1

The South-South cooperation for the environment and its implications

for Brazilian foreign policy∗

Bernardo Hoffman Versieux∗∗

Abstract

The South-South cooperation is a modality of international cooperation which has

grown in several areas of international politics, including the environment. The field of

the environment, in turn, has gained over the past decades increasingly international

emphasis, from the studies that link the worsening of environmental problems and the

necessity of political solutions that demand large coordination between actors. This

working paper, therefore, seeks to study the general framework of South-South

cooperation and the Brazilian position in detail, in order to analyze the implications

that Brazilian South-South environmental cooperation has to a foreign policy analysis.

Key-words: International Environment Cooperation; South-South Cooperation for

Environment; Brazilian foreign policy.

Introduction

This paper is a particular continuation of the proposal, titled "South-South

Cooperation for Environment", presented at the VII Congress of the Portuguese

Political Science Association in partnership with Paula Haddad. The first part of the

work is devoted to a theoretical discussion of international cooperation and South-

South cooperation. This paper presents a concept of cooperation covering various

perspectives of International Relations in order to present an analytical framework

that encompasses the set of factors that, in practice, influence and constrain

∗The paper is subproduct of the “A Cooperação Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e perspectivas” research, funded by the FAPEMIG (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais), by which the autor is grateful. ∗∗Master in International Relations from the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais. Researcher at Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais

2

international cooperation and South-South cooperation. The second part dedicates

efforts in the reconstruction of the historical process that generated international

environmental policy, demonstrating the evolution of themes and concepts over time.

In this sector also examines the evolution of South-South cooperation for the

environment is also examined in this sector, highlighting the performance of emerging

countries and its relation to international environmental order. The third part turns to

Brazil, detailing both international and South-South cooperation. It is also expected to

analyze the relationship between these processes of cooperation and Brazilian foreign

policy.

Before, a consideration of the concept of environment is necessary. The term

environment is commonly defined as the set of biological, physical and chemical

conditions in which living things grow and the cultural, economic and social

circumstances in which individuals live. In other words, all factors, natural or artificial,

linked to life on Earth are part of the environment. The scope of the concept imposes a

difficulty for scholars on the subject, due to the difficulty of delimiting the object of

study.

The United Nations Environment Programme's site does not contribute

decisively to the definition of the environment, in which 51 are featured topics of

interest covering issues as diverse as gender, ecosystems, education, childhood, green

economy, natural disasters , ozone layer, conflicts, sport, tourism, energy, climate

change, employment, among others. The 272 international environmental agreements

cataloged by the body are divided into 38 main themes (UNEP, 2005), and a manual

developed by the program in association with the non-governmental organization

(NGO) International Union for Conservation of Nature considers 21 priority themes for

international environmental law (KURULULASURIYA & ROBINSON, 2006).

Ronald Mitchell (2014) developed the largest public database on the

environment1. Since 2002 the author has been compiling information on international

environmental agreements, which are resulted from bilateral, multilateral, with blocks,

with non-state organizations and with national sub-units negotiations, with ample

emphasis on bilateral and multilateral agreements. The database brings together

thousands of detailed agreements and a classification system was developed in which 1http://iea.uoregon.edu/page.php?file=home.htm&query=static

3

all environmental agreements are enclosed in eight major areas: Nature, Species,

Pollution, Habitat, Oceans, Freshwater Resources, Energy, and Weapons and

Environment (Table 1, p.3). These areas would be the major thematic umbrella of

environmental agreements and, through a series of subdivisions, each international

agreement could be properly referenced within this system2.

Frame coding of environment areas

Nature Agreements on the conservation, preservation and sustainable

management of resources and natural systems.

Species Agreements on the protection and control of human interactions with

plants and animals, including fisheries, livestock and agriculture.

Pollution Agreements on any pollution: atmospheric, terrestrial, oceanic or of

freshwater resources;

Agreements on Climate change.

Habitat Agreements on the conservation of fragile terrestrial ecosystems and

protected areas;

Agreements on drought and desertification.

Oceans Agreements on the conservation of fragile marine ecosystems and

protected areas.

Freshwaters

Resources

Agreements on conservation, preservation, navigation and use of

lakes and rivers.

Energy Agreements on any type of energy production;

Agreements on the prevention of accidents.

Weapons e

Environment

Agreements on the control of chemical, biological and nuclear

weapons;

Agreements on the prevention of accidents.

Source: Adapted from Mitchell (2014)

It is understood that the phenomena involved with the environment are not

limited to these eight areas and solutions to environmental problems will certainly

2For further details on the classification into eight areas and their subdivisions, access

http://iea.uoregon.edu/page.php?query=static&file=definitions.htm

4

cross other areas, such as economics, security, socio-cultural aspects. However we

assume the rating of Mitchell (2014) as appropriate for the study of the environment.

The cutout prevents irrelevant or indirect influence agreements, in terms of

international and South-South cooperation, are considered and may skew the analysis

of the environment. Thus, citing environment in this work, the term shall refer to the

eight large-areas shown in the table.

International Cooperarion and South-South Cooperation - Concepts

The existence of cooperation between different actors in the international

system is not the absence of conflict between them. The conflict is a prerequisite for

cooperation, since if there was no clash of interests, cooperation would not be

necessary. One should not, however, be naive about the behavior of actors in the

context of negotiations on a theme and the formation of international regimes and

organizations. The actors will act primarily to maximize their gains in all arenas and, in

which case, their movements will be guided largely by political bargaining (KEOHANE

1982, 1984 and 1988). Bargaining power is, then, defined primarily by the power

resources of the actors, especially military and economic capabilities. Beyond the

resources of power, other characteristics influence the bargaining power of an actor,

as the distribution of costs and benefits, timeline horizon, principles and precedents,

the performance of these same actors in multiple arenas simultaneously and

reputation (SCHELLING 1960). It is added to these factors issues of the prestige

(GILPIN, 1981) and also of perception, and misperception, of actors in relation to the

behavior of the others (JERVIS, 1968 and 1982).

