International Relations

What's the Matter with Canada?

Melanee Thomas — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:23:37 -0600

What is the matter with Canada, eh? According to Slate magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2199929/), and albeit left-leaning American publication, our inability to deal with minority governments, the collapse of the juggernaut of a political machine known as the Liberal Party of Canada, and several of Harper's Conservative policies are all problematic.

It comes as no surprise to learn that the international community is less than pleased with Canada's formal 180 on the environment (even if the Liberals were good at talking about all things environmental and terrible at actually doing them).

What I find particularly interesting about this article (or particularly concerning, depending on how normative one chooses to phrase this), is how our vote choice and election outcomes can change how the international community views us. I, for one, thought that few inside or outside Canada would notice the policy change enabling the federal government to leave Canadians languishing on death row instead of seeking to have their sentences commuted to life in prison with little to no chance of parole. Apparently, Americans noticed and some of them are rather unimpressed.

It's nice to see others internationally also think the proposal to eliminate the tax credit to film and television production if the Minister in charge seems to dislike a title or some content is silly. I can't decide if it's fantastic or alarming that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is concerned that Canada will start running deficits due to a "reckless cut to the national sales tax" (sales taxes are, after all, the only kind the Americans seem to be OK with as most municipalities/cities are able to levy their own).

But the bottom line is that, as boring as we Canadians might find out politics, there are international types watching what we do. Like what Slate has to say or not, it's worth knowing that Canadian politics matters for more than just us.

The Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Jay Makarenko — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:57:34 -0600

The Canada-US softwood lumber dispute has been one of the longest and most significant trade disputes between the two countries in modern history. Central to the dispute is not only competition between Canadian and US softwood lumber companies, but also conflict over basic forestry management styles. This article discusses the North American softwood lumber industry and explains the nature of the dispute, including its basic issues, its history and the signing of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement.

The North American Softwood Lumber Industry

Structure and importance of the softwood lumber industry

Issues in the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

What exactly is the softwood lumber dispute about?

History of the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Overview of the dispute between 1980 and 2001

2001-2006 Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Issues and litigation in the recent Canada-US softwood dispute

2006 Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement

Highlights of the recent Canada-US softwood lumber deal

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on this topic

*Note: This article was originally written by Rhonda Parkinson. It has since been altered and updated by Jay Makarenko.

The North American Softwood Lumber Industry

Structure and importance of the softwood lumber industry

What is Softwood Lumber?

It is important to remember that the Canada-US softwood lumber dispute does not involve the entire North American lumber industry, but simply one component; namely, the softwood lumber sector.

Softwood is a classification of wood based upon the tree’s method of reproduction. Softwood trees are gymnosperms, developing from seeds that produce no outer covering. A pine cone is an example of the type of seed produced by a gymnosperm. Hardwood trees, on the other hand, are angiosperms, growing from seeds that are fully enclosed. While softwood trees have needles or scale-like leaves, hardwood trees have broad, flat leaves. Softwood includes a number of trees such as cedar, Douglas fir, pine and spruce commonly found in North America.

Softwood forests are found in both Canada and the United States. In Canada, softwood forests make up two-thirds of forested land available for timber production, and can be found in most provinces and territories. The largest Canadian softwood forests are in British Columbia. In the United States, softwood forests are predominant in the Pacific Northwest and in the southern US.

Softwood Lumber Industry

Softwood lumber forms the bulk of wood used commercially in North America. It has a wide range of uses, the most important of which is for structural building components. Softwood is also used for furniture, millwork (mouldings, doors and windows), paper production and for various types of boards, such as MDF.

Canada is one of the largest softwood lumber producers and exporters in the world, with a large portion of the industry in British Columbia. Canadian export of softwood lumber to the US is a multi-billion dollar industry, employing thousands across the country. In 2005 alone, Canada exported 21.5 billion board feet of lumber to the US, totaling $8.5 billion in trade (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2006).

Different Forest Management Styles

A key element of the softwood lumber dispute involves differences between Canada and the US concerning forest ownership and management styles. In the United States, the majority of forest land is privately owned; nearly 90 per cent of lumber production takes place within privately owned forests. Under this system, forested land is held in fee-simple ownership, whereby the owner (and his/her heirs) can manage, sell or transfer the property as s/he sees fit.

The situation is very different in Canada, where more than 90 per cent of the nation’s forests lie within lands owned by federal or provincial governments (also known as Crown land). The provinces own the majority of Crown land (78 per cent), while the federal government owns 22 percent. Overall, the provinces own 90 per cent of land classified as productive forest land, that is, land capable of producing more than a certain quantity of wood annually. The territories fall into a separate category, and will be discussed later.

