International Issues

Canada in Afghanistan: Military & Development Roles

Jay Makarenko — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:03:31 -0700

Canada has played an active role in Afghanistan, from both a military and development perspective, since the United States-led removal of the Taliban regime began in fall 2001. Over the years, Canada’s role in Afghanistan has become a significant issue – both in Canada’s domestic affairs and vis-à-vis its international relations. Accordingly, this article provides an overview of Canadian military and development activities in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2007.

Introduction to Canada’s Role in Afghanistan

Overview of Afghan politics and Canadian involvement

Canada’s Military Role in Afghanistan

Nature and duration of Canada’s military involvement

Canada’s Development Role in Afghanistan

Political, social, and economic development initiatives

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on this topic

Introduction to Canada’s Role in Afghanistan

Overview Afghan politics and Canadian involvement

2001 US Invasion of Afghanistan

On October 2, 2001, the United States, in cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Afghanistan Northern Alliance, initiated the war in Afghanistan. The US operations in Afghanistan were a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City – attacks that were undertaken by the terrorist organization al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan, at that time, was ruled by the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group which provided safe haven and bases of operation for al-Qaeda and bin Laden. The stated purposes of the US invasion were to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, capture bin Laden, and destroy al-Qaeda.

The US-led invasion led to the defeat of the Taliban regime, while removing Afghanistan as a save haven for al-Qaeda operations. US forces, however, were unable to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader. Moreover, since their initial defeat, the Taliban forces since mounted an insurgency in Afghanistan, in an attempt to disrupt foreign initiatives in the country and eventually return it to Taliban rule.

For more information on the war in Afghanistan:

PBS: Afghanistan and the War on Terror

Canada did not play a major role in the initial invasion of Afghanistan. However, a small Canadian naval task force was deployed to the Persian Gulf in October 2007 as part of a larger US naval group which acted to support US operations in Afghanistan.

Establishment of a New Afghan Government

Following the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban, Afghan factions met in Bonn, Germany under the auspices of the United Nations to map out their country’s future. This meeting led to the signing of the Bonn Agreement on December 5, 2001, which established a provisional plan for governing the country. Under the Bonn Agreement, an interim government and constitution was established, as well as a commitment to hold democratic elections in 2004. In June of 2002, Hamid Karzai was chosen leader of the interim government; he was subsequently elected President in 2004 following general democratic elections. (He continues to serve in that position, as of September 2007.)

Defence and Security in Afghanistan

While the Afghan government is autonomous, in the sense that it is democratically elected, it nevertheless remains highly dependent upon foreign nations. This is particular true in the area of defence and security. Since the 2001 invasion, domestic Afghan military and police forces have been unable to adequately secure the country from internal and external threats (including the Taliban insurgency). As such, foreign militaries have been providing security in Afghanistan until domestic forces are able to take over.

Originally this security role was predominately performed by the United States. Over time, however, responsibility has been transferred to other nations. In 2001, the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to conduct operations in Afghanistan. ISAF is a multi-national military force led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). It is important to note that while ISAF is commanded by NATO and its forces are predominately from NATO members, some non-NATO nations do contribute to ISAF. Originally, ISAF was mandated to provide security only in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Since then, however, ISAF’s area of operation has been expanded to include the whole country.

For more information on ISAF operations in Afghanistan:

Canada has contributed substantial military forces to Afghanistan since the initial defeat of the Taliban regime, first in cooperation with US forces and later in conjunction with ISAF operations. As of September 2007, a large contingent of Canadian military personnel is deployed in Afghanistan, providing basic security and defence roles. Since Canadian military operations began in 2002, 71 Canadians have been killed in the line of duty, including one diplomat (CBC, August 30, 2007).

See the Canada’s Military Role in Afghanistan section of this article for more information on Canadian military operations in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan Reconstruction and Development

The Afghan government also relies heavily on foreign countries in its reconstruction and development initiatives. This extends to a range of areas, including the development of political and legal institutions, the promotion of health and education services, the reconstruction of basic infrastructure, and the rehabilitation of the national economy.

Foreign aid to Afghanistan comes in several different forms. On the one hand, there are several non-governmental agencies operating throughout Afghanistan in support of reconstruction and development. These are private groups, such as the Red Cross, which pursue their own aid initiatives largely independent of government funding and control (although some cooperation does exist). In addition, there are a number of governmental agencies operating in Afghanistan, which include groups that are directly funded and controlled by governments. These include agencies associated with international organizations, such as the United Nations, as well as those associated with individual nations.

