The Standards Set for Developing Nations
Chapter Forty-One
Syllabus topic 2, "Sustainable Development."
Pages 120 to 122 of 663
In one line
International environmental standards are not the same for everybody, and the argument about whether that is fairness or a double standard is one MU has set on two of her seven papers.
In exam wording: environmental standards are differentiated for developing States by four techniques: delayed compliance dates, different substantive obligations, obligations conditional on the provision of finance and technology, and the exclusion of certain Parties from a particular annex; the justification is common but differentiated responsibilities, and the objection is that differentiation postpones effective action and creates a competitive distortion.
The four techniques, with the provisions
One: delayed compliance. Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol. A Party whose annual calculated level of consumption of the Annex A controlled substances is less than 0.3 kilogrammes per capita on the date the Protocol enters into force for it, or at any time thereafter until 1 January 1999, is entitled to delay its compliance with the control measures by ten years.
Two: different obligations. Article 4 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paragraph 1 binds all Parties: inventories, national programmes, cooperation, and consideration of climate change in policy. Paragraph 2 binds Annex I Parties to adopt policies and measures on mitigation. Paragraph 3 binds Annex II Parties to provide finance.
Three: conditional obligations. Article 4, paragraph 7, of the same Convention, set out in the previous chapter.
Four: annex membership. Kyoto Protocol Article 3 imposes quantified commitments only on Annex I Parties. Developing country Parties had none.
The case for differentiation
- Responsibility. The concentration of greenhouse gases is a stock accumulated over two centuries, overwhelmingly by the industrialised economies.
- Capacity. A State that cannot supply reliable electricity cannot finance a national abatement programme out of its own budget.
- Need. Rio Principle 6 gives special priority to the special situation and needs of developing countries.
- Effectiveness. A treaty the developing world will not join is worth nothing. Universality was bought with differentiation, and the Montreal Protocol proves that the purchase was worth making.
The case against
- Postponement. The Article 5 grace period delayed the phase-out by a decade in the countries whose consumption was growing fastest.
- Competitive distortion. A producer in a Party with delayed obligations competes with one whose costs have already risen. This is the substance of the double standard objection.
- Category drift. The Annex I list was drawn in 1992 and the world's economies have moved since. Several States outside it now have higher emissions and higher incomes than several inside it.
- It did not deliver. The finance and the technology transfer that were the consideration for differentiation have been persistently under-delivered, so the developing Parties took on obligations and did not get what was promised for them.
The Standards Set for Developing Nations
The Paris answer, and why it matters
The Paris Agreement 2015 does not use annexes. Article 4, paragraph 4, says that developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets, and that developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide targets. Article 2, paragraph 2, says the Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
That last phrase, "in the light of different national circumstances", was the diplomatic solution. It keeps differentiation and removes the fixed categories, so that a Party's obligations reflect where it is now rather than where it was in 1992. It is the most important five words in the modern climate regime and is worth quoting.
Worked example
Two States both produce cement. State J is in Annex I of the Framework Convention; State K is not.
Under Kyoto. J has a quantified target and its cement industry bears an abatement cost. K has none and its industry does not. The distortion is real, and the response was the clean development mechanism under Article 12, which let J's firms earn credits by financing reductions in K.
Under Paris. Both submit nationally determined contributions. Neither is told what its target must be. Both are subject to the same transparency framework under Article 13, with flexibility for those developing countries that need it in the light of their capacities. The distortion is smaller because K has a target too, and the ambition is not guaranteed because K sets its own.
That comparison is the answer to MU's question about the standards set for developing nations, and it shows both the fairness argument and its cost.
What it does NOT mean
It does not mean developing States have lower environmental quality standards. Differentiation is about the timing and extent of the obligation, not about the ambient standard. India's national ambient air quality standards are in several respects stricter than some industrialised countries'.
It does not mean the objection is answered. The double standard argument is a real argument and an answer that dismisses it has not engaged.
Quick revision
- Four techniques: delayed compliance, different obligations, conditional obligations, annex membership.
- Montreal Protocol article 5: the 0.3 kilogramme per capita threshold and the ten-year delay.
- Framework Convention article 4: paragraph 1 for all, paragraph 2 for Annex I, paragraph 3 for Annex II.
- Four arguments for differentiation and four against; give both columns.
- Paris article 2, paragraph 2: common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
Test yourself
1. State the Article 5 threshold in the Montreal Protocol and what it buys. Annual calculated consumption of the Annex A controlled substances below 0.3 kilogrammes per capita, which entitles the Party to delay compliance with the control measures by ten years.
The Standards Set for Developing Nations
2. What did the Paris Agreement change about differentiation? It removed the fixed annexes and added the words "in the light of different national circumstances", so that differentiation reflects a Party's present position rather than its 1992 category.
3. Give the strongest objection to differentiation and the strongest answer to it. The objection is postponement and competitive distortion. The answer is that universality was worth buying, because a treaty the developing world will not join achieves nothing, and the Montreal Protocol demonstrates it.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.