The incentives arising from international society structure and the individual

action of each actor indicate a framework in which cooperation is a difficult result to

be achieved. There is a tendency to desertion and suboptimal results in actors’

interactions, setting a framework called the literature as the prisoner's dilemma. The

dilemmas of collective action are outweighed by rationality, in that the adoption of

common rules that restrict the actions of the actors proves to be more advantageous

than the course of non-cooperative action (MARTIN, 1992). In this context, the actors

commit to a cooperative course of action in a view of greater gains, once formed

5

patterns of cooperation, they become as principles and precedents that influence on

subsequent political bargaining. Failure to comply with such rules previously agreed is

seen as a drop in commitment and may have negative effects on reputation, on

perception of others about the first and may incur higher costs in future cooperation,

given that other players will likely require higher rewards for accepting to cooperate.

It is pointed out, however, that the actors are endowed with bounded

rationality; it means that they are unable to perform all calculations of cost-benefit

involved in each context. This statement implies that agents act in order to achieve

certain levels of satisfaction, levels of gains. The logic of bounded rationality also opens

the prospect for miscalculations, as well as that actors’ interests are not only utilitarists

(KEOHANE, 1984). Moreover, rationality is also influenced by socially constructed

factors such as interests, preferences, culture and identities of actors (WENDT, 1999);

well as the norms, rules and values in national and international levels (KRATOCHWIL

1989; BULL, 2002). This substantive rationality puts that international cooperation is

influenced and influences the constitution of these social constructs (WENDT, 1999)

and is also motivated by different elements of individual gains as welfare, justice and

solidarity (BULL, 2002). Accordingly, the calculation of the actors also turns not only to

individual gains, but the logic of reciprocity with respect to standards and rules in

international society (KEOHANE, 1986; KRATOCHWIL, 1989). The convergence or

divergence of these elements in the international society would be determining factors

of international cooperation, being facilitators or barriers to political bargains.

The formation of international institutions and regimes would, therefore, be a

strategic behavior, those entities of international society strengthen and promote

cooperation, since they facilitate the calculations of costs and benefits, decrease

transaction costs, shape the expectations and promote trust between actors

(KEOHANE, 1989). Institutions also have a direct impact on domestic policies,

modifying the way states consider certain theme. The degree of influence of

international institutions, in order to stimulate the convergence of actions of the

actors, becomes part of the success or failure of international cooperation (MARTIN &

SIMMONS, 1998). The establishment of the rules of interaction becomes more

important than the actual resolution of the current theme, these are rules that

establish the set of obligations and responsibilities and distribute gains and losses.

6

Moreover, the number of actors involved and the heterogeneity of these in terms of

resources, preferences, information or beliefs (KEOHANE & OSTROM, 1995); sharing of

norms, rules and values among stakeholders (BULL, 2002; KRATOCHWIL, 1989;

WENDT, 1999); the stage of development of diplomacy and international law (BULL,

2002); and the historical process of learning and the existence of epistemic

communities (HAAS, 1989) have direct impact on the formation and development of

the institutions and international regimes.

Large multilateral negotiations favor the emergence of international regimes

(RUGGIE, 1993). International regimes are defined as agreements on laws, regulations,

rules, principles and procedures that prescribe conducts and guide the expectations of

actors (KRASNER, 1982 and 1983; KRATOCHWILL, 1989). The international regimes can

be considered as informal structures of international society, as they institutionalize

more or less depending on the convergence of interests of States on the subject under

negotiation (KEOHANE, 1982). The lack of formal institutionalization does not make

regimes, in any aspect, inexpressive, as there are those regimes that do not even

require institutionalization for the fulfillment of their objectives. The regimes are,

therefore, dynamic and flexible structures that also adapt better to the bargains than

the international law and international organizations in the effort to shape, monitor

and sustain certain policy outcomes (ZARTMAN, 2003), being considered true

international governance systems (STOKKE, 1997).

Studies on international environmental cooperation are already numerous and

has been gaining more and more contributions, in that the environmental theme itself

gains ground in domestic and international policy agendas. A specific discussion of

environmental cooperation is highlighted from the growing impact of human activities

on the environment and the level of cooperation and policy coordination required by

for effective control of environmental problems:

“Since 1900, the world’s population has multiplied more than three times. Its

economy has grown twentyfold. The consumption of fossil fuels has grown

by a factor of 30, and industrial production by a factor of 50. Most of that

growth, about four-fifths of it, occurred since 1950. Much of it is

unsustainable.” (MACNEIL et all APUD HURREL & KINGSBURY, 1992, p.2) “This minimalist picture of circumscribed international co-operation has of

course been recast in the twentieth century, through the extension of

economic interdependence, the growth of international institutions, and the

emergence in international law of customary and treaty norms establishing

7

rights and duties for individuals, Yet despite the changes that have occurred,

the structure of both the international political and legal systems continues

to rest heavily upon the independence and autonomy of separate sovereign

states and the pluralism which this entails. Collective environmental

management poses a severe, and therefore politically sensitive, challenge

because it involves the creation of rule and institutions that embody notions

of shared responsibilities and shared duties, that impinge very heavily on the

domestic structures and organization of states, that invest individuals and

groups within states with rights and duties, and that seek to embody some

notion of common good for the planet as a whole” (HURREL & KINGSBURY, 1992, p.6)

In fact, it is perceived the rise of the common good notion for environmental issues.