A key component of foreign governmental aid in Afghanistan is the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PTR). These are small groups of civilian and military specialists which are assigned to oversee reconstruction and developmental projects in particular regions of Afghanistan, and which are backed by national and international security forces. These groups were originally built and operated by the United States. Following NATO involvement in Afghanistan, however, command of the PTRs was transferred to other nations participating in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

In this context, the Government of Canada has played a significant large role, providing personnel, technical assistance, and financial aid in support of political, social, and economic development. A number of Canadian agencies participate in these initiatives, including the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada , the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Department of National Defence.

See the Canadian Non-military Role in Afghanistan section of this article for more information on Canadian assistance in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

2006 Afghanistan Compact

In February 2006, approximately 40 countries, including Afghanistan, signed the Afghanistan Compact, the successor to the Bonn Agreement (see above). The Compact provides the framework for international community initiatives in Afghanistan for the period 2006-2011, with the overarching purpose of creating conditions of peace and security for the Afghan people through security, good governance and the rule of law, and social and economic development. The Compact, in effect, sets out the general parameters and goals of international efforts in the country.

For more information on the Afghanistan Compact:

Afghanistan National Development Strategy: The Afghanistan Compact

The Government of Canada was a contributor to, and signatory of, the Compact. Under the agreement, Canada committed to contributing to Afghanistan’s rehabilitation through to February 1, 2011. Canada’s contribution during this period may come in the form of military assistance or non-military aid.

For more information on Canada and the Afghanistan Compact:

Government of Canada: Canada and the Afghanistan Compact

Canada’s Military Role in Afghanistan

Nature and duration of Canada’s military involvement

Overview of Canada’s Military Contribution

Canadian Forces personnel were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 when a battle group of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry was sent to the Afghan city of Kandahar for six months. The role of this Light Infantry unit was to assist multi-national forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, a US-led offensive against Taliban and al-Qaeda elements remaining in Afghanistan.

As of August 2007, Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, referred to as Joint Task Force Afghanistan, totalled approximately 2,500 (Department of National Defence, 2007). Moreover, Canadian Forces activities were divided into three main missions: Operation Athena, Operation Archer, and Operation Argus (see below for mission details). All current Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan are conducted with the consent of the Afghan government and are guided by the objectives and parameters set out in the 2006 Afghanistan Compact.

See the Introduction to Canada in Afghanistan section of this article for more on the Afghanistan Compact.

Between 2002 and 2007, approximately 13,500 Canadian soldiers have served in Afghanistan on a rotating basis (CBC, June 27, 2007). Of that number, more than 70 Canadian Forces personnel have been killed in the line of duty (in addition to one diplomat) (CBC, August 30, 2007). Between 2002 and March 2007, the financial cost of the Canadian military mission totalled $2.6 billion – a cost which is projected to reach $4.3 billion by the planned end of the military mission in February 2009 (CBC, June 27, 2007).

Roles of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan

According to the federal Department of National Defence, the general objectives of Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan are to (Department of National Defence, 2007):

Provide the people of Afghanistan with the hope for a brighter future by establishing the security necessary to promote development and an environment that is conducive to the improvement of Afghan life;
Conduct operations in support of Afghan National Security Forces;
Help strengthen and enhance Afghan Governance capacity;
Help extend the authority of the Government of Afghanistan in the South;
Facilitate the delivery of programs and projects that support the economic recovery and rehabilitation of Afghanistan; and
Assist in addressing humanitarian needs of Afghans by supporting Canadian governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations whose efforts meet Canada’s objectives.

In meeting these objectives, the Canadian Forces perform a number of different tasks. These include (but are not limited too) providing regular security for the Afghan population and foreign nationals working in Afghanistan; conducting combat operations against anti-government elements (such as the Taliban); training and leading Afghan security and military personnel; providing advice on security issues to the Afghanistan government; decommissioning weaponry and armaments left over from previous Afghan wars; and distributing humanitarian aid in the country.

Operation Athena

Of the three Canadian Forces missions in Afghanistan, Operation Athena is by far the largest. First introduced in 2003, this Operation represents Canada’s contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Since its inception, the nature of Operation Athena has changed significantly, due in large part to shifts in ISAF responsibilities and areas of operation.

Originally, Operation Athena was associated with ISAF’s mission in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Under this mission, ISAF was responsible for providing security and intelligence-gathering in the capital in support of the new Afghan government and international agencies. From the period 2003 to 2005, Canada contributed a large military contingent to this mission, reaching a peak of approximately 2,000 Canadian Forces personnel in 2004 (CBC, November 9, 2006). Specific tasks performed by Canadians included regular street patrols, cooperation with Afghan and other international authorities on security issues, assistance in the operation of the Kabul International Airport, and assistance in the reconstruction of the Afghan national armed forces.

