to the UNEP because it will distract from other important challenges of global environmental governance. For example it will probably be met with large opposition from countries such as China and India, countries that didn’t have a large say at all when the UNEP was created as they do now. We say in the video in class today how those two counties were really unwilling to cooperate and how the United states seemed as though they could really care less stating that they had much more important things to take of (to be fair to President Obama he did) but that is not the type of leadership that will be able to integrate the current UNEP into a new overarching, new global environment organization.

Secondly I like how Biermann brought up the difference between institutions and organizations, and although I did not really understand it earlier, I believe I have a better grasp on it now.  For example he says that there is now real institution on environmental problems as a whole even though there is a current organization and this possess a huge problem, one that is not going to  be solved by creating a new organization that will take years, maybe a decade or more to completely implement throughout the world. It like baseball. As an institution baseball is fundamental in America, people most likely could not imagine an America without baseball, and the institution will hold for much longer regardless of what happens to the organization of MLB. In other words, do away with baseball, and the institution of “Americas greatest pastime” will live on.” However if you got rid of the UNEP and all other organizations or regimes created by it, then the institution of environmental policy for the good of the earth will probably disappear. Furthermore, it can probably be said that the institution of baseball developed well after the organization of the first teams. Here we can see that we are still waiting for the institution of environmental awareness to become more prevalent in the world, although there has obviously been some positives in the past decade.

Next he really attacks the fact that coordination is a major reason for a new world/global environmental organization. Personally I think he really just makes sense, especially when he says that a jump to say that organization is the reason for the ecological crisis. I mean one would have agree with him on some points, like how can one really show that there is a correlation with those issues. It seems to me that formation of  another organization would only complicate things, and that even if there are apparent organization flaws at present in the UNEP, who is to say that these will not follow or spill over into the new one.

 I think overall there needs to be some sort of push either way for more awareness of the problem at hand in order to better coordinate, improve technology, and implement the law, but thinking that creating an all-powerful organization I think will just have countries like China and India opposed to it for years and is not the grand answer to our problems

Common Ground Between Biermann and Najam

     The conflict between Frank Biermann and Adil Najam's opinions on a world environmental organization (WEO) is clear just from their paper's titles: Biermann wrote "The Case for a World Environment Organization" in 2000 while Najam answered with "The Case Against a new Environmental Organization" in 2003. However, some of their conclusions are surprisingly similar. Despite all appearances of being diametrically opposed, Biermann and Najam make similar suggestions towards empowering the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

     Biermann is convinced of a global environmental organization's ability to organize and coordinate action on pressing global environmental issues. He specifically highlights three issues with the current system of environmental organizations that would be improved with the creation of a WEO. These issues are 1) a deficiency of "coordination of distinct policy arenas" (e.g. agriculture, energy, trade) 2) a deficiency in the "process of capacity-building in developing countries," and 3) a deficiency in the "implementation and further development of international environmental standards" (Biermann, 2000).

     Those deficiencies leave a lot to be desired from the current system. Biermann's solution is to create a new WEO to centralize resources and eliminate redundancies between smaller environmental programs. Najam, on the other hand, believes Biermann is answering the wrong question. He too sees problems with the current setup (or rather, the lack of one) but believes the blame lies in a different quarter.

     While Najam agrees that the handling of global environmental concerns needs to be improved, he sees the shape of the problem quite differently from Biermann. To Najam, Biermann's proposal to create a new WEO is like trying to fix a broken phone by buying a new case. It doesn't address the actual problem. Rather than in the structure of an organization, Najam believes the problem and solution lies with nations themselves and a lack of will to address environmental issues.

     So as we've seen, we have two people talking about the same problem, but one of them doesn't even think the other is talking about the right problem. So how do they end up coming to similar conclusions?