From the logic of the tragedy of the commons, there is the definition that collective

goods are those that access is free for everyone and their consumption is not exclusive

or exclusionary. On environmental issues, goods can not be considered public

(inexhaustible) but goods in common (common-pool resources), fleeing from national

jurisdictions and requiring the formation of institutions and regimes for international

regulation of its appropriation, whether in regional (international goods) or in general

(global commons) levels (LE PAY, 2000; KEOHANE & OSTROM, 1995; BUCK, 1998). This

notion of the common good; understanding that natural resources are finite elements

and in some cases, scarce; and that human action has caused the depletion and

degradation of these natural resources have led to the securitization of the

environmental agenda. Disputes over resources are already grounds for regional

conflict, particularly over access to water resources (GLEICK, 1993; HAFTENDORN,

2000), and have potential for creating significant conflicts on a global scale, with direct

impact on domestic policies and the quality of life of individuals (BUZAN et all, 1998;

HOMER-DIXON, 1991 and 1994). This notion of the common good; the understanding

that natural resources are finite elements and in some cases, scarce; and that human

action has caused the depletion and degradation of natural resources have led to the

securitization of the environmental agenda. Disputes over resources are already

grounds for regional conflict, particularly over access to freshwater resources (GLEICK,

1993; HAFTENDORN, 2000), and have potential for creating significant conflicts on a

global scale, with direct impact on domestic policies and the quality of life of

individuals (BUZAN et all, 1998; HOMER-DIXON, 1991 and 1994).

The diversity of literature devoted to the environment confirms the importance

of a comprehensive approach, which aggregates various conceptions of bargaining and

8

international cooperation. Several works dedicated efforts to understand the

successes and failures of institutional designs from different areas of the environment,

especially in what concerns the effective compliance, the mechanisms for enforcement

and the prevention of free-ride behavior (AUSUBEL & VICTOR, 1992; BARRETT, 1994;

FINUS, 2002 and 2004; TULKENS, 1998. There are studies that specifically analyze the

importance of the negotiation process for the result of environmental agreements

(BARRETT, 1998; SUSSKIND & OZAWA, 1992), while others point to a fragmentation of

international environmental law and the respective impact of these disruptions in

regimes formation and in heterogeneity of the results achieved (ASSELT, 2012). Some

authors focus especially on international environmental regimes (BREITMEIER &

UNDERDAL, 2011) and others to the relationship between international organizations

and environmental regimes (BREITMEIER, 1997; PETERSON, 1997). There are still

experts who strive to analyze the importance of non-state actors to the formation of

institutions and regimes and the formation of agenda for the environment (PORTER et

all, 2000), particularly non-governmental actors of civil society (RAUSTIALA, 1997), but

also large corporations and the relationship between international trade and the

environment (JAYADEVAPPA & CHHATRE, 2000). There are also those who study the

impact of the diffusion of technical and scientific knowledge and of epistemic

communities to the result of international environmental cooperation (COSTA &

GAYARD 2012). Finally, there are works that consider the North-South division in their

analyzes. This relationship between hemispheres would still be unbalanced to the

North, but the South, increasingly active since 1972, have contributed directly to the

rise of concepts such as: sustainable development; common but differentiated

responsibilities; equal participation in decision-making; and equitable distribution of

genetic resources uses (BEYERLIN, 2006). This more general discussion about the

North-South relationships tangentially brings the discussion of South-South

cooperation.

The South-South cooperation can not be understood divorced from the Non-

Aligned Movement3 originated in 1955. With a Marxist perspective of core-periphery,

the movement was a challenge of Third World countries against the division of

international politics by the dictates of the Cold War. Composed mainly by Asia and 3 http://www.nam.gov.za/background/index.html

9

Asia countries of recent decolonization, but also with members of Latin America, the

Non-Aligned Movement aimed to make resistance to superpowers pressures,

especially to the maintenance of countries’ independence and to fight against

colonialism and imperialism. Over the decades, beyond these political objectives, the

Non-Aligned Moviment also sought to develop economic interests. With the end of the

Cold War, the main goal of the movement has become a means of coordination of the

peripheral countries to be able to influence the outcome of international economics

bargains (ROSSEEL, 2009).

In terms of ability to influence the bargaining outcomes, the Non-Aligned

Movement had little impact, but highlights the importance of it to the elevation of

certain themes and political views within the international society. In practice, the

actions of South-South cooperation during the Cold War remained essentially within

the general framework of international development cooperation, which can be

understood as:

"Set of performances of international character held by public and private

actors, among countries of different income levels to promote economic and

social progress of the Developing Countries (PVD), and achieve a more fair

and balanced progress in the world, with a more secure and peaceful world

building goal. " (GALÁN & SANAHUJA APUD AYLLÓN, 2006, p.7)

The development cooperation is eminently public and held by central

governments, but also can be decentralized (through national subunits) and be done

with the participation of other actors, such as non-governmental organizations and

corporations. The process of cooperation between the parties can be done bilaterally

or multilaterally (with more countries, or mainly international organizations,

participacion). Furthermore, the development cooperation may or may not have a

financial nature, with or without repayable funds, and with or without structure of

conditionalities (AYLLÓN, 2006 and 2012). The sectors involved in development

cooperation include: economic cooperation (investment in particular productive

sector); trade preferences (tariff reductions on trade); financial aid (facilitated access

to investment capital, as well as forgiveness of foreign debt); humanitarian assistance

(donation of food and medicine, mitigating the adverse effects of natural disasters and

armed conflicts, and measures for the protection of Human Rights); technical

assistance (improvement of technical capabilities already developed by countries); and

10

cooperation in science and technology (transfer of knowledge and technology for

development of basic areas such as education, health and sanitation) (AYLLÓN, 2006).