For more information on Operation Athena during the period 2003-2005:

Department of National Defence: Operation Athena – The Canadian Forces Participation in ISAF

The nature of Operation Athena changed dramatically in 2006, when responsibility for security in southern Afghanistan was transferred from the United States to the NATO-led ISAF. Canada, in turn, committed its military contribution in Afghanistan to this new ISAF mission. As a result, Canadian personnel under Operation Athena were transferred from the capital city of Kabul to southern Afghanistan, with their primary base located in the southern city of Kandahar. As of August 2007, approximately 2,500 Canadian Forces personnel served in the Kandahar phase of Operation Athena (Department of National Defence, 2007).

This change in mission has been significant. The capital of Kabul is a relatively safe and stable theatre of operation. In contrast, Kandahar and the southern region of Afghanistan is a much more volatile area, with increasing levels of Taliban activity. As a result, the mission of Canadian Forces personnel has shifted away from defensive operations in a relatively small urban area, to conducting full-fledged combat operations against anti-government elements across a large region. This, in turn, has led to a dramatic rise in Canadian casualties. From 2002 to 2005, eight Canadians were killed in Afghanistan. In 2006 and 2007, following the initiation of operations in Kandahar, 63 Canadians were killed (CBC, August 30, 2007).

For more information on Operation Athena and ISAF Operations post-2006:

Other Canadian Forces Operations

In addition to Operation Athena, Canada is involved in two further missions in Afghanistan. These missions are much smaller in size and are orientated towards military training and reconstruction efforts.

The first of these is Operation Archer, which is Canada’s contribution to the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.The purpose of Operation Archer is to assist in the re-forming and rebuilding of Afghan security infrastructure, including the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police Force. As of August 2007, there were 30 Canadian Forces personnel assigned to Operation Archer, based primarily in the Afghan capital of Kabul (Department of National Defence, 2007).

For more information on Operation Archer:

Department of National Defence: Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan

The third main mission is Operation Argus, which is providing a team of strategic military planners to support the Government of Afghanistan. This team, formally referred to as the Strategic Advisory Team – Afghanistan (SAT – A), is embedded within Afghan governmental departments; it works closely with Afghan officials in the development of national defence strategies and programs of implementation. As of August 2007, there were 15 Canadian Forces personnel assigned to Operation Argus, in addition to a Canadian International Development Agency officer, advising on development issues (Department of National Defence, 2007).

For more information on Operation Argus:

Department of National Defence: Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan

It is also important to note that elements of Canada’s elite special operations unit, Joint Task Force Two (JTF2), have also operated in Afghanistan. JTF2 is proficient in counter-terrorist operations, surveillance, close protection, and other specialized military activities. The precise nature and duration of their operations in Afghanistan, however, is largely unknown.

Duration of Canada’s Military Role

Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan has been extended several times since the Canadian Forces were first deployed to the country. Canada’s first military mission, which was initiated in 2002 as part of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom, was only intended to last six months. In 2003, however, the Canadian government, under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, recommitted military personnel to Afghanistan under Operation Athena, which was only to last until August 2004. This Operation was later extended, until the summer of 2005, by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin.

In 2005, the Martin government re-committed Canadian Forces to Afghanistan, this time in support of the ISAF mission in southern Afghanistan. Under the Liberal government’s plan, the deployment in southern Afghanistan would begin in February 2006 and last up to one year in duration. In January 2006, however, a new government was formed under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In May 2006, the Harper government extended the mission another two years, until February 2009, following a close vote in the House of Commons.

As of September 2007, the Canadian military role in Afghanistan is set to end in February 2009. However, it is not absolutely certain this will be the case. Canada continues to receive pressure from the United States and other NATO countries to maintain its forces in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Harper government has indicated its preference to keep troops in Afghanistan until the country is stabilized (CBC, March 13, 2006). Much, however, will depend on the outcome of the next federal election in Canada, and the level of support among Canadians when it comes to extending the military mission.

Canadian Development Role in Afghanistan

Political, social, and economic development initiatives

In addition to its military role in Afghanistan, the Government of Canada has also played a significant role in the reconstruction and development of the country. The following section offers an overview of Canada’s approach to development in Afghanistan, as well as a summary of some specific programs.

Overview of Canada’s Development Approach

The Government of Canada states that the general objective of its Afghan development initiatives is as follows:

“Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government to help build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society. Alongside the UN, NATO and our other partners, Canada has committed to help the people of Afghanistan realize their vision for a country that is secure and at peace with itself and its neighbours; economically self-sufficient; prosperous, with the capacity to deliver fundamental services such as water, health care and education; and governed according to the rule of law” (Government of Canada, Overview, 2007).