This difference between Canada and the US, in terms of public and private ownership of forestry resources, has led to a significant divergence in the stewardship of their respective forestry industries. In the United States, companies compete for the right to harvest wood through an auction method on the open market.

In Canada, companies wishing to harvest wood from government-owned land do not compete with one another on the open market. Each company enters into a tenure agreement with the provincial government, whereby the company is granted a licence to harvest trees from a specified portion of Crown land. Tenures can be of short- or long-term duration. They may be area-based or volume-based tenures, granting the company either the right to manage the area or simply to obtain a specified volume of wood. The tenure holder then pays the provincial government a fee for the wood they harvest, commonly referred to as a “stumpage fee.”

A similar situation exists in the territories, where significant portions of federal Crown lands are located. In recent years, the federal government has handed responsibility for managing these lands to territorial governments, while retaining ownership. Accordingly, companies wishing to harvest wood enter into an agreement and pay stumpage fees to the territorial government, not the federal government.

Each province or territory is responsible for setting the terms of tenure agreements. All tenure agreements require the tenure holder to follow responsible conservation and forest management practices. This is particularly true of longer-term tenures, where the company is granted a licence to manage the designated forest area.

Each province or territory is also responsible for the method of determining stumpage fees. Often, governments factor in non-market-based criteria when setting stumpage fees, such as provincial revenue goals or the job-creation potential of the contract. Stumpage rates may also reflect the cost, to the forest company holder, of following responsible forest management policies. The goal is to encourage forest companies to be “good stewards” of the forest. Consequently, stumpage fees are often lower than the market price.

Issues in the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

What exactly is the softwood lumber dispute about?

The softwood lumber dispute comprises many different issues. The following provides a brief overview of a few key elements.

Provincial/Territorial Stumpage Fees

Canada’s system of stumpage fees, whereby forest companies pay a fee to a provincial or territorial government for the right to harvest and/or process wood on a specific piece of land, is a major source of contention. The US contends that Canada’s provincial and territorial governments are subsidizing forestry companies by setting the stumpage fees too low. This gives Canada’s softwood lumber exporters an unfair pricing advantage over American softwood suppliers, who must sell their lumber at a price that reflects the real economic cost of harvesting the wood.

International trade laws stipulate that if Canada is subsidizing the softwood lumber industry, the United States has the right to even out the situation by applying a “countervailing duty” to imports of Canadian softwood lumber. International trade panels have ruled, however, that Canada’s system of stumpage fees does not meet the legal definition of a subsidy.

Allegations of Canadian Dumping

A more recent issue in the softwood lumber dispute involves American claims that Canadian forest companies are “dumping” lumber — pricing softwood lumber in the US market at a price below the cost of production or, at least below the price for which it would sell in Canada. The Americans allege that “dumping” has allowed Canada’s softwood lumber exporters to claim a higher portion of the American softwood lumber market than would otherwise be the case. In this regard, the US has won several decisions under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) on this issue, although both concluded that the mechanism used by the United States to determine the percentage of duties to be applied was flawed.

Canada’s Multi-Jurisdictional Forestry Management System

Attempts to resolve the ongoing softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States are complicated by the number of players involved. Instead of dealing with one government (Canada), US trade negotiators must enter into talks with, and understand the forestry management systems of, several provincial governments.

The process is further complicated by the frequent lack of consensus among the provinces over how softwood lumber negotiations should proceed; a concession that one province is willing to make in order to reach an agreement may be unacceptable to another. Furthermore, the provinces may also disagree with the federal strategy. Prior to reaching the most recent agreement in 2006, for example, the federal government took a very adversarial position towards the United States, at least publicly. By contrast, several provinces, such as British Columbia, made it clear they were more interested in reaching a compromise with the US than in starting a trade war.

History of the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Overview of the dispute between 1980 and 2001

The softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States has been an ongoing disagreement which began in the early 1980s. In actuality, there have been four different trade disputes, which are commonly referred to as Lumber I, Lumber II, Lumber III and Lumber IV. The following provides an overview of each dispute.

Lumber I: 1982-1983

The first Canada-US lumber dispute occurred in 1982, when the US Department of Commerce investigated the stumpage programs of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. Upon completing its investigation in 1983, the Department of Commerce concluded that the provincial stumpage programs were not open to countervailing duties, because stumpage was generally available and not limited to a specific industry. Under US law, a good from another country is only considered subsidized if the program is available only to a specific industry. Provincial stumpage programs, however, were available to the entire timber sector, not just to the softwood lumber industry.

