TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction—————————————————————————————————1
What is Diplomacy——————————————————————————————-2
What is Environment Agreement————————————————————————–3
History Environment Agreement————————————————————————–4
The Nexus Between Diplomacy and Environment —————————————————–6
Why is it important to have an Environmental Agreement——————————————–8
The Minamata Convention of Mercury 2013———————————————————–11
What Lead to the Minamata Convention of Mercury 2013——————————————-13
What is the Effect Minamata Convention of Mercury 2013——————————————15
The Paris Agreement of 2015—————————————————————————–17
What Lead to the Paris Agreement of 2015————————————————————-20
What is the Effect of the Paris Convention————————————————————-21
Summary and Conclusion———————————————————————————22
Reference—————————————————————————————————-23
INTRODUCTION
Some of the most important environmental problems urgently calling for solution are problems related to transboundary pollution. Environmental problems such as ozone depletion, climate change and marine pollution have been the focus of intense negotiations at the international level over the past decade. International environmental agreements have been reached in some areas, such as the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer and a number of agreements on marine pollution (e.g. the International Conference on Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Sources, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter). In some other areas there is still an ongoing process of negotiations, such as the current negotiations following the UN Conferences on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and Kyoto. Although there are a great number of international agreements, these agreements are characterized either by generality and vagueness in defining targets or by small number of signatories when precise targets are set. It is easy for countries to sign general statements expressing interest and willingness to improve their environmental behavior but it is extremely difficult to commit at achieving particular targets. The long and painful negotiations on the climate change problem also provide evidence of the difficulties associated with achieving large, stable and substantial international environmental agreements.
The formation and development of international environmental agreements has been the subject of a fast-growing branch of the economic literature over the past decade, which though originates in the 1960s and 1970s.
The main body of the literature agrees that the number of signatories of Agreement which has been in placed in the last Five years talking about the Minamata Convention of Mercury 2013 and also the Paris convention of 2015, this where the only agreement which has been implemented in the last five years.
THE CONCEPT OF DIPLOMACY
Diplomacy is the tactful and skillful way in which countries relate with each other through the means of negotiation, mediation, arbitration and reconciliation. Diplomacy involves both state and non-state actors.
Diplomacy is the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviors of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war or violence.
Diplomacy is how nations use tact, intelligence to relate, conduct official businesses. Diplomacy is very important in the full functioning of a state because there is no state in the world that can relate without using diplomacy. Every relationship between and among states is processed, runs through diplomacy.
In the broadest sense, diplomacy refers to the conduct of human affairs by peaceful means, employing techniques of persuasion and negotiations. In the sphere of international relations, it has been regarded as one of the key processes characterizing the international system and a defining institution of the system of sovereign states which is often referred to as the ‘Westphalian’ system after the 1684 peace of Westphalia.
Diplomacy however, embraces some important distinctions. At the state level, it has frequently been used (particularly in the study of diplomatic history) as a synonym for foreign policy- as in ‘Russian’, ‘German’ and ‘Japanese’ diplomacy (foreign policy). More commonly, however, it is used to refer to one means by which such policies are implemented. Second, viewed as an institution of the international system, a distinction can be made between diplomacy as a set of processes and as a set of structures through which these processes are conducted.
ORIGIN OF DIPLOMACY
The term ‘diplomacy’ is derived via French from the ancient Greek word ‘diploma’, composed of ‘diplo’, which means “folded in two,” and the suffix – ‘ma’, meaning “an object.” The folded document was used to grant a privilege (often a permit to travel) on the bearer and the term came to donate documents through which princes granted such favors. It later applied to all documents issued by Chancelleries, especially those containing agreements between sovereigns.
Diplomacy later became identified with international relations, and the direct tie to documents lapsed (except in diplomatic, which is the science of authenticating old official documents). In the 18th century the French term diplomate (“diplomat” or “diplomatist”) came to refer to a person authorized to negotiate on behalf of a state.
Diplomacy and its institutions have much long existed in the earliest of human societies. Diplomacy has been seen as a response to a set of needs and requirements, namely the mediation of separateness between communities and the desire and need to establish modes of communication between them. Thus, the earliest documents recording what we now regard as formalized diplomatic practices are to be found in approximately 2500 BC in what is now the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East and one of the most familiar features of contemporary diplomacy, namely the practice of using resident ambassadors, predates its usage in the modern European context by some 3000 years.
Early societies had some attributes of states, and the first international law arose from intertribal relations. Tribes negotiated marriages and regulations on trade and hunting. Messengers and envoys were accredited, sacred, and inviolable; they usually carried some emblem, such as a message stick, and were received with elaborate ceremonies. Women were often used as envoys because of their perceived mysterious sanctity and their use of “sexual wiles”; it is believed that women regularly were entrusted with the vitally important task of negotiating peace in primitive cultures.
Majority of human history diplomats were sent only for some specific negotiations, and would return immediately after their mission was concluded. Diplomats then, were usually relatives of the ruling family or of very high rank in order to give them legitimacy when they sought to negotiate with the other state. Envoys eventually became negotiators rather than being just messengers. During the Middle Ages (6th to 18th century), the scope of diplomacy did not grow much and diplomats were mostly confined to maintaining archives rather than negotiating them.