The development cooperation, therefore, involves a number of factors relating to the

actors, to the interaction characteristics and to the sectors covered which makes

difficult to distinguish a standard for this type of international cooperation.

Historically, development cooperation has established a division between

donors of the 1st world and 2nd world countries and receiving international aid

countries of the 3rd world. The distinction between North-South cooperation and

South-South cooperation only happen after the collapse of the Soviet Union, making

the North-South cooperation the relation of developed countries (former 1st world)

with developing countries (former 2nd and 3rd worlds), being the cooperation

between developing countries obviously called South-South cooperation. The North-

South cooperation, always unbalanced to the North, has been dominated by the

interests of the donor countries, mainly through the guidelines of development aid

implemented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development4

(OECD). Between 1955 and 1991, the South criticism vocalized by the of the Non-

Aligned Movement gradually began to be present in the relationship between the

North and the South, in search of greater participation of the South in decision-making,

lower level of conditionalities required by the North and expansion of socioeconomic

development conceptions. (AYLLÓN, 2011; MILANI, 2012). The North-South

development cooperation, however, extends its agenda only at the end of the Cold

War, when the economic perspective opens to the needs of localities, more concerned

with the adoption of effective mechanisms to combat poverty in developing countries.

It is perceived the rise of the themes, forms of funding and the types of actors involved

in development cooperation (AYLLÓN, 2011). In recent decades, developing countries

have participated actively in the negotiations on development cooperation,

determining relevant changes in conceptions of this kind of international cooperation

(MILANI, 2012), which can be seen in the final reports of the High Level Forums on Aid

Effectiveness: Rome5 in 2003, Paris6 in 2005, Accra7 in 2008 and Busan8 in 2011.

4http://www.oecd.org/

5http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/31451637.pdf

6http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/38604403.pdf

7http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/41202060.pdf

11

The South-South cooperation aimed to evolve the failures from the North-

South development cooperation model. At this juncture, the South-South cooperation

is also marked by solidarity among actors, genuinely concerned with the effective

promotion of the development and with changing local realities. Two sets of countries

stand out in South-South cooperation as donors: the emerging countries and the Arab

hydrocarbons-producing countries (AYLLÓN, 2011; ZIEMMERMANN & SMITH, 2011).

Emerging countries are those proportionally closer in level of development to the

developed countries than other developing countries. It is noticed that the

performance of these countries, in addition to interests in a fair and solidarity

cooperation, can not be dissociated from the foreign policy strategies of international

insertion (AYLLÓN, 2012), which aim to exercise "soft power" on the developing

countries (AYLLÓN, 2011) and improve emerging countries position in bargaining with

developed countries (MILANI, 2012).

Since the signing of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action9 in 1978, which proposed

the redefinition of development cooperation under the guidelines of the peripheral

countries, it is found a constant evolution of development cooperation led by

emerging countries. In our times, it becomes clear that emerging countries have the

ability to influence the agenda and outcome of bargains around the promotion of

development (AYLLÓN, 2011) and also that South-South cooperation left the restricted

scope of development cooperation (MILANI, 2012). In recent decades, the block

formation in multilateral negotiations has been an important resource for emerging

and other southern countries, improving the bargaining power against developed

countries (MILANI, 2012; ZIEMMERMANN & SMITH, 2011). It should be clearly

perceived that South-South cooperation, though primarily geared to the achievement

of higher levels of socioeconomic development, can not be divorced from other issues

of international policy, as formally recognized by the Marrakesh Declaration10 in 2003

and by the Committee High Level Group on South-South Cooperation11. The South-

8http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf

9http://ssc.undp.org/content/dam/ssc/documents/Key%20Policy%20Documents/BAPA.pdf 10

http://www.g77.org/marrakech/Marrakech-Declaration.htm 11

http://southsouthconference.org/EXTERNAL/SSCDAM/documents/HLC%20Decisions/HLC%2015th%20Decision%202007.pdf

12

South cooperation is, therefore, an important means of international action,

particularly for the emerging countries.

From this theoretical delimitation of international cooperation and

cooperaçãosul-south, attentions turn to the study of specific modalities of

international environmental cooperation. First, it is observed the historical process and

the essential features of the international environmental order and, in sequence; it is

analyzed the South-South cooperation for the environment.

International Environmental Order and South-South Environmental Cooperation

The environmental issues as a matter of international politics are a reality of

the twentieth century. It can be identified four phases of international environmental

order: pre-1945; 1945-1971; 1972-1991; and the post-1992. The Ronald Mitchell

(2014) database shows that international treaties until the nineteenth century, strictly

on the European continent, were basically about rivers navigation and pollution and

the regulation of hunting and fishing. The rise of international environmental concern

would only happen after World War I, especially by the perception of adverse

outcomes, on individuals and environment, of the use of chemical weapons. This

period had little relevance regarding the international environmental law production,

but was essential to the incipient spread of environmental preservation concept

(RIBEIRO, 2005). Two multilateral agreements are noteworthy in this period due to the

relevance that these would have in subsequent decades: the Convention on

International Hydrographic Bureau12 (1921) and the Protocol for the Prohibition of the

Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of

Warfare13 (1925) (MICHTELL, 2014).