Here we see three key areas of development: political, social, and economic. On the political side, the goal is to create a stable and democratic society. This includes seeing Afghanistan achieve peace within the country and with its neighbours; promoting a democratic system of government; and governing according to the rule of law, rather than under a system where national and international law is disregarded or not enforced. On the social side, the primary task is to help the country provide fundamental services to its citizens, such as water, health care, and education. Finally, on the economic side, the goal is to help Afghanistan become economically self-sufficient and prosperous. The basic idea is the domestic Afghan economic should be able to provide for its citizens, rather than being economically dependent on foreign aid.

Also important to the nature of Canadian development initiatives is the Afghanistan Compact, detailed earlier. The Compact provides a framework for coordinating the work and resources of the Afghan government and its international partners, in addition to establishing expected results and timelines in the areas of security, development, and governance. The Government of Canada is a signatory of the Compact, and uses it as a foundation for its own development initiatives in Afghanistan.

See the Introduction to Canada in Afghanistan section of this article for more on the Afghanistan Compact.

Organization and Cost of Development Initiatives

In pursuing its developmental initiatives, the Government of Canada utilizes a broad range of departments and agencies. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (with direction from the federal Cabinet) is responsible for the overall coordination and policy direction of Canadian initiatives. Other key government actors include the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency, Correctional Service Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Government of Canada, Overview, 2007).

As of September 2007, the Government of Canada has committed a total of $1.2 billion for reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. This includes monies spent by the Government since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, as well as future monies committed by the government until 2011 (Government of Canada, Overview, 2007). In comparison, Canada is projected to spend approximately $4.3 billion on its military operations in the country for the period 2002 to 2009 (CBC, June 27, 2007).

Specific Development Programs

Since it began its development initiatives in 2001, the Canadian government has contributed to a broad range of specific programs. The following provides brief introductions to some of the programs to which Canada contributes (current to September 2007).

For a comprehensive and updated summary of Canadian development initiatives in Afghanistan:

Government of Canada: Rebuilding Afghanistan
Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund: Established in 2002, the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) is one of the major instruments through which international aid dollars can be coordinated to fund priority services offered by the Afghan government. Canada’s contribution to the ARTF helps support the costs of daily operations of the government and contributes to two national programs for economic and social development: the national microcredit program and the National Solidarity Program.
Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team: In 2005, Canada assumed responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). Over twenty PRTs operate throughout Afghanistan with the mandate of assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority, rebuilding the nation, and providing services to citizens. Canada’s 330-member PRT includes military, police, diplomatic, and development personnel, and is based in the city of Kandahar in southern Afghan province of Kandahar.

For more information on the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team:

Government of Canada: The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team
Department of National Defence: Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team
Justice/court system: Since 2002, Canadian assistance has supported capacity building in the Afghan justice system. This includes programs in support of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office and Ministry of Justice; training for judges, prosecutors, public defenders and court administrators; and legal aid programming (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Police services: Canada has participated in the reconstruction of Afghan police forces. This includes initiatives such as mentoring, training, funding salaries, building police stations, and providing equipment and uniforms. As of September 2007, 35 Canadian police trainers had been deployed to Afghanistan (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Correction services: Correctional Service Canada advisers have been deployed to Kabul to help professionalize prison and detention services with the goal of building a safe and humane prison administration with operations and practices that meet international standards (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Healthcare: Canada has assisted in the immunization of more than seven million Afghan children as part of a polio eradication initiative. A $5 million contribution made in October 2006 is supporting the further immunization of 350,000 children in Kandahar province. Women’s Wellness Diagnostic Kits were distributed by Canada’s Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) to Kandahar University’s Medical Program. The PRT also donated medical supplies and linens to the Afghan National Police hospital in Kandahar (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration: Prior to the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, the country had been at war for over 25 years. Consequently, one of the first measures taken was to demobilize the over 63,000 Afghan soldiers who had fought during the war. To this end, Canada has spent close to $21 million in support of this process since its involvement began in 2003. This funding is helping former Afghan soldiers reintegrate into civilian life, be it opening small shops, working on the destruction of mines, becoming teachers, or farming.