Then in the late Middle Ages, in Genoa, the Duke of Milan established the first foreign mission. But this was still diplomacy of the court rather than that of the people.
Numerous diplomatic archives have been found in Egypt dating back to the 13th century BC. Permanent diplomatic missions, that is, representations set up by one country in the territory of another, date back to the Renaissance in the 15th century. Switzerland set up its first permanent legations in its neighboring countries around 1800. At the time, international relations were mostly conducted through honorary consuls, who carried out these functions in parallel with their professional activities and in a voluntary capacity.
After the American and French revolutions, diplomacy became more democratic and less aristocratic. The Congress of Vienna 1815 laid down procedures for diplomatic communities and defined diplomatic hierarchies.
The modern Swiss Confederation, which was founded in 1848, first began to build up a network of professional diplomatic missions and consular posts towards the end of the 19th century. Currently (2008), Switzerland has a total of more than 150 missions and posts abroad run by 370 professional diplomats and 540 professional consular agents – figures that are comparable to States of a similar size. (please help check the updated one)
WHAT IS ENVIRONMENT AGREEMENT
International
What is “international?” Although “international” can have broader meanings, when referring to IEAs, the term usually means intergovernmental. I operationalized this definition to include all agreements to which governments of two or more states have (or are allowed to) become parties but exclude instruments between single governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), between single governments and international organizations, and between or among corporations, NGOs, or international organizations.
Agreements
What is an agreement? As used here, the term corresponds closely to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ definition of a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law” in which states express a “consent to be bound” [Articles 2(1)(a) and 11 through 17] (Aust 2000: 14). For most legal scholars, it is the consent to be bound that is crucial: agreements are the documentation of legally binding arrangements among two or more states, regardless of whether they are designated as treaties, conventions, accords, or modifications of such arrangements (Aust 2000). The difficulty arises, of course, “not with the definition itself, but whether a particular instrument or transaction falls within the definition” (Aust 2000: 14)
Environmental
This refers to the management or prevention of human impacts on natural resources; plant and animal species (including in agriculture, since agriculture modifies both); the atmosphere; oceans; rivers; lakes; terrestrial habitats; and other elements of the natural world that provide ecosystem services (Daily 1997). As agreement’s “primary purpose” was operationalized by searching for terms corresponding to this conception in agreement titles, preambles, or articles specifically designating agreement goals. This excludes agreements addressing human health; conflict; cultural preservation; trade; uses of oceans, lakes, and rivers; outer space, nuclear radiation, transportation, weather, labor, and similar issues unless those agreements addressed environmental issues as a primary concern. The definition also excludes agreements whose effects are environmental, if that was not a primary purpose. A broader definition that includes agreements based on their having environmental effects, like that adopted by Burhenne (1974-2002), captures agreements on trade, regional economic integration, worker protection, and arms control. Hence international environmental agreement or sometimes environmental protocol, is a type of treaty binding in international law, allowing them to reach an environmental goal. In other words, it is “an intergovernmental document intended as legally binding with a primary stated purpose of preventing or managing human impacts on natural resources.” An agreement between two nations is known as a bilateral environmental agreement. If the agreement is made among three or more nations, it is called a multilateral environmental agreement (MEA). Such agreements, primarily produced by the United Nations, cover subjects such as atmospheric policies, freshwater policies, hazardous waste and substance policies, the marine environment, nature conservation policies, noise pollution and nuclear safety.
Impacts/Effectiveness
Protocols can take flexible approaches to improve effectiveness. One example is the use of sanctions: under the Montreal Protocol, signatories were forbidden to purchase chlorofluorocarbons from non-signatories, in order to prevent any windfall benefits. Funding has also been used to overcome North-South conflict: members of the Montreal Protocol created a fund of $240 million to redistribute the costs of transition. Differential obligations as seen in the Kyoto Protocol can also encourage wider participation.
While protocols appear to be the ultimate top-down mode of governance, having “scant provisions for public participation,” it is widely thought that the influence of transnational networks has been growing Public opinion is relevant, as concern must exist to prompt action and dedication of government resources. Non-governmental organizations also fulfill certain roles, from gathering information and devising policies to mobilizing support. Science plays an important part, although Susskind asserts that sometimes this role is diminished by uncertainty, disagreement, and the rise of “adversary science. “The business community can also be involved with positive outcomes.
How we view the effectiveness of protocols depends on what we expect from them. With little administrative force or actual power, protocols succeed in increasing government concern, enhancing the contractual environment, and heightening capacity through transfer of assets. Yet as long as sovereignty is intact, environmental protocols will not affect changes in the face of state or public apathy, guarantee national action, or materialize overnight. The progress of international environmental law might be, as Wiener suggests, like the tortoise, slow but steady.