The second phase is time framed by the interregnum between the creation of

the United Nations (UN) in 1945 and the creation of the United Nations Environment

Programme14 (UNEP) in 1972. During this period, the main body to address

environment issues was the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

12

http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/ISPWG/Documents/R11_iho_convention.pdf 13

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/pdf/Status_Protocol.pdf 14

www.unep.org/

13

Organization15 (UNESCO). With the responsibility to provide the international society

with scientific information, UNESCO worked together with international NGOs,

especially the International Union for Conservation of Nature16 (IUCN), established in

1948, and World Wildlife Foundation17 (WWF), established in 1960, for the production

of the first relevant understandings on environmental issues. UNESCO and these NGOs

represented the conservationist approach of the already divided environmental

movement, proposing the conservative use of natural resources, in harmony with their

reproduction and reposition capabilities (RIBEIRO, 2005). The second approach

operating in international environmentalism was the preservationism, which proposed

the untouchability of natural systems. Under this view, human actions should totally

exempt the environment from any impact or degradation. Although not the dominant

approach of environmentalism, the preservationist argument was quite convincing in

cases of threat of extinction, generating localized changes in natural resources

appropriation and encouraging the creation of parks and nature reserves in States

domestic level (RIBEIRO, 2005). After 1972, with the Convention Concerning the

Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the creation of UNEP,

UNESCO would become the leading proponent of preservationism, encouraging the

preservation of different ecosystems, considered World heritage.

Major international environmental conferences occurred in this second phase,

there is a wide diversification of the environmental agenda, forming the basis of the

discussions that would take place in Stockholm: the Convention for the Regulation of

Whaling18 (1946); the Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of

Resources19 (1949); the International Plant Protection Convention20 (1951); the

Convention on the Continental Shelf21 (1958); the Convention on the Territorial Sea

and the Contiguous Zone22 (1958); the Convention on the High Seas23 (1958); the

15

www.unesco.org.br/ 16

www.iucn.org/ 17

www.wwf.org.br/ 18

http://iwc.int/private/downloads/1r2jdhu5xtuswws0ocw04wgcw/convention.pdf 19

https://ia700202.us.archive.org/17/items/proceedingsofthe029855mbp/proceedingsofthe029855mbp.pdf 20

http://www.opbw.org/int_inst/env_docs/1951IPPC-TEXT.pdf 21

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640610%2002-10%20AM/Ch_XXI_01_2_3_4_5p.pdf 22

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf 23

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/8_1_1958_high_seas.pdf

14

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas24

(1958); The Antarctic Treaty25 (1959); the Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear

Damage26 (1963); the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in

Outer Space and under Water27 (1963); Convention on the International Hydrographic

Organization28 (1967); the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty29 (1968) ;the Biosphere

Conference30 (1968); the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution

Damage31 (1969); the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High

Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties32 (1969); the International Convention on the

Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage33

(1971); Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl

Habitat34 (1971) (MITCHELL, 2014; RIBEIRO, 2005).

The Stockholm Conference35 (1972) is the milestone that opens the third phase

with the establishment of UNEP, from when is it possible to affirm the final occurrence

of international environmental order. Arasing from the growing concern of States on

environmental issues, under from international organizations and NGOs alert, the

emergence of UNEP irrevocably raised the environmental agenda in international level.

The conference, called the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,

was marked by discussion of various environmental issues hitherto developed,

especially those related to human action: air pollution, population control, the trade

off between economic growth and natural resources use; and views on the socio-

economic development. Environmental discussions became, therefore, deeper and

more politically sensitive as it involves other bargains issues, making interests intricate

and requiring a high degree of actors’ coordination (RIBEIRO, 2005). UNEP would be

responsible for collecting and disseminating information, forming an international

24

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/8_1_1958_fishing.pdf 25

http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf 26

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1996/inf500.shtml 27

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/Partial_Ban_Treaty.pdf 28

http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/ISPWG/Documents/R11_iho_convention.pdf 29

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml 30

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000172/017269eb.pdf 31

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/civilpol1969.html 32

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20970/volume-970-I-14049-English.pdf 33

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/oilpolfund1971.html 34

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-texts-convention-on-20708/main/ramsar/1-31-38%5E20708_4000_0__ 35

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.Print.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503

15

network of environmental issues, with the primary intention to promote

environmental cooperation and to make conjectures about the environmental

dilemmas to be solved by the international society (RIBEIRO, 2005).

This period is marked by a significant growth of non-state agencies aimed at

environmental preservation and conservation, most without international

expressiveness, but with relevant local or regional results. Greenpeace36, created in

1971, became in a few years an important international actor in environmental

preservation from the protests against nuclear testing and the whales preservation

campaign. This third phase is also marked by the enhancing creation of parks and

nature reserves around the worldand also by the evolution of projects to protect

endangered species (RIBEIRO, 2005). At this stage was also published the UN report

Our Common Future37 (1987), first international document to bring together all the

themes of the environment and to systematize the environmental problems to be

collectively solved by the international society, bringing the common good and

sustainable development conceptions for environmental agendas.

Relating to major multilateral agreements, there are a large number of relevant

agreements that reinforce the already established jurisprudence through amendments

and protocols, forming the first environmental regimes, as well as inaugurate other

issues, such as ozone layer agreements. Among these international conventions, it is

highlighted: the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972); the

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage38

(1972); the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and

Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their

Destruction39 (1972); the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by

Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter40 (1972); the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora41 (1973); the International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships42 (1973); the Convention on the

36 www.greenpeace.org.br/. 37

http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf 38

http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ 39

http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/aptbtwc.pdf 40

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_lc.pdf 41

http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/disc/E-Text.pdf 42

https://www.ccaimo.mar.mil.br/sites/default/files/MARPOL_ConvProt-p_0.pdf

16

Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification

Techniques43 (1977); the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild

Animals44 (1979); the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material45

(1980); the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea46 (1982);

the International Tropical Timber Agreement47 (1983); the Convention for the

Protection of the Ozone Layer48 (1985); the Convention on Early Notification of

a Nuclear Accident49 (1986); the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear

Accident or Radiological Emergency50 (1986); the Montreal Protocol on Substances

that Deplete the Ozone Layer51 (1987); the Basel Convention on the Control of

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal52 (1989); the

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation53

(1990); the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary

Context54 (1991); the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty55

(1991) (MITCHELL, 2014; RIBEIRO, 2005).