Lumber II: 1986-1987

Following the first softwood lumber dispute, two significant changes occurred. First, the US Department of Commerce began to apply US trade law more aggressively, especially in natural resource countervailing duty cases. Second, the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, the US lumber industry coalition and lobby group which favours high duties on Canadian softwood lumber, emerged as a well-funded and politically connected group in the US.

In 1986, the US Department of Commerce initiated another investigation of Canadian stumpage programs, this time concluding that they represented unfair subsidies. As a result, the US government levied a 15 per cent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber imports.

Later that year, the governments of Canada and the United States signed a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), under which the US would drop its 15 per cent tariff. In its place, the Canadian government agreed to impose a 15 per cent export charge on lumber exports to the US. The MOU also allowed provinces and territories to replace the export charge through other policy changes, such as increased stumpage fees.

The Memorandum meant that Canadian softwood companies would have to submit to a 15 per cent charge when exporting their products to the US. However, it did have several advantages for Canada. By making it an export charge collected by Canada, the money was kept within the country, as opposed to going to US coffers in the form of a countervailing duty. Moreover, it gave Canadian companies some measure of predictability, as Canada itself controlled the level of the charge, as opposed to it being controlled by US authorities.

It is important to note that under the Memorandum the Canadian government did not admit that stumpage fees represented a form of government subsidies. Instead, it simply volunteered to impose the 15 per cent export charge on softwood lumber exports.

Lumber III: 1991-1996

The Memorandum increasingly became viewed by some provinces, in particular British Columbia, as an infringement of provincial sovereignty. Pressure grew within Canada to eliminate the Memorandum, and the federal government unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate its termination with the US government. In 1991, Canada unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and ended the practice of imposing a 15 per cent charge on softwood exports to the US.

This initiated another investigation of provincial/territorial stumpage fees by the US Department of Commerce. In 1992, the Department imposed a 6.51 per cent countervailing duty on Canadian softwood lumber (although, the precise duty varied from province/territory to province/territory, depending on its particular stumpage programs).

This led to a number of legal battles between Canada and the United States under the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. As a result of these battles, the US Department of Commerce eventually revoked its countervailing duty order in 1994. That same year, Canada and the United States agreed to implement a consultative process on softwood lumber trade in order to eliminate any further trade disputes.

This consultative process resulted in the 1996 Softwood Lumber Agreement. Under the agreement, Canada was permitted to export 14.7 billion board feet annually to the United States free of any export charges or duties. Exports above this threshold would then be open to escalating charges. The US, in turn, agreed not to initiate a trade case for the duration of the agreement. It is important to note that these restrictions applied only to the softwood exports of Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

For more information on the 1996 Softwood Lumber Agreement:

Government of Canada: Softwood Lumber Agreement 1996

2001-2006 Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Issues and litigation in the recent Canada-US softwood dispute

The 1996 Softwood Lumber Agreement managed to bring some level peace in Canadian-US trade relations in softwood lumber. In 2001, however, the agreement expired, leaving both countries without a framework for managing softwood lumber trade. This led to another softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the US, commonly referred to as Lumber IV.

US Actions Against Canadian Softwood Lumber

Immediately following the expiration of the 1996 Agreement, the US Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports filed a countervailing duty and anti-dumping petition against the Canadian softwood lumber industry. This represented the first time allegations of dumping had been made against Canadian companies.

See the Issues in the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute section of this article for more information on the dumping issue.

In 2001, the (US) International Trade Commission made a preliminary ruling that subsidies to Canada’s softwood lumber industry posed a threat of injury to the United States softwood lumber market. In August 2001, the US Department of Commerce imposed a countervailing duty of 19.31 per cent on Canadian softwood lumber imports.

In October 2001, the US Department of Commerce determined that Canadian companies were “dumping” softwood lumber (selling it in the US market at a price below market value) and that an additional “anti-dumping” duty of 12.57 per cent should be applied to US imports of Canadian softwood lumber.

In April 2002, the Department of Commerce reached a final determination that the countervailing and anti-dumping duties should be lowered to 18.79 per cent and 8.43 per cent, respectively. The total amount of duties charged on imported Canadian softwood lumber was set at 27.22 per cent.

Litigation of the Softwood Trade Dispute

Canada responded to the duties by launching several trade challenges. At both the World Trade Organization (WTO), and under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada requested separate panels to examine all three determinations made by the US Department of Commerce: 1) Canadian softwood lumber exports are unfairly subsidized; 2) the subsidies pose a threat of injury to the US market; and 3) Canadian lumber firms are “dumping” softwood lumber onto the US market.