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on this topic

Sources Used for this Article

“In the Line of Duty: Canada’s Casualties.” CBC. 30 August 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/total.html>
“Afghanistan, By the Numbers.” CBC. 27 June 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html>
“Timeline of Canada’s Involvement.” CBC. 9 November 2006. 04 September 2007. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/timeline.html>
“Operation Athena: The Canadian Forces Participation in ISAF.” Department of National Defence. 27 August 2004. 04 September 2007. <http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1228>
“Backgrounder: Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.” Department of National Defence. 14 August 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703>
“Overview of Canada’s Contribution to the International Mission in Afghanistan.” Government of Canada. July 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/library/overview-en.aspx>
“Canada’s Contribution to the International Mission in Afghanistan – Facts on the Ground.” Government of Canada. July 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/library/factsonground-en.aspx>

Links for More Information

The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change: History & Highlights

Jay Makarenko — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Abstract: The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which formally came into effect on February 16, 2005, represents a significant political and environment international regime. This article provides an introduction to the Kyoto Protocol, with a particular focus on the history of its negotiation and implementation, its central elements as a regime of governance, and key opportunities and challenges faced by the Protocol.

What is the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change?

Protocol as an International Regime

History of the Kyoto Protocol

Negotiation & Ratification of the Protocol

Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol

Targets, Flexibility & Enforcement

Kyoto Protocol: Opportunities & Challenges

Some Key Issues Surrounding the Protocol

Sources & Links for Further Information

List of Article Sources and Links for More on this Topic

What is the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change?

Protocol as an International Regime

International Regime on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Kyoto Protocol is an international system of governance, implemented under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for the purpose of regulating levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. The Protocol was first adopted in principle at a 1997 United Nations-sponsored meeting held in Kyoto, Japan (hence, the name “Kyoto Protocol”), and officially came into force in 2005, after being formally ratified by the required number of nations. As a system of governance, the Protocol is underwritten by national governments and is operated under the aegis of the United Nations. Participating nations have agreed to meet certain greenhouse gas emissions targets, as well as submit to external review and enforcement of these commitments by United Nations-based bodies.

See the Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol section of this article for more information on the operation of the Protocol as a system of governance.

Objectives of the Protocol: Stalling Global Warming

The objective of the Protocol is the stabilization of levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere in order to stall global warming. Global warming has become a global concern; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency, has predicted the earth’s average temperature will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius between the years 1990 and 2100, with potentially significant environmental and social consequences. Moreover, the IPCC has linked the global warming phenomenon to human actions, and specifically, to increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions by humans through such activities as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial and agricultural production. The Protocol is meant to serve as a framework by which participating countries work cooperatively to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.

For more on global warming and its potential consequences for Canada:

Mapleleafweb: Global Warming: Overview & Debates.

National Participation in the Kyoto Protocol

As of July 2006, 164 national governments, including Canada, had ratified the Kyoto Protocol (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: 10 July 2006). Ratification means that these nations have formally adopted the Protocol in their domestic political institutions. As such, these nations are formally committed to meeting their specific greenhouse gas emission targets and are open to external review and enforcement by United Nations-based bodies. There are, however, notable “non-ratifying” nations, in particular, the United States and Australia. While both nations have signed the Protocol, neither has passed the agreement in their respective national legislatures. This means that they are neither bound by Kyoto emission target commitments, nor subject to external review and/or enforcement of those commitments.

For more information on Protocol ratification by nation:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification (July 10 2006) (PDF)

History of the Kyoto Protocol

Negotiation & Ratification of the Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol involved a process of inter-governmental negotiations over a 13-year period. The following provides an historical overview of these negotiations, from the original meeting of nations in 1992, to the Protocol’s coming into force in 2005.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)

In the 1980s & early 1990s, the issue of global warming came to the forefront of international politics. In 1992, 154 countries, including Canada, signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The central element of the Convention was a commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere within a timeframe that would be sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change.

Nations agreed, moreover, that developed countries (countries with modern, fully developed economies) were to take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implicit in this understanding was the recognition that developed nations had been the primary greenhouse gas emitters over the last century, and that emission stabilization would be more problematic for non-developed or developing countries. (It was believed emission stabilization could come at the cost of economic development for non-developed and developing countries, something they could not easily afford.)

The 1992 Convention was only a general agreement in principle aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. The Convention did not provide any of the important specifics for action, such as precise emission reduction targets, a timetable by which nations were to meet their targets, or a penalty system to punish violators. These issues were to be addressed at subsequent “Conferences of the Parties” (or COP), which were regular meetings that include all of the Protocol’s participating members.

Berlin Mandate (1995) & Ministerial Declaration (1996)

Between the signings of the UN Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, two Conferences of the Parties were held (referred to as “COP-1” and “COP-2”). At the first Conference, held in Berlin in 1995, nations adopted the Berlin Mandate, a commitment by developed nations to set specific targets and timeframes for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to outline explicit policies and measures to meet these targets.