In the post-Cold War context, occurred the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development56 (UNCED) in 1992, also known as Rio-92 or ECO-92.

The UNCED, timeframe of the beginning of the fourth phase of international

environmental order, was the largest international convention on the environment

ever made and continues today as the benchmark for the studies on international

environmental order:

"The numbers of the Rio Conference are eloquent: the biggest event organized by the United Nations up to that time, the Conference brought together 172 countries’ delegations and brought to Rio de Janeiro 108 Heads of State or Government. According to UN data, about 10,000 journalists and representatives of 1,400 non-governmental organizations

43

http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm 44

http://www.cms.int/en/node/3916 45

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf274r1.shtml 46

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf 47

http://www.itto.int/itta_previous/ 48

http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/Treaties/treaty_text.php?treatyID=1 49

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc335.shtml 50

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc336.shtml 51

http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/mp_final_act/Montreal_Protocol_Final_Act_1987-E.pdf 52

http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/text/BaselConventionText-e.pdf 53

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/conventiontextenglish.pdf 54

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/conventiontextenglish.pdf 55

http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att006_e.pdf 56 http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

17

received credentials at the same time that the Global Forum side event brought together 7,000 members of NGOs "(LAGO, 2013, p.69)

Based on the Our Common Future report, the main conference documents -Agenda

2157 and the Rio Declaration58- proposed a broad perspective of environment and

society, which enshrines sustainable development concept. Sustainable development

is guided by the premise of sustainability, ie, that the modes of production should

result in minimal impact to the environment and that a negative impact should be

minimized or compensated by preservation and conservation actions. After Rio-92, the

sustainable development concept would exceed the sphere of environmental policy,

making it a constant demand from civil society and guiding the actions of the actors,

including corporations. The increasing accountability of actions relating to the

environment led to the emergence of the series of ISO 14000 certification in 1993,

which requires production standards consistent with international environmental

requirements and has a growing number of certified companies (RIBEIRO, 2005). The

UNCED was also important to spread the global environmental security concept, which

is the view that environmental dilemmas are of such magnitude that would require a

broad political coordination in international bargains. These environmental problems,

namely, the scarcity of natural resources and food, the hole in the ozone layer, the

desertification, the climate change, are seen as genuine security problems to be faced

by humanity if they are not resolved in the medium and long-term (RIBEIRO, 2005).

Concomitantly with the Rio-92, occurred the International Forum of NGOs and

Social Movements in the Global Forum (FIBONGS). The meeting had little ability to

change the outcome of UNCED, but had important repercussions in what refers to

international civil society participation, with thousands of participants and dozens of

social movements (religious leaders, trade unionists, community representatives, etc.).

The FIBONGS had a broader agenda of discussions on topics such as "poverty, lifestyle,

urban issues, racism, environmental education, among other topics" (RIBEIRO, 2005,

p.129) and resulted in several declarations between participants, the main one being

the Earth Charter59. Regarding the Rio-92, FIBONGS members acted as lobbyists, trying

57

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf 58

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm 59

http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/echarter_portuguese.pdf

18

to persuade the main event negotiators. Furthermore, its criticisms and statements

served as a warning to that portion of the international civil society uninformed on the

depth of environmental issues (RIBEIRO, 2005). Accordingly, after the events

surrounding the UNCED, it is noted the diffusion of environmental issues into other

political arenas and the advance of environmental concern in the international civil

society, generating strong internal pressures to the domestic politics of States.

Since 1992, it is percived the ascendancy of various issues on the international

agenda, such as sustainable consumption (BORN 2002), access to energy (RODRIGUES,

2002) and food security (LEROY, 2002). Regarding the fourth phase major multilateral

environmental agreements, it is had: the United Nations Conference on Environment

and Development (1992); the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change60 (1992); the Convention on Biological Diversity61 (1992); the Convention on

the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical

Weapons and on their Destruction62 (1993); the United Nations Convention to Combat

Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or

Desertification, Particularly in Africa63 (1994); the Convention on Nuclear Safety64

(1994); the Energy Charter Treaty65 (1994); The United Nations Conference on

Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks66 (1995); the

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty67 (1996); Kyoto Protocol to the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change68 (1997); Convention on Access to

Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in

Environmental Matters69 (1998); the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed

Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International

Trade70 (1998); the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological

60

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf 61

https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf 62

http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/ 63

http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/conventionText/conv-eng.pdf 64

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf449.shtml 65

http://www.encharter.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/EN.pdf 66

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/fish_stocks_agreement/CONF164_37.htm 67

http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treaty_text.pdf 68

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf 69

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf 70

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Bernardo/Meus%20documentos/Downloads/RC_Convention_Text_2011_English.pdf

19

Diversity71 (2000); The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants72

(2001); the World Summit on Sustainable Development73 (2002); International Tropical

Timber Agreement74 (2006); and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable

Development75 (2012) (MITCHELL, 2014; RIBEIRO, 2005).

In an overview (Table 2, p.20), it is noted the increase of the number of legal

instruments concluded between States in international environmental order along the

four phases, as well as the preference for multilateral negotiations over bilateral mode

in last decades. The smaller number of large conventions since 1992 does not indicate

loss of relevance of environmental issues in international bargains, if counted all

protocols and amendments to existing conventions, this would certainly be the most

fertile and important period to diverse environmental areas, with 1108 multilateral

and bilateral agreements, against 915 agreements between 1972 and 1991; 523

agreements between 1945 and 1971; and 267 agreements before 1944, with growing

emphasis in multilateral agreements over time (Mitchell, 2014). Pratically all cited

conventions undergone some sort of revision in recent years, indicating a

strengthening and expansion of the principles and rules established by international

environmental law. In fact, it can actually be asserted the existence of multiple regimes

within a large international environmental order, either regionally or globally

(BREITEMEIER, 2004).