The history of this litigation has been rather complex, largely due to contradictory rulings by separate panels. Additionally, rulings against the US have often been based on technical issues, or the need for more information, as opposed to a clear victory in Canada’s favour for the right to export softwood lumber to the US duty free. Due to the complexity of the issues, both countries often hail rulings as victories.

Under NAFTA, a July 2003 ruling supported US anti-dumping duties, but also ruled that the method used to calculate the duties was flawed. Similarly, in August 2003, a NAFTA panel ruled that the Canadian softwood lumber industry was indeed being subsidized, but, again, that the method the US used to determine the level of subsidy was flawed (resulting in excessively high duties).

Despite these findings, in August 2003, a subsequent NAFTA panel ruled that the US had not provided sufficient evidence to show that domestic softwood lumber producers were threatened with injury from Canadian softwood lumber imports. In 2004, following similar rulings by subsequent panels, the US requested an Extraordinary Challenge Committee under NAFTA to review the issue. In August 2005, the Committee affirmed the original decision. This was significant, as countervailing and anti-dumping duties can only be imposed if the dumped or subsidized imports are deemed to cause, or have the potential to cause, a threat of injury to the domestic industry.

In March 2006, a NAFTA panel ruled in Canada’s favour, finding that the Canadian stumpage program did not constitute a subsidy of softwood lumber exports. By this time, the total duties collected by the US had reached $5.2 billion (CBC, 2006).

The WTO panels customarily made rulings similar to those of the NAFTA panels. However, in August 2005, the WTO reversed itself on an earlier decision, concluding that Canadian softwood lumber imports did constitute a threat of injury to the US market.

Dispute over Repayment of Duties

The contradictory rulings of the NAFTA and WTO panels led to a further dispute over whether or not the United States was obligated to repay billions of dollars in softwood lumber duties it has collected. Canada took the position that the US must return billions of dollars in duties it has charged on imports of Canadian softwood lumber. The US took that position that Canada must return to the bargaining table before it would discuss any repayment of duties. Canada broke off scheduled talks on softwood lumber after the US announced it would ignore the decision of the 2005 NAFTA Extraordinary Challenge Committee and would continue to pursue its case at the WTO.

2006 Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement

Highlights of the recent Canada-US softwood lumber deal

In April 2006, the Canadian and US governments announced that they had reached a framework agreement for settling the softwood lumber dispute. In July 2006, representatives from both countries formally signed the legal text of the agreement, and it was passed into law by the federal Parliament in December 2006.

Highlights of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement

Under the new softwood lumber agreement, the United States agreed to remove its countervailing and anti-dumping duty orders on Canadian softwood lumber. Furthermore, the US agreed to return more than $4.5 billion in duties it had collected since 2002. This represented a large portion of the total duties it had collected. The US also agreed not to initiate any new investigations against Canadian softwood lumber during the period of the agreement.

In exchange, Canada agreed to a cap on its softwood exports to the US at 34 per cent of the US market. Furthermore, Canada agreed to impose an export charge on Canadian softwood lumber exports when the price of lumber is at or below US$355 per thousand board feet. These charges are collected by the federal government, and then transferred back to the provinces.

Both Canada and the United States further agreed to terminate all litigation before the entry into force of the agreement (such as pursuing cases through NAFTA and the WTO). The 2006 Agreement also provided a broad framework for dispute settlement. Disputes relating to the agreement are to be resolved through a final and binding dispute-settlement process. The process is to be neutral, transparent and expeditious.

The new agreement only applies to the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The Atlantic Provinces and the territories are excluded from the agreement because their timber industries do not operate on a provincial/territorial stumpage fee system. As such, they may export softwood lumber to the US free of any restrictions or duties.

The length of the agreement is seven years, beginning in 2006, with an option to extend it for an additional two years. Although, under the initial agreement signed in July 2006, either country could unilaterally exit after three years.

Amendments to the Initial Softwood Lumber Agreement

While the initial Softwood Lumber Agreement was signed in July 2006, there remained some opposition in the Canadian softwood lumber industry, as well as from the government of British Columbia. Of particular issue was a provision that allowed either Canada or the United States to unilaterally terminate the agreement after only three years. The concern was that this would undermine the value of the agreement, and allow the US to reintroduce duties unilaterally as early as 2009.

In response, the federal government negotiated with the US to rework the deal, to make it harder for the US to exit the agreement. For example, under the amendments, if the agreement isn’t renewed, or if the US unilaterally decides to terminate the agreement, then it cannot re-impose duties until one year after the end of the deal. The US is also now required to provide Canada with six months’ notice before ending the agreement, up from three months in the initial deal.