At the second Conference, held a year later in Geneva, Switzerland, nations adopted the Ministerial Declaration. This Declaration firmly stated that the science of climate change was compelling, and that legally binding commitments on greenhouse gas emissions were warranted. The Declaration was a response to the charge that the science of global climate change was uncertain, and that action was unwarranted.

Signing of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (1997)

At the third Conference of the Parties, held in Kyoto, Japan, member countries signed the Kyoto Protocol. The 1997 Protocol document was a comprehensive agreement that included precise greenhouse gas emission targets for each member country, the general framework of a greenhouse gas emissions-trading program, and a commitment to hold future Conferences of the Parties to round out important details of the new regime (such as establishing the penalties for failure to meet targets and the rules of the new emissions-trading program).

The 1997 agreement also provide a specific procedure for bringing the Protocol into full force and effect. The Protocol would have to be formally ratified by at least 55 industrialized nations accounting for a minimum of 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions produced in 1990. “Ratification” required nations to formally adopt the Protocol in their domestic political institutions. In Canada, for example, the Protocol received majority support by both the House of Commons and the Senate, and was formally ratified in 2002.

Negotiating Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (1997-2002)

Following the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, participating nations held a string of COP meetings in order to work out the Protocol’s details. In 1998, nations adopted the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, which established a list of 140 items that necessitated agreement before countries could ratify the Protocol. These items ranged from working out an enforcement regime to establishing the rules for an emissions-trading system.

Most of the high-profile issues that remained outstanding were finally resolved in the Bonn Agreements and the Marrakech Accords, signed at the sixth and seventh Conferences of the Parties (both held in 2001). Under these agreements, participating members committed to comprehensive schemes governing flexibility mechanisms under the Protocol, such as the operating rules for emissions trading, emissions “sinks,” the Clean Development Mechanism, and Joint Implementation Projects. Nations also agreed to a general framework for enforcing compliance with emissions targets.

See the Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol section of this article for more information on emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, the Joint Implementation Projects, and the Protocol’s compliance framework.

The Bonn and Marrakech agreements effectively completed the work began under the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, setting the stage for participating members to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to bring it into force.

US & Australian Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol (2001-2002)

In 1997, the Clinton Administration committed the United States to the Kyoto Protocol agreement, both as a signatory and as an active participant in its implementation negotiations. In 2001, following the election of George W. Bush in 2000, the Bush Administration announced a change in direction for the US; the US would no longer be formally ratifying the agreement. While accepting the general principles of global warming, and the need for international cooperation to reduce levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, the Bush Administration was highly critical of many of the Protocol’s components, in particular the exemption granted to China, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (after the United States). Under the Protocol, China is recognized as a “developing nation” and is, accordingly, exempt from emission reduction targets. The Bush Administration has also expressed concerns over uncertainty in the precise impacts of global warming, as well as the potential impacts of the Protocol on the US economy.

For more information on the Bush Administration’s position on the Protocol:

The White House: President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change (2001)

In 2002, Australia also announced it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even though it had signed the agreement in 1998. Publicly, Australian Prime Minister John Howard expressed concern over the potential effectiveness of the Protocol, considering the United States was no longer participating, and because the agreement did not impose any emission reduction targets on developing nations, in particular, China and India. The Howard government also expressed concern over the potential impact of the Protocol on the Australian economy.

Rejection by the US and Australia placed the entire Kyoto climate control process in doubt. The Protocol would only come into force with ratification by at least 55 members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control, representing a minimum of 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. Given that the US alone produced approximately 36 percent of the total 1990 greenhouse gas emissions, its non-participation would make it extremely difficult to meet this ratification threshold. While Australia did not represent nearly the same level of emissions as the US, its non-participation, nevertheless, made reaching the ratification threshold that much more difficult.

Kyoto Protocol Comes into Effect (2005)

By January 2004, several countries had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, including Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and most European signatories. Collectively, these ratifying countries represented approximately 44 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions produced in 1990 – only 11 percent shy of the 55 percent target cited in the Protocol’s terms. The deciding factor in the eventual implementation of the Protocol was Russia, which represented 17 percent of total 1990 emissions.

Russia had been unclear about whether it would ratify the Protocol, However, in November 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his government would indeed pass the agreement, ensuring the Protocol would come into effect in 2005. Russian support was due, in large part, to its desire to become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO); Russia agreed to ratify the Protocol in exchange for European support for Russia’s WTO entry. This development was pivotal; without Russia’s support, the Protocol would not have met the 55 percent threshold and would have failed accordingly.

On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol formally came into effect, committing key industrialized countries, including Canada, to specific targets for reducing or limiting their greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012.

Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol

Targets, Flexibility & Enforement

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets

The central element of the Kyoto Protocol is the agreement by participating nations to meet specific greenhouse gas emission targets. The Protocol covers the emission of six primary greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perflurocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

It is important to note that nations do not have the same emission reduction targets under the Protocol. Instead, different groups of nations have different targets. Canada’s target, for example, is to bring greenhouse gas emissions to six percent lower than what its emissions were in the year 1990. Most European countries, by contrast, are obliged to reduce their emissions to eight percent below their 1990 levels.

The Protocol requires each participating nation to achieve its particular emissions targets by the period 2008-2012, with evidence of demonstrable progress by 2005. Countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, such as many Eastern European nations, were accorded some flexibility under the Protocol in meeting their emission target deadlines. (The understanding was that these nations should not sacrifice necessary economic development in order to meet their Kyoto obligations.)

For more information on the precise targets of each participating country:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: Emission Targets by Nation

‘Developed’ & ‘Developing’ Nations Under the Protocol

Under the Protocol, “ratifying nations” (those that formally adopted the Protocol in their domestic political institutions) are divided into basic two categories: developed nations and developing nations. This distinction is based on economics, with “developed nations” (referred to under the Protocol as “Annex 1” countries) representing economies that are well developed, such as Canada, Japan, Russia, and most European nations. “Developing nations” (referred to as “Non-annex 1” countries), by contrast, represent economies considered to be underdeveloped or in the process of developing, such as China, India, and the nations of Africa and South America.

Only Annex 1 nations have binding greenhouse gas emission targets, while Non-Annex 1 countries are currently exempt. This means that major greenhouse gas emitters, such as China and India, are not obliged to limit their emissions and may, in fact, increase their production of greenhouse gases without penalty. Non-annex 1 countries, however, do have an important role to play in the Protocol’s flexibility mechanisms (see below); developed nations (Annex 1 countries) receive emission credits for funding greenhouse gas reduction projects in developing nations (Non-annex 1 countries). Moreover, special funds, such as the Least Developed Countries Fund, have been committed under the Protocol to aid developing countries in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and the potential impact of global warming.

The Protocol’s distinction between developed and developing nations stems from an early recognition that developed nations had been the leading contributors to increasing greenhouse gas levels over the last century and, as such, should take the lead in stabilizing the process of global warming. As noted earlier, negotiating parties further agreed that developing nations should not be required to sacrifice economic development in order to reduce or stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions – accounting for their exemption from emission targets. There is, however, the possibility that some developing nations, particularly China and India, may take on more formal obligations under the Protocol in the future.

Flexibility Mechanisms Under the Protocol

Another important element of the Kyoto Protocol is its flexibility mechanisms. These enable participating nations to achieve their emission targets by means other than simply reducing their own national emissions of greenhouse gases – hence, the term “flexibility mechanisms.” The Protocol provides for three such mechanisms:

Clean Development: This mechanism allows developed (or Annex 1) nations to receive emission credits towards their own emission targets by participating in certain projects in developing (or Non-annex 1) countries. These Clean Development projects must be approved by members of the Protocol and must contribute to sustainable development and greenhouse gas emission reductions in the host developing country.

Joint Implementation: This mechanism allows Annex 1 nations to receive emission credits towards their own emission targets by participating in certain projects with other Annex 1 nations. These Joint Implementation projects must be approved by all nations participating in the project, and must either reduce greenhouse gas emissions or contribute to enhanced greenhouse gas removal through emission sinks (i.e. reforestation).

Emissions Trading: This mechanism allows Annex 1 nations to purchase emission ‘credits’ from other Annex 1 countries. Some countries will be below the emission targets assigned to them under the Protocol and, as such, will have spare emission credits. Under the emissions trading system, other nations may purchase these spare credits and use them towards their own emission targets.

These mechanisms are meant to provide individual countries some flexibility in meeting their particular emission targets, while still ensuring an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Development Mechanism, for example, the Annex 1 nation receives emission credits for reducing greenhouse gas emission in a developing nation. Hence, while emissions in the Annex 1 nation have in actuality remained the same, overall global emissions have been reduced.

For more information on the Protocols flexibility mechanisms:

Protocol Compliance Mechanisms and Bodies

In addition to these flexibility mechanisms, the Protocol also provides for a compliance regime consisting of a Compliance Committee that is made up of two branches: a Facilitation Branch and an Enforcement Branch. The mandate of the Facilitation Branch is to provide advice to, and assist, participating nations in meeting their Protocol commitments. The Enforcement Branch, by contrast, has the power to assess whether or not nations have met their emission commitments, and to determine possible consequences for non-compliance. Under the Protocol, nations that fail to meet their emission targets are required to make up the shortfall, plus an additional 30 percent goal, over the next emissions target period. Moreover, the Enforcement Branch may also assess a financial penalty to violating nations by suspending their eligibility to sell emission credits under the Protocol’s emission trading system.