On international regimes, it is found the development of 13 major regimes with

truly international scope. Crossing Breitmeier (2004) highlighted regimes with the

dates of the conventions of origin, it is had that global environmental regimes begin

only in the second phase of international environmental order, already under the

United Nations framework. The regimes of this phase are on whaling since 1946; on

seas pollution by oil since 1954; on Antarctica since 1959; on wetlands of international

importance since 1971.

In terms of regimes emergence, third stage proved to be the most important

period with regimes on seas pollution by waste since 1972; on endangered

71

https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf 72

http://www.pops.int/documents/convtext/convtext_en.pdf 73

http://www.un-documents.net/jburgdec.htm 74

http://www.itto.int/itta/ 75

http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/814UNCSD%20REPORT%20final%20revs.pdf

20

species trade since 1973; on transboundary air pollution since 1979; on tropical timber

since 1983; on the ozone layer since 1985; and on hazardous waste since 1989. The

fourth phase is the period that marks the permanent strengthening of existing

environmental regimes and the establishment of environmental issues as relevant to

political bargains. In this context, the period presents only three new regimes: on

climate change since 1992; on biodiversity since 1992; and on desertification since

1994 (BREITMEIER, 2004).

Bilateral

Agreements

Multilateral Agreements

Relevant Multilateral Agreements

Environmental Regimes

(Regional e Global)

Global Environmental

Regimes

1st Phase (pre- 1944)

199 68 2 0 0

2nd Phase (1945 - 1971)

315 208 17 7 4

3rd Phase (1972 - 1991)

553 362 19 12 6

4th Phase (post- 1992)

519 589 17 4 3

Total 1586 1227 55 23 13

Source: VERSIEUX, Bernardo Hoffman. Adapted from informations available in Ronald Mitchell (2014)

and Helmut Breitmeier76

(2004) databases.

The international environmental order, therefore, can be understood as a large

umbrella system that houses various specific themes, which develop independently,

but within the theoretical and political framework proposed by the major conferences

on the environment. In recent years, it is found a greater impasse in large conventions

on the environment, due to the emerging countries participation with increased

bargaining power in multilateral negotiations and also to a greater level of

commitment and coordination required for the resolution of environmental problems.

This conjuncture was reflected in the World Summit on Sustainable Development

(2002) and the UN Conference for Sustainable Development (2012), which were less

relevant meetings to environmental issues and the documents produced had less

normative force, which, despite little ampliation in international environmental 76

Breitmeier developed a research specialized in environmental regimes between 1994 and 2004 in which it is highlighted both regional as major international environmental regimes.

21

agenda, strengthened environmental proposals developed in Rio-92. This is the

context in which occurs South-South cooperation for the environment, since this type

of cooperation gains greater relevance only in recent decades.

Studies on South-South environmental cooperation are scarce, which makes

efforts to further knowledge of the field relevant. From the research “A Cooperação

Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e

perspectivas”77

(unpublished) database, it was possible to tease out the main

characteristics of South-South environmental cooperation led by emerging countries78

(VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014).

Relating cataloged data and international environmental order phases,

empirical research was guided by the period between 1992 and 2013. Adaptations in

Mitchell’s (2014) environmental areas classification were performed to the best data

classification. First, the Oceans and Habitat areas were considered as a single category

to treat all the Earth's ecosystems together, marine and terrestrial. And, second, the

environmental education activities, not considered by Mitchell, were added to Nature

classification of (VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014).

The overall picture (Table 3, p.22) of south-south environmental activities

undertaken by emerging countries between 1992 and 2013 counts 656 projects over a

10,354 total. Despite the small absolute value, 6.3% percentage should be considered

as relevant, since the search has tens of sectors beyond the environment. Countries

participation in environmental issues is quite varied. Brazil, Czech Republic and

Thailand represent 62.8% of south-south cooperation projects, whereas the sum of the

11 countries with the lowest participation does not reach 6% of the total. On the other

hand, considering the relative importance (percentage) of environmental cooperation,

Colombia, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico add up to Brazil, Czech Republic

77

The database was made from information obtained with the cooperation agencies of each emerging country and from public database AidData.org. All activities cataloged by the countries were objects of sorting, from prospecting missions to large cooperation programs involving a considerable number of projects and financial investment. 78

For emerging countries, this work considers Standard andPoor's rating as appropriate. Besides being the classification adopted by the World Bank, the S & P's 20 countries list covers 16 countries (South Africa, Brazil, Chile, China, Philippines, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia , Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey) present in the emerging markets listings of the 5 main rating agencies (S & P's, MSCI, FTSE, Dow Jones and BBVA) and four countries (Colombia, Egypt, Morocco and Peru) present in listings of 4 agencies.

22

and Thailand as countries where environmental projects have a high relevance (above

10% of total ) (VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014).

Emerging countries (donnors)

Number of South-South environmental cooperation

activities (Total)

Percentage of environmental

activities over the total

Brazil 232 (1.955) 11,9%

Chile 30 (591) 5,1%

China 63 (3.197) 2,0%

Colombia 22 (213) 10,3%

Czech Republic 103 (485) 21,2%

Egypt 3 (242) 1,2%

Hungary 8 (328) 2,4%

India 33 (452) 7,3%

Indonesia 4(29) 13,8%

Malaysia 2 (18) 11,1%

Morroco 2 (99) 2,0%

Mexico 24 (190) 12,6%

Peru 3 (49) 6,1%

Philippines 3 (11) 27,3%

Poland 28 (569) 4,9%

Russia 3 (33) 9,1%

South Africa 0 (53) 0,0%

Taiwan 8 (275) 2,9%

Thailand 77 (607) 12,7%

Turkey 8 (958) 0,8%

Total 656 (10.354) 6,3%

Source: Adapted from VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014. Elaborated by authors from research “A Cooperação Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e perspectivas” database.