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on this topic

Sources Used for this Article

“Softwood Lumber Dispute.” CBC. 23 August 2006. 04 May 2008. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/>
“Softwood Lumber.” Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 11 October 2006. 04 May 2008. <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/intro-en.asp>
“Softwood Lumber Agreement 1996.” Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 11 October 2006. 04 May 2008. <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/sla-en.asp>
“The Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 17 October 2006. 04 May 2008. <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb//softwood/SLA-backgrounder-en.asp>
“Canada-US Lumber Trade Disputes.” British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 05 July 2002. 04 May 2008. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/disputes.htm>

Links for More Information

Pakistan's Impact on the World and the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Greg Farries — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:40:01 -0700

2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit on Sustainable Development

Scott Fogden — Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:00:00 -0600

From August 26th to September 4th, 2002, international attention focused on Johannesburg, as South Africa’s commercial capital played host to high-level diplomatic meetings assigned to alleviate poverty while protecting the earth’s environment. This article provides an introduction to the Summit's issues, events, and outcomes.

Understanding Sustainable Development in the World

Explanation of the concept and how it is used

The Global Balancing Act

Finding balance between economic interests and environmental concerns

History of the Earth Summits

From Rio to Johannesburg

Canada's Role in the 2002 Earth Summit

Domestic interests & global concerns

Highlights of the 2002 Earth Summit

Events & agreements

Links to Further Information

List of links for more on this topic

Understanding Sustainable Development

Explanation of the concept and how it is used

Often heard but seldom considered, ‘sustainable development’ is a phrase that can be interpreted in many ways. In 1987, the UN's definition stated, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development [The Brundtland Report], 1987). This definition touches on the concept's most basic component: specifically, we can’t expend the earth’s limited potential today if we want human life to continue tomorrow.

Of course, the issue is more complicated than that. When delegates met in Johannesburg, they were after concrete measures that would balance our current and future needs. Along with their advisors, the delegates represented a number of perspectives for current and future sustainable development. For instance, developing countries in Asia or Africa might argue that their people need economic development before environmental progress can be made. Meanwhile, many developed countries concentrated on encouraging cleaner energy technologies resulting in reduced pollution that benefited their citizens' health.

But there were other voices at the Summit aside from government officials. Stakeholders included business leaders, scientists, environmentalists, economists, and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Each stakeholder has a unique take on sustainable development that falls into one or more of the following approaches:

Three Pillars: Approaches to Sustainability

Economic: Encouraging economic development and infrastructure also increases the capacity for change.

This approach asserts that the economically powerful developed world will invest in environmental protection, whereas developing countries must devote their energies elsewhere. Simply put, the poor can’t afford to share the costly interests of a healthy environment; surviving is enough of a task for many.

Proponents

The Group of 77 (G77) developing countries has often supported this approach arguing that only when they ‘catch up’ to the developed world will they be able to participate in initiatives such as environmental protection and pollution reduction.
Business leaders are likely to support this approach arguing that increased trade and commerce is the most efficient way to achieve development and thereby a capacity for environmental responsibili

Environment: Concrete prescriptions, rules, and enforcement must curb environmental degradation.

This approach asserts that traditional development methods have created critical problems for the survival of humans and the planet.

Proponents

The European Union has sponsored this approach calling for definitive action such as the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.
Environmentalists largely favour this approach since it targets environmental destruction first and foremost.

Social Justice: Sustainable development is about protecting the environment as well as economic and social justice.

This approach asserts that economic capacity and ecological stability play into a larger sphere of interests. Human life requires a combination of these entities but also social stability, security, and equality.

Proponents

Norway, Canada, and Japan have set their agendas based on some form of this combination.
NGOs representing women’s or human rights groups favour this approach since it addresses a wider range of issues affecting social development.

The Agenda of the Conference

With such diverse interests in mind, the UN chose to focus attention on a few broad objectives at the Summit:

Alleviating poverty.
Improving the ability of all countries, particularly in the South, to meet globalization's challenges.
Promoting responsible production and consumption.
Ensuring that all people have access to energy sources.
Reducing environmentally related health problems.
Improving access to clean water.

Global Balancing Act

Economic interests and environmental concerns

With such immense objectives and a diverse range of interests, the Summit's risk is that in its attempt to cover everything, it would achieve nothing. In principle, everyone is a proponent of sustainable development. Politically, it is a term that can mobilize popular support through rhetorical use, but it plays out very differently in practice. Perhaps the most sensitive aspects of implementing plans for sustainable development are the associated economic costs.

In Johannesburg, delegates bound by the interests of their constituents blocked initiatives on a wide range of issues. Most notably, summit negotiations were stalled in three prominent areas: agriculture subsidies, energy interests, and poverty concessions.