For more information on the Protocol’s compliance regime:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: Compliance

Kyoto Protocol: Opportunities & Challenges

Some Key Issues Surrounding the Protocol

Since its signing in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol has been the centre of controversy, with some applauding its implementation and environmental benefits, and others expressing concerns over its effectiveness and potential economic consequences. The following section briefly highlights some of the key issues surrounding the Protocol.

Science of Global Warming & the Protocol

One of the more fundamental issues centres on the science of global warming itself. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency, has predicted that the earth’s average temperature will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius between the years 1990 and 2100, with potentially significant environmental and social consequences. There has been, however, some limited controversy over these IPCC projections, especially in regards to the precise environmental and social impact of global warming. This has, in turn, led some to question the necessity of the Kyoto Protocol, especially considering its potential impacts on the sovereignty and economic development of nations (see below).

For more information on the science of global warming:

Mapleleafweb: Global Warming: Overview & Debates

Limited Participation in the Protocol

Another common criticism of the Protocol is the non-participation by the United States and developing nations, in particular, China and India. These nations represent significant portions of the earth’s emissions of greenhouse gases; as such, this has led some to argue that, ultimately, the Protocol will have only a very limited impact on the process of global warming.

Proponents of the Protocol, however, may point to its limited participation as a partial success. Even without the United States and developing countries, the Protocol will result in a slower rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions – in other words, a limited Protocol is better than no Protocol at all. A further argument often cited is that the Protocol may be an important first step to a truly global emissions reduction regime. For example, by reducing their own emissions first, developed nations might gain the legitimacy required to convince developing nations to also reduce their emissions.

Economic Impacts of the Protocol

Another key issue surrounding the Protocol: its potential economic impact on participating nations. Critics of the Protocol, for example, have emphasized potential negative economic impacts for developed nations as they work towards meeting their emission targets. They suggest that many economic sectors may be disrupted as companies are forced to introduce new technologies and procedures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases, so the argument goes, the cost of introducing these technologies and techniques may be such that some companies will simply close.

Moreover, critics argue that governments and taxpayers will have to cover the cost of developing and enforcing stricter emission regulations, and providing aid and assistance to the private sector. Critics also contend that consumers in developed nations may experience a higher cost of living, particularly if the price of important fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) is raised to induce conservation and switching to non- greenhouse gas emitting energy sources. Individuals may also have to pay higher prices for manufactured goods, as companies pass on costs associated with emission reduction to the consumer.

It is important to note, however, that the Protocol itself does provide some means for dealing with possible short-term economic impacts, notably its flexibility mechanisms. With the Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation, and Clean Development mechanisms, nations can still meet their emission-reduction targets without having to undergo massive economic changes overnight. In Canada’s case, for example, there is concern the Protocol could cause serious disruptions to the oil sector; in this context, however, Canada can take its time in reforming the sector while continuing to meet its reduction targets by buying emission credits from other countries.

Supporters of the Protocol also cite its potential economic benefits. These include those stemming from the Protocol’s objective of stalling global warming, particularly in regions that may be impacted by rising sea levels and drastic changes in the weather and precipitation. There will also be significant opportunities for companies and economies that are able to take advantage of this new economic environment. Nations that have extra room in their emission targets ‘portfolios,’ for example, will benefit financially from being able to sell emissions credits to other nations. Developing nations may also benefit, as they collaborate with developed nations under the Clean Development Mechanism. Finally, businesses that are able to offer products and services for reducing greenhouse gas emissions will undoubtedly prosper.

Sources & Links for Further Information

List of Article Sources and Links for More on this Topic

Sources Used for this Article

Electronic Sources

“Essential Background.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php>
“Clean Development Mechanism.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/cdm/items/2718.php>
“Joint Implementation.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/ji/items/1674.php>
“Emissions Trading.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php>
“Compliance.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/compliance/items/2875.php>
“Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 10 July. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf>
“Countries Included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol and Their Emissions Targets.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php>
“President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change.” The White House. 2001 June. 2006 12 October. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html>
“Australia Rejects Kyoto Pact.” BBC News. 2002 5 June. 2006 12 October. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2026446.stm>
Makarenko. J. “ Global Warming: Overview & Debates.” Mapleleafweb. 2006 12 October.

Links for Further Information

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.