     Biermann lays out three different models for creating a WEO. His first model is called the "cooperation model." It upholds the status quo by keeping environmental issues decentralized in issue-specific organizations, but empowers UNEP by upgrading it to be"a full-fledged international organization with its own budget and legal personality, increased financial and staff resources, and enhanced legal powers" (Biermann, 2000). The organization's role would be to cooperate with issue-specific environmental organizations as well as emphasizing the tasks of raising awareness, facilitating technology transfer, and offering environmental expertise on international, national, and subnational levels. This model is Biermann's least ambitious, but it does address his main concerns about the different areas of deficiency.

     Najam comes to his conclusion through a slightly different route. As another argument against a new WEO he argues that the UNEP we have today has not been as useless as detractors claim. In fact, he lists what he considers to be some of its unsung successes, like making the environment a global concern, advancing the global environmental agenda, and bringing public legitimacy to environmental issues. The result of this re-evaluation of UNEP is his own suggestion to shore up UNEP's power and give it the resources and political power to actually achieve its mission. This stays true to Najam's claim that the real problem is political will, not organizational structure, but cedes some ground to those who want a more powerful WEO.

     Though their papers seem to argue for entirely different ends, Biermann and Najam end up finding common ground. The fact that these two authors with extremely different opinions on the future of a WEO support the same conclusion gives that conclusion quite a lot of weight. Strengthening UNEP might be the intermediate step forward that the two sides - those for and against the creation of a WEO - can agree on.

---

References

Biermann, F. (November 01, 2000). The Case for a World Environment Organization. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 42, 9, 22-31.

WEO is a No Go

Though both arguments for and against a world environmental organization make some good points, the argument against an organization makes more sense with the gravity of our current environmental state. The environment is a topic that touches every aspect of life and development in countries: no one can escape from its effects and because we are all in this world together, everyone is dependent to protecting the resources we share. The arguments against this type of organization are more compelling for the world today.

With the complex interconnectedness of each aspect of the environment, it is necessary to have some coordination between organizations. But, organizations will not create lasting change without a “political will.” I would argue that political will entails more than determination, but a steadfast commitment to upholding the agreements set out – most countries in our world are not at this point in commitment to environmental problems yet. Before an organization can exist, a commitment to ideals it will uphold is necessary. Not only do all countries not have the same ideals on climate change, but adding deforestation, water scarcity and land use into the picture, and no one will be able to agree! Two examples most clearly depict what would go on if countries tried to make a WEO:

 1. Creating an organization is much like constitution building. One important thing to note about a constitution is that it is a commitment of the country to follow the ideals of constitutionalism. This means that a constitution (or organization) is simply a document that starts the discussion. The state itself must follow the commitments in order for the constitution to truly be an instrument of constitutionalism. Building this WEO without first having set ideals of environmentalism that every country agrees upon will therefore be fruitless, and lead to an organization that does not make much change. Trying to build a country out of nothing has historically not worked well, which leads me to believe building an organization out of nothing (no set common standards across the globe) will also lead to nothing. This is also shown in the Copenhagen video because the countries were trying to build an agreement without having fully discussed all standards. Much like proponents of a WEO, they were focusing on details before a broader picture was painted.

 2. Comparing a WEO to the current WTO is further proof that an organization like this at this time would not change anything. The political will for lowering trade barriers was already in place by the time the GATT came into effect. Countries wanted this type of organization. Additionally, trade is less complex of an issue than the environment because it is more in control of the states. The far-reaching complexity of the environment makes a single organization somewhat of a fairytale. Further, the unique dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO is the most successful part of that organization. How would a component like that even work for a WEO? Because environmental problems are more of a tragedy of the commons scenario, it would be hard to have sanctions against a country’s oceans or forests. 

Though in theory a WEO sound like a good plan and a way to streamline efforts to protect the environment, at the current time this type of organization will not work. In the future, if there is significant movement forwards in the field of the environment maybe something could work. However, the only way it will be successful is if states all realize that working within an organization could bring some stability to an anarchic world and there is a commitment of the government to find a solution and be dedicated to carrying it out.