Europe and Agriculture

Agriculture is widely recognized as a potential area to reduce poverty since trade barriers disproportionately affect farmers in poorer countries. Developed countries place heavy import tariffs on goods produced by developing countries because they want to protect their own farming industries. Europe, in particular (but not exclusively), subsidizes its farming industries in this manner and sought to maintain its right to do so at the Summit.

Energy Concerns: United States, Canada, Australia

With regard to the heavily polluting fossil fuel industries, some countries were similarly hesitant toward the Summit’s proposals. The United States, Canada, and Australia were notably reluctant to support fossil fuel reduction targets, although Canada did announce its plan to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. All three countries have economies particularly dependent on the oil and gas industries and would be markedly affected by such measures.

Emphasis on Poverty: G77

The Group of 77 developing countries insists that they:

Are not responsible for the majority of industrial pollution or CO2 emissions.
Cannot afford major environmental initiatives.

They, therefore, insist that the developed world carry the brunt of the economic burden for summit initiatives and increase the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries. Much of the developing world's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol was one of the main reasons the United States refused to ratify.

History of the Earth Summits

From Rio to Johannesburg

Today’s environmental movement finds its origin in 1960s Europe and North America. It gained momentum throughout the decade, and the first international meeting focusing specifically on the environment and development was held in Stockholm in 1972. This meeting was called The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.

1986 - Brundtland Commission

Following this conference, the United Nations appointed a World Commission on Environment and Development to find critical areas of environmental degradation around the globe. Led by Norway’s Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the commission delivered its findings and proposed solutions. Commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report, but officially titled Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the research brought the concept of sustainable development to the fore and called for cooperative, international efforts to combat growing environmental problems.

1992 - The Rio Earth Summit

The Rio Summit was a response to this call for global environmental cooperation. Officially titled the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio hosted an unprecedented gathering to focus on environmental issues; more than 35,000 people, including 106 heads of state took part in the Summit. Public awareness and debate around environmental issues peaked with a number of new conventions agreed upon, including biodiversity and climate change, to name two. Institutionally, the UN formed the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to monitor implementation of agreements reached in Rio. Crucially, Agenda 21 formed a ‘global plan-of-action’ for sustainable development at local, national, and international levels.

Read the Rio Declaration

What is Agenda 21?

In 1992, the international community adopted Agenda 21 as a non-binding framework incorporating environmental, economic, and social concerns into a single scheme. It contains over 2,500 wide-ranging and concrete recommendations for action on issues such as:

Reducing wasteful use of natural resources
Fighting poverty
Protecting the atmosphere, oceans, and animal and plant life
Promoting sustainable agriculture practices that will feed the world's growing population.

Read the Agenda 21 plan

2002 - Johannesburg Summit

The Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development marked a continuation of the earlier efforts of Agenda 21. Often dubbed Rio-Plus-10, it was meant to reaffirm Agenda 21 as well as broaden the sustainable development debate to encourage partnerships between government, business, and civil society.

The Run-up to Johannesburg: Preparations

Most of the negotiations took place at the Summit's preparatory meetings. The tenth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (known as CSD10) was the global Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the Johannesburg Summit. Four inter-governmental PrepCom meetings were held during 2001-2002 to agree on the agenda for the Summit.

The First Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom1) was held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from April 31 to May 2, 2001. The Second Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom2) was held from January 28 to February 8, 2002 in New York, followed by the Third Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom3), also in New York, from March 25 to April 5, 2002. The final PrepCom (PrepCom4) committee convened at the ministerial level, and was held in Bali, Indonesia, from May 27 to June 7, 2002. Representatives from each of the major groups, including leaders from the NGO and business communities participated in these meetings.

For more details on the Agendas and Preparatory Committees:

Agendas and PrepCom proceedings

Earth Summits: Promoting Multilateralism

Since 1970, a comprehensive series of multilateral agreements on crucial environmental and sustainability issues have been reached. For more details on these agreements:

List of multilateral agreements since 1970

Canada's Role in the 2002 Earth Summit

Global concerns and domestic interests

The Canadian government's focus of its Johannesburg mission was touted “Global Sustainable Development with an Emphasis on Africa." As mentioned in the section Understanding Sustainable Development, Canada’s approach at the time of the Summit was distinguished by its combination of all three central pillars of sustainable development: environmental, economic, and social justice.

Sustainable Development

At the Johannesburg Summit, Canada emphasized partnerships in its sustainable development platform. With a large private sector contingent, the delegation stressed the practicality of partnerships for seeking, “cost-effective solutions to issues such as urban sustainability, capacity building and knowledge sharing on subjects from forest management to sustainable mining.”

