International Environmental Agreements (ESS HL)

Why international agreements are needed

• Pollution and climate change cross national borders
• Commons (atmosphere, oceans) belong to no single nation
• Biodiversity loss is a global crisis requiring coordinated action
• Developing nations need support to transition sustainably

• Aim — What problem is it trying to solve?
• Mechanism — How does it actually work?
• Compliance — How is it enforced? Do countries follow the rules?
• Evidence of success — Has it made a real difference?
• Limitations — What are its weaknesses?

HL exam card

• Aim — Protect important wetlands around the world and encourage their sustainable use
• Mechanism — Countries list their most important wetlands as Ramsar Sites and agree to look after them
• Compliance — Each country is responsible for enforcing it domestically; there is no global enforcement body
• Evidence — Many key wetlands are now officially recognised and better protected than before
• Limitations — Enforcement is weak; protection quality varies hugely between countries; some listed wetlands are still being damaged

HL exam card

• Aim — Stop international trade from pushing species toward extinction
• Mechanism — Species are placed on Appendices (I = most protected). Trade requires permits or is banned entirely
• Compliance — Border checks, seizures of illegal goods, and national laws; success depends on each country's resources
• Evidence — Legal trade pressure has dropped for many threatened species; monitoring has improved
• Limitations — Illegal wildlife trade is still a massive problem; corruption and high demand undermine the rules

HL exam card

• Aim — Conserve biodiversity, use it sustainably, and share benefits from genetic resources fairly
• Mechanism — Countries create national biodiversity plans with targets, then report on progress
• Compliance — Mostly voluntary; countries set their own plans and there are no real penalties for failing
• Evidence — Biodiversity is now taken more seriously in national policies and protected area planning
• Limitations — Global biodiversity is still declining; targets are regularly missed; not enough funding or monitoring

HL exam card

• Aim — Phase out chemicals that destroy the ozone layer (like CFCs) so it can recover
• Mechanism — Legally binding schedules that require countries to stop producing and using these chemicals
• Compliance — Trade bans on ozone-depleting substances; funding and technical help for developing countries
• Evidence — Ozone-depleting chemicals have dropped massively; the ozone layer is slowly recovering
• Limitations — These chemicals stay in the atmosphere for decades, so recovery is very slow; some illegal production still occurs

HL exam card

• Aim — Cut greenhouse gas emissions by setting binding targets, mainly for rich countries
• Mechanism — Developed countries got specific targets; tools like carbon trading and the CDM helped them meet goals flexibly
• Compliance — Countries had to report emissions; but if big emitters didn't join, the impact was limited
• Evidence — Helped build carbon markets and improved how countries track and report emissions
• Limitations — Only covered some countries; the US never ratified it; global emissions kept rising anyway

HL exam card

• Aim — Keep global warming well below 2°C, ideally under 1.5°C
• Mechanism — Every country sets its own climate pledge (called an NDC) and updates it every 5 years to be more ambitious
• Compliance — No penalties; relies on transparency, peer pressure, and public accountability
• Evidence — Almost every country has signed up; climate reporting and planning are now the global norm
• Limitations — Current pledges are not enough to hit targets; disagreements over money and fairness slow things down

What to remember

• Pushed countries to strengthen their climate pledges and act faster
• For the first time, specifically mentioned phasing down coal and cutting fossil fuel subsidies
• Called for more climate finance and support for the most vulnerable countries
• Useful in HL essays for showing the gap between promises and action

Limitations of international agreements

• Sovereignty — nations can withdraw or refuse to sign
• Enforcement — no global police force to compel compliance
• Inequity — developing nations bear costs disproportionately
• Voluntary targets — many agreements lack binding commitments
• Political will — changes with elections and economic priorities

Tragedy of the commons in practice

• Each nation benefits from exploiting shared resources
• Costs of environmental damage are shared globally
• Free rider problem — nations benefit without contributing
• Short-term national interests vs long-term global survival

Why Montreal succeeded more than Kyoto

• Clear scientific consensus and visible ozone hole crisis
• Availability of affordable alternatives to CFCs
• Binding phase-out schedules and trade sanctions
• Financial support for developing countries

Why Paris is broader but weaker legally

• Nearly universal participation
• Nationally Determined Contributions are self-set
• No binding sanctions for non-compliance
• Relies on transparency and peer pressure

Why biodiversity treaties struggle more than ozone

• Biodiversity loss is diffuse and less visible than ozone depletion
• Economic drivers such as agriculture and logging are deeply embedded
• Targets often non-binding and underfunded
• Monitoring biodiversity is complex