HISTORY ENVIRONMENT AGREEMENT
It has rightly been pointed out, however, that the reality of international law is ‘historically and synchronically discontinuous’; that is, contemporary law typically reflects traditional, modern and post-modern elements alike. Even though it may be possible to put dates on the first international formulation of some environmental legal approaches, the bulk of law developed during earlier periods continues to be relevant simultaneously with new concepts today. Nor did the absence of specific environmental terminology during the so-called traditional era preclude the development of pertinent transboundary rules and legal regimes as far back as the fifteenth century. The collection of essays reproduced in the present volume is intended to illustrate the remarkable evolution of legal thinking within the time-frame so outlined. It cannot, of course, cover the full spectrum of writings relevant to this topic. Hopefully, though, it can point to some of the historical origins of concepts and ideas that tend to be taken for granted in our current environmental discourse
Historical context. International agreements on boundary waters and commercially valuable wildlife such as whales, seals, and fish date back to the late 1800s. However, there were few such agreements until the second half of the 20th century. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, marked the beginning of a comprehensive international effort to protect, preserve, and enhance the environment. Several important environmental agreements have been negotiated since then.
In addition to their growing number, international environmental agreements have also increased in scope and complexity. While earlier agreements focused on a limited number of topics, recent agreements address a much broader range of issues. As well, the terms and conditions of recent agreements are generally more comprehensive and rigorous and cover a wider range of obligations.
Since 1972, Canada has often played a key role in shaping the international environmental agenda and has endorsed a growing number of international agreements and similar instruments dealing with various environmental issues. Canada’s environmental commitments to the international community have grown, and the number and complexity of our agreements have increased.
THE NEXUS BETWEEN DIPLOMACY AND ENVIRONMENT
The environment in which diplomacy and negotiations are being carried affects the outcome or result of a diplomatic gathering or meeting.
The diplomatic environment of the 21st century is marked by change and uncertainty Particular features include: The expansion in the number and variety of international actors empowered by the ICT and social media. These actors now extend beyond traditional NGOs to more amorphous civil society groups The development of a new international security agenda focused on the security of the individual within the state and including issues such as climate change or pandemic disease that go well beyond traditional concepts of international security The resurgence of more traditional geopolitical agendas as states compete for power, resources or Territory The expansion of regulatory diplomatic agendas enhanced by the global financial crisis and demands for more effective banking regulation. The progressive fragmentation of the rules and norms governing international political and trade relations as more confident emerging states increasingly assert their own values and rules One consequence will be a continuing weakening of multilateral institutions• Whilst diplomats must now share the stage with a broad range of actors and institutions, despite much conventional wisdom regarding the impact of globalization, states remain important actors in international affairs Government diplomacy therefore remains a significant factor in protecting national interests, developing global governance and promoting international peace and security Diplomats will cease to be gatekeepers guarding the borders of the foreign, becoming instead boundary spanners integrating the different landscapes and actors of the diplomatic environment The Integrative Diplomacy framework developed in this report argues the need to integrate change and continuity, different agendas and arenas, different diplomatic processes and structures and machinery of diplomacy Above all, it stresses the importance of the growth of international policy networks and, consequently, the importance to effective diplomacy of collaboration between professional diplomats and the representatives of a variety of international actors The breakdown of the distinction between domestic and international affairs means that the national interests of a country now involve the ‘whole of government’ and, therefore, the importance of coordination between government agencies Foreign ministries should see themselves as part of this ‘national diplomatic system’ and consider their changing role in this light The increasing demands of regulatory diplomatic agendas will imply increasing involvement of financial and other ministries in international policy Foreign Ministries will remain responsible for managing their diplomatic networks Demands on these networks will increase not reduce With increasing pressures on expenditure, this will require clear prioritization of interests and innovative organizational solutions.
These include: administrative hubs, reducing administrative burdens on smaller Embassies virtual embassies, with officers combining on-line monitoring of countries with periodic visits swarming, using innovations in human resource management to allow the rapid concentration of necessary resources in emergencies a ‘diplomatic reserve’, allowing the cost effective maintenance of a broad range of international knowledge or skills through networks of ‘reserve diplomats’ in the academic and private sectors Integrative diplomacy involves an understanding of changing patterns of diplomatic communication Foreign ministries must devise effective public diplomacy strategies integrated fully into the policy-making Machinery This requires a sophisticated understanding of stakeholders and audiences. Foreign Ministries must also ensure that other elements of the national diplomatic system understand the centrality of public diplomacy and its medium- and long-term strategic purposes.
Foreign Ministries and individual diplomats will need to make full use of the new social media both to influence key debates and to network with key audiences of the NI In making optimal use of the social media, trivializing of content and the consequent loss of respectability is a greater risk than unauthorized disclosure of information or dissident opinions .Conflicts will arise over interference in domestic affairs, which reflect a clash between new and old diplomatic agendas. The extent to which diplomats are able to tackle the new international security agenda may hamper their ability to tackle geopolitical agendas the skill sets for the two agendas are very different the national diplomatic system may need different diplomatic skills, and even different agencies, to pursue the various agendas. Fragmentation of the rules and norms underpinning international political and commercial relations will leave many actors confused and at-risk A key role for diplomats will be to understand the implications of this fragmentation for both assets and policies, and to navigate between the different alternative rule sets Both their own government and commercial firms will look to them for reliable advice.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENT?