Classifying the Global Environmental Problem of Bluefin Tuna

After our class in which we talked about classifying global environmental problems, I was left pondering various examples and which category they would fall into. For whatever reason, bluefin tuna and the species’ race to extinction kept popping into my head.

For those of you that do not know, the bluefin tuna has long been a food staple in the Mediterranean area. Around the 1960s, it rose in popularity in the international market because technological advancement allowed for greater commercial exploitation. Additionally, Japan’s demand for bluefin tuna has skyrocketed due to its delicacy in sushi and sashimi. - a demand so high that a bluefin tuna has been sold at an auction for $1.76 million.

The bluefin tuna is an incredible fish. There are three different types: the Atlantic bluefin tuna, the Pacific bluefin tuna, and the Southern Bluefin tuna. All are in danger. They can grow to weigh over one thousand pounds, swim up to 50mph, and be 6 - 10 feet in length. They are a predatory fish, eating other small fish such as sardines and mackerels. They are also rare in that they are warm-blooded fish.

Since we started widespread tuna-fishing decades ago, scientists have estimated that the Pacific bluefin tuna population has declined by 96.4%. They believe this species could be extinct within a year. One of the biggest problems is that tuna can live up to fifteen years old, but we catch them while we’re young. This means they do not get a chance to grow old enough to reproduce, which somewhat explains why they are diminishing so quickly.

The bluefin tuna is certainly a shared natural resource problem. The existence of them extends across all borders and oceans. In class, we decided a solution to shared natural resource problems is a joint management regime. In 2010, officials from around the world met in Qatar for the United Nations Conference on International Trade in Endangered Species. The United States and the European Union pushed to implement a global ban on the trade of bluefin tuna. However, nations such as Indonesia, Canada and Japan (the largest global consumers of bluefin) rejected this notion. It might be important to note that even if such a ban was implemented, there exists a huge illegal market for bluefin tuna.

The bluefin tuna is also a trans-boundary externality problem. Let’s say Japan allows unlimited bluefin tuna fishing in its waters. Let’s also say, across the ocean, America has banned all bluefin tuna fishing. bluefin tuna is found on both sides of the Atlantic, and can travel from one side to the other in 60 days. They truly are everywhere. If Japan is allowing unlimited fishing, America, along with the rest of the world, will absolutely be impacted by it. To stop the extinction of the bluefin tuna, all countries must be involved for it to truly work.

On top of this, the bluefin tuna is also a global commons problem. They exist and play a role in our world’s precious oceans. They are both a predator and a prey, and the disappearance of them could have huge negative consequences for the ocean ecosystem. Decreasing the biodiversity of the world should always be avoided.

I believe immediate action must be taken in order to prevent the extinction of bluefin tuna. A global environmental regime would be really helpful, because we are up against the strong force of consumer demand as well as domestic economies such as Japans. As we discussed in class, a solution to global commons problems is voluntary restraint, but the chances of this seem extremely small. I cannot help but be pessimistic about this situation. All of the evidence of bluefin tuna’s race to extinction is piling up on the table, but countries such as Japan and Canada do not care. They will continue to fish, farm, and feast on bluefin tuna until they are completely gone.

Sources:

"The Pacific Bluefin Tuna is Going, Going..."

"The 11th Hour Strikes: Saving the Bluefin Tuna From Extinction" 

Bluefin Tuna

Response to Biermann's Paper

I would like to address Frank Biermann’s argument for a world environmental organization in his paper “The Case for a World Environment Organization.” Biermann makes the argument that the current international system as it relates to the environment is lacking in three main areas: policy coordination, technological advancement in developing countries, and enforcement of international environmental initiatives. I would like to discuss the main pros and cons of Biermann’s argument and briefly present my own viewpoint on the viability of a world environmental organization.