Governance

President of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Program was probably Canada’s most valuable role at the Summit. Canada’s Minister of the Environment at the time, David Anderson, carried this title and pushed for consensus on ways to enforce and regulate environmental law. Given the complexity of organizing local, national, and international arrangements for environmental governance, the proceedings were hard fought, but did not move far.

Health and Human Rights

Canada’s emphasis on health care and human rights was another area that distinguished Canada’s platform from that of most other countries. Beyond environmental and economic initiatives, Canada’s delegation highlighted the importance of health care and medical services for social stability and economic development. With Canadian pressure, medical access is now deemed a human right alongside cultural and religious values.

With regard to human rights, the ‘human security’ agenda was forefront for Canada. This agenda placed importance on the capacity of individuals to live without fear of war or violence.

Africa

Subsequent announcements by the Canadian government played into summit proceedings. Over the next five years, $6 billion was earmarked to support new and existing investments in Africa’s development, including a $500 million Canada Fund for Africa.

The Fund includes:

Elimination of tariffs and quotas on imports from the 48 Least Developed Countries, of which 34 are in Africa;
$28 million to develop skills and expertise in the public sector;
$9 million to strengthen the parliamentary system;
$6 million for local governance;
A doubling of Canada's investment in basic education to $100 million by 2005;
$50 million towards the development of an HIV vaccine; and
$50 million to help eradicate polio.

Domestic Concerns

With pressure from sources within Canada, the delegation played a high profile on a few fronts. Energy was paramount in this regard; pressure from Alberta’s oil and gas industry as well as Ontario and BC governments made Canada’s plan to ratify the Kyoto Protocol uncertain. The delegation maintained its support for the accord’s flexibility mechanisms, such as emissions trading.

For more information on emissions trading and Canada’s overall position, check out:

Mapleleafweb: The Kyoto Protocol

Fisheries were another area of specific interest for Canada as negotiations finalized plans to restore fisheries to their maximum sustainable yields by 2015.

Highlights of the 2002 Earth Summit

Events & agreements

A number of media outlets reported lacklustre progress on many of the Summit’s central themes. Despite this, the United Nations highlighted several of the Summit’s achievements. (Note that a variety of outcomes are listed, from invaluable and precise, to speculative and vague.)

Water and Sanitation

Commitment to reduce by half the proportion of people without access to sanitation by 2015.
The United States announced $970 million in investments over the next three years on water and sanitation projects.
The European Union announced the “Water for Life” initiative that seeks to engage partners to meet water and sanitation goals, primarily in Africa and Central Asia. The Asia Development Bank provided a $5 million grant to UN Habitat and $500 million in fast-track credit for the Water for Asian Cities Programme.
Twenty-one other water and sanitation initiatives with at least $20 million in extra resources.

Energy

Commitment to increase access to modern energy services, energy efficiency, and the use of renewable energy.
To phase out, where appropriate, energy subsidies.
To support the NEPAD objective of ensuring access to energy for at least 35% of Africa’s population within 20 years.
The nine major electricity companies of the E7 signed a range of agreements with the UN to facilitate technical cooperation for sustainable energy projects in developing countries.
The European Union announced a $700 million partnership initiative on energy and the United States announced that it would invest up to $43 million for the initiative in 2003.
The South African energy utility Eskom announced a partnership to extend modern energy services to neighbouring countries.
Thirty-two partnership submissions for energy projects with at least $26 million in resources.

Health

Commitment that by 2020, chemicals should be used and produced in ways that do not harm human health and the environment.
To enhance cooperation to reduce air pollution.
To improve developing countries’ access to environmentally sound alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals by 2010.
The United States announced their commitment to spend $2.3 billion through 2003 on health, some of which was earmarked earlier for the Global Fund.
Sixteen partnership submissions for health projects with $3 million in resources.

Agriculture

The GEF will consider the Convention to Combat Desertification as a focal area for funding.
Development of food security strategies for Africa by 2005.
The United States will invest $90 million in 2003 for sustainable agriculture programs.
Seventeen partnership submissions with at least $2 million in additional resources.

Bio Diversity and Ecosystem Management

Commitment to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010.
Reverse the current trend in natural resource degradation.
Restore fisheries to their maximum sustainable yields by 2015.
Establish a representative network of marine protected areas by 2012.
Improve developing countries’ access to environmentally sound alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals by 2010.
Undertake initiatives by 2004 to implement the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Sources of Pollution.
Thirty-two partnership initiatives with $100 million in resources.
The United States has announced $53 million for forests in 2002-2005.