International environmental agreements are important because they enable countries to work together to address vital environmental issues that are transboundary or global in nature, such as air pollution, climate change, protection of the ozone layer, and ocean pollution. In Canada, the quality of our environment depends not only on what we do at home but also on activities outside our borders. Our domestic actions alone are often insufficient to protect our environment, our resources, and our health. We need to work with other countries to develop common solutions to international environmental problems that impact us directly.
Because many environmental issues such as air pollution, deterioration of the ozone layer, climate change, and ocean pollution are transboundary or global in nature, countries cannot achieve desired results by acting alone. Countries have increasingly recognized this and have developed a wide range of international environmental agreements to enable them to work together on global environmental issues.
- PROTECTION OF LIVES AND PROPERTY
• Eradication of All Kinds of Pollution
There are many environmental agreements related to all forms of pollution, whether affecting air, land, oceans, or freshwater systems at regional or global scales.
The Stockholm Declaration was created as a result of the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. The declaration states that humans have a shared responsibility to care for the earth’s resources and global environment. Although the Stockholm Declaration doesn’t bind any nation to specific action, it does outline that nations will work together in international cooperation to maintain a healthy, pollution-free global environment for the good of all humankind. As a result of this declaration, the UN created the UN Environment Program (UNEP) to help nations develop and implement more sustainable practices.
• Biodiversity and Ecosystem
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international convention whose focus is on preserving global biodiversity in the age of genetically modified organisms. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an agreement created by members of the CBD to safely control the transportation of genetically modified organisms.
The Cartagena Protocol has achieved mixed results. While it has been successful at creating a forum for international discussion of biosafety issues, members are still developing ways to implement and enforce its guidelines. - EXISTENCE OF THE EARTH SURFACE
• Protecting the Ozone Layer
The ozone layer in the Earth’s stratosphere is crucial to life on this planet. It protects living things from the harmful effects of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Located 15 to 35 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, the ozone layer absorbs all but a small fraction of harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Because of this, stratospheric ozone is considered good ozone. In contrast, ozone closer to the Earth’s surface is considered bad because it can be harmful to humans, plants, and animals.
The Agreement. In 1987, Canada signed The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The Montreal Protocol seeks to protect the ozone layer by taking measures to control, and ultimately eliminate, substances that deplete it. Since it came into force in 1989, 187 countries have become parties to the Montreal Protocol. It also has been modified on several occasions by adding new ozone-depleting substances and by accelerating the phase-out of existing ones. Although most governments have ratified the Montreal Protocol, ratification of the subsequent amendments and their stronger control measures lags. Canada has ratified all the amendments.
Regulation of Climate Change
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an agreement that came out of a large meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 called the Earth Summit. Nations that were interested in understanding global climate change and reducing the impact of human activities on the world global climate system signed this agreement, which laid the groundwork for later agreements like the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 is probably the most well-known of the UNFCCC updates concerning climate change. At a meeting in Kyoto, Japan, many nations agreed to set limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol agreed to a binding contract to limit their greenhouse gas emissions
Nations still in the process of industrial development, such as China and India, weren’t required to sign the treaty, while other nations, such as the U.S., chose not to sign it. A few nations have succeeded in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in line with Kyoto guidelines, but worldwide, greenhouse gas emissions haven’t decreased significantly. - PROMOTES PEACE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The international community has been working together to preserve the environment for more than 30 years. Canada has played a major role in negotiating a number of important international agreements. As a party to these conventions, Canada also helps developing countries implement them. These conventions include the: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Convention on Biological Diversity, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Minamata Convention on Mercury, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer etc.
These agreements underscore the connection between poverty, equity and environmental sustainability. So, too, does the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Environment is an integral element of sustainable development. As such, over a third of the agenda’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals focus on environment-related outcomes. These include the goals on water (Goal 6), climate change (Goal 13), oceans (Goal 14) and land (Goal 15). Environment targets are part of all Sustainable Development Goals. This highlights the interdependence of economic, social and environmental issues. - FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COUNTRIES
International environmental agreements are important because they enable countries to work together to address vital environmental issues that are transboundary or global in nature, such as air pollution, climate change, protection of the ozone layer, and ocean pollution. These countries tend to relate with each other and also help themselves when needed. It is important to engage in an agreement because of the benefits that could be involved.
THE MINAMATA CONVENTION OF MERCURY 2013
The Minimata convention on mercury is a multilateral environmental agreement that addresses specific human activities which are contributing to widespread mercury pollution. Implementation of this agreement will help reduce global mercury pollution over the coming decades.
Mercury is a heavy metal that is widespread and persistent in the environment. It is a naturally occurring element and can be released into the air and water. Exposure to mercury can affect foetal neurological development, and high levels of mercury in blood have been linked to lower fertility, brain and nerve damage, and heart disease in adults. In liquid form, mercury readily vaporizes and is released into the air, where it I transported and deposited globally. It can bio-accumulate in, and bio-magnify up the food chain, especially in the aquatic food chain where it constitutes a major threat to global food security. Even at low concentrations, mercury poses a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment.