Biermann argues that policy coordination in the international arena becomes difficult and quite fragmented when dealing with environmental issues. This fragmentation is due to the fact that there is no central governing body that deals with international environmental issues, much as there is a World Trade Organization that governs trade and a World Health Organization that governs health. Biermann states that the closest governing body that exists is the United Nations Environment Programme; however, this is merely a subsidiary body of the General Assembly and not a specialized UN organization. The main pro of this argument is that it encourages greater unification of international actors to work towards a common solution. On the downside, such coordination among nations can be quite difficult when considering something as broad a scope as climate change or transboundary pollution, both important international environmental issues. I agree with Biermann’s point that coordination in environmental issues can be difficult at the international scale; however, I would like to add that such coordination is not impossible. I also believe that UNEP, if utilized properly, could potentially act as a strong governing body of international environmental issues. This would require expanding its scope and mission and potentially drawing more nations onboard.

Biermann also raises the point that it has become necessary for developing countries to partake in “capacity-building” procedures that would strengthen their abilities to deal with environmental problems. However, such action would be unable to occur in today’s fragmented system of international relations. It is such that the creation of a world environmental organization becomes necessary to bridge the divide between the developed and developing worlds. The main pro of this argument is that it looks at the developed and developing world as two entities working together, rather than completely separately. Because these two entities are required to work together, bridging the gap between them becomes necessary. On the other hand, placing the responsibility for the welfare of the developing world on developed countries may seem unfair and overwhelming. I strongly agree with Biermann’s argument that a world environmental organization becomes necessary when looking at the current system of global development. Because developed countries such as the US, Canada, Japan, and those of Western Europe are largely responsible for hot-button issues such as climate change, the responsibility for lending a helping hand to developing countries falls mainly on them. Without the assistance of technologically-advanced nations, developing countries will never be able to reach the point where they are able to mitigate the environmental damage that they too create. Considering the fact that the developing world contains the majority of the world’s population, it is clear that environmental damage occurs in these countries as well; however, without the necessary technological mechanisms in place, mitigating these damages becomes impossible. It is such that a world environmental organization becomes necessary under these circumstances.

Finally, Biermann argues that the establishment of a world environmental organization would greatly help regime-building processes take place and would allow for better implementation of international environmental law. The main pro of this argument is that it would solve any enforcement difficulties surrounding international environmental initiatives. On the downside, bringing about such enforcement may seem far too lofty a goal to introduce to countries that are already having trouble dealing with their own environmental issues. This would require using UNEP as a central anchoring point for international environmental issues. In considering this argument, it is important understand that environmental issues are both broad in scope and various in location. Issues such as air and water pollution, ozone depletion, and climate change are never limited to just one area. Coal burning in China creates smog in downtown Los Angeles. The use of aerosols in Canada depletes the ozone layer above the North Pole. And climate change—arguably the most pressing environmental issue we face—is a result of the collective use of fossil fuels all around the world. No one country can be burdened with the responsibility of dealing with these issues because they are created by all. In addition, enforcing environmental law becomes exceedingly difficult when the issues cross international boundaries. This problem is complicated by the fact that each country in the world possesses sovereignty over its territory. This means that a country has exclusive authority over what occurs within its boundaries and that other countries cannot govern within that country’s territory. This means that one country cannot force compliance with environmental initiatives on another country. When we look at this fact, it becomes clear that the development of a central governing body on the environment is absolutely necessary. International law is difficult to enforce, but the presence of a UN organization overseeing environmental issues would do plenty to mitigate this difficulty.

I would like to conclude by briefly presenting my viewpoint on Biermann’s argument. I believe that an international environmental organization is necessary to mitigating today’s environmental crisis. However, we must first ask: is such an organization viable? An international organization would aid in capacity-building throughout the developing world, solve the fragmentation problem, and help enforce international environmental law. But international law is difficult to enforce. I believe that in order for such enforcement to take place, countries must find a way to work together in the international arena. With the failure of agreements such as Kyoto and Copenhagen, it becomes unclear whether this will be possible. I believe that with the right time and effort, an international environmental organization can be created.