Other Issues

Recognition that opening access to markets is a key to development for many countries.
Support the phase out of all forms of export subsidies.
Commitment to establish a 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production.
Commitment to actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability.
Commitments to develop and strengthen a range of activities to improve preparedness and response for natural disasters.
Agreement to the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, with a total of $3 billion ($2.92 billion announced pre-Summit and $80 million added by EU in Johannesburg).

What is the Kyoto Protocol's Status

Ministers at the Johannesburg Summit indicated their support for the Kyoto Protocol. The agreed action plan read: "States that have ratified strongly urge those that have not done so to ratify Kyoto in a timely manner.”

Countries like China, India, Brazil, and Thailand announced their ratification of the Kyoto Protocol at the Johannesburg Summit. Russia and Canada gave strong signals that they would ratify in the near future. The combined emissions of Russia and Canada would be sufficient to allow greenhouse gas figures to reach the required limit.

The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force 90 days after 55 governments have ratified, including developed countries which represent approximately 55% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions (for ratifying states). As of September 2002, 94 countries had ratified, including all European Union member states and Japan, accounting for 37.1%.

Shares of 1990 CO₂ emissions:
United States	36.1 %
European Union	24.2 %
Russian Federation	17.4 %
Japan	8.5 %
Canada	3.3 %
Australia	2.1 %

Recent weather-related crises throughout the world remind us of the changes that climate change is likely to bring. From droughts in India and North America to flooding throughout Europe, regional climate change scenarios are thought to be occurring.

Plan of Action

The Johannesburg Summit agreed upon a Plan of Implementation that underlines the importance of developing and disseminating innovative technologies in energy and other key sectors, including the private sector. Technology transfers to developing countries are highlighted in this plan.

Plan of Implementation [PDF]

Political Declaration

Participating governments negotiated the Plan of Action and a Political Declaration at the Summit.

Political Declaration [DOC]

Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Type I Outcomes: Political commitments made at the Summit.
Type II Outcomes: Partnerships consisting of a series of commitments and planned coalitions to further the implementation of sustainable development. Not negotiated, they are voluntary arrangements made by multiple stakeholders including the private sector and NGOs.

International Relations

What's the Matter with Canada?

The Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Structure and importance of the softwood lumber industry

What exactly is the softwood lumber dispute about?

Overview of the dispute between 1980 and 2001

Issues and litigation in the recent Canada-US softwood dispute

Highlights of the recent Canada-US softwood lumber deal

List of article sources and links to more on this topic

The North American Softwood Lumber Industry

What is Softwood Lumber?

Softwood Lumber Industry

Different Forest Management Styles

Issues in the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Provincial/Territorial Stumpage Fees

Allegations of Canadian Dumping

Canada’s Multi-Jurisdictional Forestry Management System

History of the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

Lumber I: 1982-1983

Lumber II: 1986-1987

Lumber III: 1991-1996

2001-2006 Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute

US Actions Against Canadian Softwood Lumber

Litigation of the Softwood Trade Dispute

Dispute over Repayment of Duties

2006 Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement

Highlights of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement

Amendments to the Initial Softwood Lumber Agreement

Sources and Links to More Information

Sources Used for this Article

Links for More Information

Pakistan's Impact on the World and the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit on Sustainable Development

Explanation of the concept and how it is used

Finding balance between economic interests and environmental concerns

From Rio to Johannesburg

Domestic interests & global concerns

Events & agreements

List of links for more on this topic

Understanding Sustainable Development

Three Pillars: Approaches to Sustainability

Economic: Encouraging economic development and infrastructure also increases the capacity for change.

Environment: Concrete prescriptions, rules, and enforcement must curb environmental degradation.

Social Justice: Sustainable development is about protecting the environment as well as economic and social justice.

The Agenda of the Conference

Global Balancing Act

Europe and Agriculture

Energy Concerns: United States, Canada, Australia

Emphasis on Poverty: G77

History of the Earth Summits

1986 - Brundtland Commission

1992 - The Rio Earth Summit

What is Agenda 21?

2002 - Johannesburg Summit

The Run-up to Johannesburg: Preparations

Earth Summits: Promoting Multilateralism

Canada's Role in the 2002 Earth Summit

Sustainable Development

Governance

Health and Human Rights

Africa

Domestic Concerns

Highlights of the 2002 Earth Summit

Water and Sanitation

Energy

Health

Agriculture

Bio Diversity and Ecosystem Management

Other Issues

What is the Kyoto Protocol's Status

Plan of Action

Political Declaration

Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Links to More Information

The debate about the worth of the Summit

Canadian Government Sites

United Nations Sites

Further Study

US Trade Policies Hurting Traditional Allies