In 2001, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) undertook a global assessment of mercury and its compounds. This included the gathering of information on the chemistry and health effects, sources, long range transport and prevention and control technologies relating to mercury. Through this assessment it was determined that there was sufficient evidence of significant adverse global environmental impacts from mercury and its compounds to warrant further action.
In 2009, the UNEP Governing Council agreed that a global treaty that addressed mercury impacts would be a necessary step to reduce the amount of harmful mercury in the environment. International negotiations commenced in 2010 and Australia was actively engaged in the process until the negotiations were finalized in January 2013. The treaty was adopted and opened for countries to become signatories in October 2013. The treaty was named the Minimata convention of mercury after the town of Minimata, Japan, famous for the widespread poisoning of thousands of people by mercury in the mid- 20th century.
History of The Minimata Convention
On November 6, 2013 the United States signed the Minimata convention on mercury. In addition to that, United States deposited its instrument of acceptance to become a party to the convention. EPA worked closely with the state department and other federal agencies
The Minimata convention is named after the Japanese city of Minimata which faced a severe, decades long incidence of mercury poisoning after industrial waste water from a chemical factory was discharged into Minimata bay. The wastewater contained methylmercury, which bio-accumulated in fish and shellfish in the bay. Local people who consumed seafood from Minamata Bay became very sick, and many died or were left severely disabled.
The text of the Minimata convention was adopted by delegates from over 140 countries on January 19, 2013, after 3 years of negotiation. The convention opened for signature at the diplomatic conference in Kumamoto, Japan, on October10, 2013. The convention entered into force in 2017, and the first conference of the parties took place in September 24-29, 2017 in Geneva Switzerland. Ninety-one countries have joined the convention as of April 2018.
What Does the Minimata Convention Require
The Minimata convention requires that party nations:
• Reduce and where feasible eliminate the use and release of mercury from artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM)
• Control mercury air emissions from coal fired power plants, coal fired industrial boilers, certain non-ferrous metals production operations, waste incineration and cement production
• Phaseout or take measures to reduce mercury use in certain products such as batteries, switches, lights, cosmetics, pesticides and measuring devices, and create initiatives to reduce the use of mercury in dental amalgam.
• Phase out or reduce the use of mercury in manufacturing processes such as chlor-alkali production, vinyl chloride monomer production and acetaldehyde production.
• The convention also addresses the supply and trade of mercury; safer storage and disposal and strategies to address contaminated sites.
• The convention includes provisions for technical assistance, information exchange, public awareness and research and monitoring. It also requires parties to report on measures taken to implement certain provisions. The convention will be periodically evaluated to access its effectiveness at meeting its objective of protecting human health and the environment from mercury pollution.
The Minimata convention on mercury is an international treaty designed to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and release of mercury and mercury compounds. It is expected that over the few decades, this international agreement will enhance the reduction of mercury pollution from the targeted activities responsible for the major release of mercury to the immediate environment. The treaty also addresses the direct mining of mercury, its exports and imports, its safe storage and its disposal once at waste.
Pinpointing populations at risks, boosting medical care and better training of health care professionals in identifying and treating mercury related effects will also result from implementing the convention.
WHAT LEAD TO THE MINAMATA CONVENTION OF MERCURY 2013?
The Minamata Convention on Mercury is a multilateral natural understanding that tends to the antagonistic impacts of mercury through reasonable activities to shield human wellbeing and the earth from anthropogenic outflows and arrivals of mercury and mercury mixes. It expects Parties to address mercury all through its lifecycle, including its generation, its purposeful use in items and procedures, and its inadvertent discharge from modern movement, however to end-of-life perspectives including waste, tainted locales, and long-haul stockpiling. Australia marked the Minamata Convention on 10 October 2013 and is presently considering approving the Convention to end up a full Party to it. This will enable Australia to partake and impact choices on issues tended to under the Convention. The treaty went into power on 16 August 2017, 90 days after 50 nations have sanctioned, with the principal Conference of the Parties to occur from 24 to 29 September 2017 in Geneva, Switzerland. As endorsement of the Convention would legitimately tie Australia to the Convention’s commitments, a point by point evaluation procedure will be directed, with the planning of a National Interest Analysis and a Regulatory Impact Statement. Sanction will at that point be considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties before an ultimate choice with respect to whether Australia will confirm the Convention is made by the Australian government.
In 2003, the Governing Council considered this evaluation and found that there was adequate proof of critical worldwide antagonistic effects from mercury and its mixes to warrant further universal activity to decrease the dangers to human wellbeing and nature from their discharge to the earth. Governments were asked to embrace objectives for the decrease of mercury emanations and discharges and UN Environment started specialized help and limit building exercises to meet these objectives. A mercury program to address the worries presented by mercury was built up and further fortified by governments in 2005 and 2007 with the UNEP Global Mercury Partnership. In 2007, the Governing Council inferred that the alternatives of improved voluntary measures and new or existing universal lawful instruments ought to be evaluated and surveyed so as to gain ground in tending to the mercury issue.
In 2009, the UNEP Governing Council concurred that a worldwide bargain that tended to mercury effects would be an important advance to diminish the measure of hurtful mercury in nature. Global arrangements started in 2010 and Australia was effectively occupied with the procedure until the dealings were settled in January 2013. The arrangement content was embraced and opened for nations to wind up signatories in October 2013. An intergovernmental arranging board (INC) was speedily settled, through which nations arranged and built up the content of the tradition. Different partners, including intergovernmental and non-legislative associations likewise took an interest simultaneously and contributed through sharing of perspectives, experience and specialized aptitude. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee was led by Fernando Lugris of Uruguay and upheld by the Chemicals and Health Branch of UN Environment’s Economy Division. The INC held five sessions to talk about and arrange a worldwide concession to mercury.
On 19 January 2013, in the wake of arranging late into the night, the exchanges finished up with near 140 governments consenting to the draft tradition content. The Convention was received and opened for mark for one year on 10 October 2013, at a Conference of Plenipotentiaries (Diplomatic Conference) in Kumamoto, Japan, gone before by a Preparatory Meeting from 7– 8 October 2013. The European Union and 86 nations marked the Convention on the primary day it was opened for mark. A further 5 nations marked the Convention on the last day of the Diplomatic Conference, 11 October 2013. Altogether, the Convention has 128 signatories. The arrangement was named the Minamata Convention on Mercury after the town of Minamata, Japan, well known for the across the board harming of thousands of individuals by mercury in the mid-twentieth century.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT MINAMATA CONVENTION OF MERCURY 2013?
The United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury of 2013, which went into effect on August 16, 2017, could benefit millions of people affected by toxic mercury. Under the treaty, governments are obligated to protect their citizens from the harmful effects of mercury and to put in place controls in polluting industries, such as artisanal and small-scale gold mining and coal-fired power plants.
Mercury, a shiny liquid metal, attacks the central nervous system, can result in lifelong disability, and is very harmful to children. It can be lethal in higher doses. “Millions of children and adults around the world are exposed to mercury on a daily basis,” said Juliane Kippenberg, associate children’s rights director at Human Rights Watch. “The Minamata Convention strengthens governments’ obligations to protect people’s rights to health and to a healthy environment from this toxic substance.”
Human Rights Watch has documented exposure to mercury by children and adults working in artisanal and small-scale gold mines in Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea. Mercury is mixed into the ore to attract the gold particles. The resulting gold-mercury amalgam is then held over a fire, where the mercury is burned off, leaving raw gold behind.
Although mercury is particularly harmful to children, some children work regularly with mercury from young ages, unaware of the health risks. Children are also exposed to mercury fumes when their parents or older siblings burn the amalgam in their homes. Fifteen-year-old “Michelle” from the Philippines told Human Rights Watch that she had started processing gold with mercury at age 8, and started to suffer spasms – a typical symptom of mercury poisoning – a year later. She had never sought medical care or received a diagnosis.
The Minamata Convention obligates member countries to promote mercury-free gold processing methods; take special measures to protect vulnerable populations, including children and women of child-bearing age from exposure; and put an end to particularly harmful practices in gold processing, such as burning the mercury-gold amalgam in residential areas. Member countries commit to improving health care services for populations affected by exposure to mercury. The treaty also regulates other important industries, such as mercury use in products and manufacturing processes, and emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The Global Environmental Facility, a multi-donor trust fund, has been designated in the treaty to provide financial support to governments from developing countries that seek to take action on mercury and has already started funding programs.
“Now that the Mercury Convention is in effect, governments have to walk the walk and put the treaty into practice,” Kippenberg said. “People suffering from mercury poisoning need swift protection and treatment.”
THE PARIS AGREEMENT OF 2015
The Paris agreement happened on 12 December 2015, the agreement language was negotiated by representatives of 196 state Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Le Bourget, near France, adopted the Paris Agreement, a new legally-binding framework for an internationally coordinated effort to handle climate change. The Agreement is a symbol of six years of international climate change negotiations under the platform of the UNFCCC, and a consensus was reach in respect to avoid failure like the united nations Copenhagen submit, in Denmark, in 2009. The Paris Agreement establishes a global warming below 2°C on pre-industrial average and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, since this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change. It requires countries to formulate progressively goal which align with the agreement target. To realize the foregone, all Parties to the Paris Agreement will need to make profound changes to their structures and economies.
The Paris Agreement defines a universal, legal framework to ‘strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change’. It establishes the obligation of all Parties to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. For the first time, all countries will develop plans on how to contribute to climate change mitigation, and will communicate their ‘nationally determined contributions’ to the Secretariat of the Convention. Each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate global warming. No mechanism forces a country to set a specific target by a specific date, but each target should go beyond previously set targets. In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw his country from the agreement. Under the agreement, the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020, shortly before the end of President Trump’s current term. In practice, changes in United States policy that are contrary to the Paris Agreement have already been put in place.
On June 1, 2017, United States President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. Trump stated that “The Paris accord will undermine (the U.S.) economy,” and “puts the country at a permanent disadvantage. During the presidential campaign, Trump had pledged to withdraw from the pact, saying a withdrawal would help American businesses and workers. Donald Trump stated that the withdrawal would be in accordance with his America First policy.
In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States cannot be before November 4, 2020, four years after the Agreement came into effect in the United States and one day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The White House later clarified that the U.S. will abide by the four-year exit process. Until the withdrawal takes effect, the United States may be obligated to maintain its commitments under the Agreement, such as the requirement to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations. The Paris Agreement was an addition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), initially agreed to by all 195 countries present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in December of that year, including the United States then under the presidency of Barack Obama. Due to the status of the United States and China as the greatest emitters of carbon dioxide, Obama’s support and his cooperation with China were seen as major factors leading to the convention’s early success.
The main aim of the Agreement is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels”, predominantly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement differs from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the last widely adopted amendment to the UNFCCC, in that no annexes are established to lessen responsibility of developing nations. Rather, emissions targets for each nation were separately negotiated and are to be voluntarily enforced, leading United States officials to regard the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement rather than a legally binding treaty. This removed the requirement for the United States Congress to ratify the agreement. In April 2016, the United States became a signatory to the Paris Agreement, and accepted it by executive order in September 2016. President Obama committed the United States to contributing US$3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. The Fund has set itself a goal of raising $100 billion a year by 2020. Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending a withdrawal notification to the depositary, but notice can be given no earlier than three years after the agreement goes into force for the country. Withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified. Alternatively, the Agreement stipulates that withdrawal from the UNFCCC, under which the Paris Agreement was adopted, would also withdraw the state from the Paris Agreement. The conditions for withdrawal from the UNFCCC are the same as for the Paris Agreement.
On November 8, 2016, four days after the Paris Agreement entered into force in the United States, Donald Trump of the Republican Party was elected President of the United States. Many conservative Republicans dispute the level of human involvement in climate change. Trump is a climate change sceptic, During Trump’s 2016 election campaign, Trump promised to revitalize the coal industry, which he claimed has been hampered by environmental regulations. It has been argued that this contributed to the support he enjoyed from crucial swing states. His opposition to climate change mitigation was unchanged in the first months of his presidency, in which he issued an executive order to reverse Obama’s Clean Power Plan and other environmental regulations.
Furthermore, Trump’s undue emphasis on America First departs significantly from Obama’s foreign policy philosophy. Economically, Obama believes that the Paris Agreement enhances America’s climate security, promotes America’s low-carbon economy and renewable energy industry, and is indispensable for securing employment and maintaining the U.S. competitive edge (Obama, 2017). On the contrary, Trump believes that the Paris Agreement undermines U.S. competitive edge and impairs both employment and traditional energy industries (TWH, 2017). Politically, Obama believes that the Paris Agreement strengthens the U.S. leadership in international affairs, whereas Trump believes that the agreement weakens the U.S. sovereignty. A climate skeptic, Trump puts overwhelming weight on mitigation’s economic costs and belittles its ecological and economic benefits, which is consistent with his nationalistic and isolationist America First worl d view.
Trump’s withdrawal decision was mainly driven by the U.S. domestic politics and his personal preferences rather than any burdens on the U.S. imposed by the Paris Agreement. Under America’s tripartite system, the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court share the authority to make climate policies, and as clean energy has become increasingly profitable and growing popular pressure (Gallup, 2017) has forced politicians to take actions on climate change, the Trump Administration is facing an uphill battle in rolling back Obama-era climate regulations (Brian, 2017). Uncertainties remain regarding what can be achieved with climate deregulation under the Trump Administration.
The Paris Agreement therefore, puts emphasis on processes rather than on defined mitigation goals. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement does not formulate country specific emissions targets. Instead, the Paris Agreement depends on voluntary mitigation contributions and a series of processes that seek to ensure collective and individual progress in meeting the initial and progressively more ambitious mitigation contributions. The Paris Agreement recognizes the different starting points and responsibilities of countries, and emphasizes that the Agreement will be implemented in accordance with the ‘principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ which applies ‘in the light of different national circumstances. This means that developed countries have to continue to take the lead in mitigating climate change and support the actions taken by developing countries.
WHAT LEAD TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT OF 2015?
On 12 December 2015, Parties to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework for Climate Change) reached a landmark agreement to combat climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future. The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake take ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.
The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the agreement aims to increase the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change, and at making finance flows consistent with a low GHG emissions and climate-resilient pathway. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate mobilization and provision of financial resources, a new technology framework and enhanced capacity-building is to be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. The Agreement also provides for an enhanced transparency framework for action and support.
The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. There will also be a global stock take every 5 years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties.
The Paris Agreement opened for signature on 22 April 2016 – Earth Day – at UN Headquarters in New York. It entered into force on 4 November 2016, 30 days after the so-called “double threshold” (ratification by 55 countries that account for at least 55% of global emissions) had been met. Since then, more countries have ratified and continue to ratify the Agreement, reaching a total of 125 Parties in early 2017.
In order to make the Paris Agreement fully operational, a work programme was launched in Paris to develop modalities, procedures and guidelines on a broad array of issues. Since 2016, Parties work together in the subsidiary bodies (APA, SBSTA and SBI) and various constituted bodies. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA) met for the first time in conjunction with COP 22 in Marrakesh (in November 2016) and adopted its first two decisions. The work programme is expected to be completed by 2018.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT OF 2015?
• The Paris Effect on Fossil Fuels
This signal has mobilized actions by public and private sector institutions to move away from fossil fuels, which contribute to climate change, and towards an economy powered by renewable energy. Coal-burning power plants are the top source of carbon emissions in the U.S., and a leading driver of human-made climate change around the world. Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, there has been significant progress in the phase out of coal as an energy source.
A month after the Paris climate talks, the Obama administration announced that it would halt new coal mining leases on public lands.
• The Paris Effect on Renewables
The shift away from the use of fossil fuels is only one part of the fight against global warming. The Paris Agreement goes further, urging the world to transition quickly to a low-carbon, sustainable future. In order to fully power this future, clean energy technologies such as wind and solar need faster investment, development and deployment.
Since December, actors on every level – countries, states, businesses and individuals – have displayed a massive appetite for clean energy, which attracted a record $329 billion investment in 2015. The private sector and financial markets have helped drive the growth of the clean energy industry, as solar reached a record low price in December and major companies like Apple and General Motors pledging go 100% renewable. International climate action has accelerated since the Agreement’s adoption. Most notably, leaders from the U.S., Canada and Mexico reached a landmark agreement in June to generate half their electricity from clean energy sources by 2025.
• The Paris Effect on Investment and Finance
The Paris Agreement sent a price signal to markets, companies and investors across the world, accelerating a shift in funding and investment patterns that preceded Paris but has intensified since.
The private sector and state-owned enterprises have begun widespread assessments of their exposure to climate risk, which was reflected by the Financial Stability Board’s creation of a climate financial disclosure task force. The Paris Effect continues in the financial world as major players like Moody’s and BlackRock warn of climate risk. Investors, too, have demonstrated a shift towards climate-friendly energy sources, heading toward what analysts are calling an “investor death spiral” for fossil fuel companies.
• The Paris Effect on the Divestment
Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the divestment movement’s momentum has grown steadily.
Over the past year, prominent figures across the world, from California’s insurance commissioner to the World Medical Organization, have joined the call for divestment to protect themselves from the financial risks of climate change. A growing number of cities, countries, and private institutions have already divested their funds from fossil fuel holdings this year, including cities like Copenhagen, Berlin, and Sydney, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund–the largest in the world–and the Rockefeller Family Fund.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Essay reviewed the Number of Agreements in the last 5 years. The main result of this Essay is to know how this agreement came to be and the effect of this agreement and also what led to the agreement, The Paris Agreement defines a universal, legal framework to ‘strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change. It establishes the obligation of all Parties to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. “Now that the Mercury Convention is in effect, governments have to walk the walk and put the treaty into practice,” Kippenberg said. “People suffering from mercury poisoning need swift protection and treatment.”
The effectiveness of environmental agreements is paramount to the world’s development and sustainability. Why do I say this? Looking at Canada’s multilateral environmental agreements, encompass air, biodiversity and ecosystems, chemicals and waste, climate change, environmental cooperation, marine, and the oceans, and meteorology.
REFERENCES
• Barrett, Scott (1992), “International environmental agreements as games.” In Rudiger Pethig (editor): Conflicts and Cooperation in Managing Environmental Resources, pages 18-33. Springer, Berlin Aitken, B., Hanson, G., Harrison, A.E. (1997) Spillovers, Foreign Investment, and Export Behavior”. Journal of International Economics, Vol. 43, No. 1-2, Pp. 103-132.
• Da Silva, R. (2017). Minamata Convention: Analysis of the Socio-Environmental Impacts of a Long-term Solution. Saude Debate vol.41 no.spe2 Rio de Janeiro. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0110311042017000600050&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en.
• Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125.
• Savaresi, A. (2016). The Paris Agreement: a new beginning? Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 34(1), 16-26.
• Brun, A. (2016). Conference diplomacy: The making of the Paris Agreement. Politics and Governance, 4(3), 115-123.
• Ecchia, Giulio, Marco Mariotti (1998a): Coalition formation in international environmental agreements and the role of institutions. European Economic Review, 42, 573-582
• Bailey, Marianne. “Minamata Convention on Mercury”. The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 12 October 2014.
• UNEP, 2013. Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases, and Environmental Transport. UNEP Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland
• Kessler, Rebecca (October 2013). “The Minamata Convention on Mercury: A First Step toward Protecting Future Generations”. Environmental Health Perspectives. 121 (10): A304–A309. doi:10.1289/ehp.121-A304. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
• Ashton, M.; Kantai, T.; Templeton, J.; Xia, K. (14 June 2010). “First Meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to Prepare a Global Legally Binding Instrument on Mercury”. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
• “INC2”. United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