When analyzing emerging countries performance by environmental areas, the

lack of uniformity is checked again (Figure 1, p.23). Despite the wide variation of

activities among countries, it is noted that Nature, Freshwater Resources and Energy

are the main areas of south-south environmental cooperation. Species receives an

average attention, albeit irregular, and Pollution, Weapons and Environment and

Habitat are presented as marginal ares to emerging countries interests. It is also noted

that several environmental areas are set aside by the countries, being possible to say

that the South-South cooperation develops few combinations of the possible set of

relations between countries and environmental issues (VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014).

23

Figure 1: South-South environment areas over the total

Source: VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014. Elaborated by authors from research “A Cooperação Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e perspectivas” database.

When comparing the environmental South-South cooperation with

international environmental cooperation undertaken by emerging countries79 by

signing of international law instruments (agreements, protocols and amendments), is

is again noted a wide variation in countries’ performance. While Hungary, Poland and

Russia signed more than 150 international law instruments, Malaysia and Thailand

have not reached 50 instruments (Figure 2, p.24). Species, Pollution and Nature are the

main areas of international environmental cooperation. Habitat and Oceans has

average attention of all emerging countries. Freshwater Resources, Energy and

Weapons and Environment are the least prestiged areas in international

environmental agreements. Although emerging countries international cooperation is

also highly irregular, it may be noted that few environmental areas and combinations

of the set of possible relations are left out when it comes to international law

instruments signature (VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014).

79 Taiwan does not participate in analyzes because it is not formally subject of international law.

24

Figure 2: Emerging Countries international law instruments areas

Source: VERSIEUX & HADDAD, 2014. Elaborated by authors from research “A Cooperação Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e perspectivas” database.

Versieux & Haddad (2014) also perceive that, from the intersection of

information in the last two graphs, is not possible to observe the existence of a direct

relationship between international environmental agreements conclusion and South-

South environmental projects realization, which significantly range in areas and

countries. This lack of correlation between international law and South-South

cooperation determines the important conclusion that there is no influence of global

environmental regimes on south-south cooperation environment, and vice versa. In

this sense, it can be inferred that the South-South cooperation in what concerns the

environment, albeit emphasis on emerging countries role in between 1992 and 2013

period, problably continues with a character of complementarity in relation to other

forms of cooperation, whether in relation to North-South development cooperation,

or to international environmental regimes.

25

Brazilian Environmental performance and its implications for Brazilian foreign policy

The Brazilian international environmental performance (Table 4, pp.26-27) can

be considered, in first, as participatory. It is registred country’s involvement even in

older agreements such as the Convention on the International Hydrographic Bureau in

1921, when the country was far from the international importance achieved in recent

years. Of the 48 major multilateral environmental agreements subject to ratification,

the country has ratified 39 (five non-ratification in the 2nd phase agreements, two in

3rd and the other two in international environmental order 4th phase). And it is

noteworthy that the law provided by 1958’s four Conventions on the Law of the Sea

(not ratified by Brazil) is contained in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of

1982, which was ratified in 1988. Of all Brazil’s ratified agreements, just the

Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was denounced during the 1966-1974

period.

Another characteristic of the Brazilian role in international environmental order

is reactive posture, since in most cases the agreements has only been ratified by the

country after them entry into force. This reactive posture is more striking for the first

three phases of international environmental order, discounting non-subject of

ratification agreements (4) and those not ratified by the country (7), have ratified 27

agreements, 19 of these being late and only 8 ratified between signature year and

entry into force year. Although there is no standard, there are no rare cases in which

these delays lasted for decades. In the fourth phase, the pattern is altered, with 8 of

the 12 agreements being ratified until entry into force date.

Brazil’s democratization process in 1985 is the main rupture moment of foreign

policy towards environmental issues. Of the 39 major environmental agreements

adhered by Brazil, 27 were ratified from 1985 onwards. Between 1985 and 1992, 7

agreements were ratified, while the 8 were ratified after 1992 (in addition to the 12

agreements ratified in the 4th phase), being Rio-92 the most significant event of

change of reactive participatory posture towards a proactive, purposeful participatory

posture. In this sense, it can be stated that, currently, Brazilian’s participation is

relevant throughout all areas of the environment, being tacit to conclude that the

country actively participates in all global environmental regimes.

26

Relevant Multilateral Agreements (by accession numbers)

Signature date

Entry into force date

Brazilian ratification

date Convention on International Hydrographic Bureau 1921 1921* 1921*

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

1925 1928 1970

Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946 1948 1950 (1966-1974)

Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources 1949 1949* 1949*

International Plant Protection Convention 1951 1952 1961

Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958 1964 –

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958 1964 –

Convention on the High Seas 1958 1962 –

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas

1958 1966 –

Antarctic Treaty 1959 1961 1975

Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage 1963 1977 1993

Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under Water

1963 1963 1965

Convention on the International Hydrographic Organization 1967 1970 1967

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968 1970 1998

Biosphere Conference 1968 1968* 1968*

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 1975 1976

International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties

1969 1975 2008

International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage

1971 1978 –

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat

1971 1975 1993

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972 1972* 1972*

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

1972 1975 1977

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction

1972 1975 1973

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter

1972 1975 1982

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

1973 1983 1975

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships 1973 1983 1996

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

1977 1978 1984

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 1983 –

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 1980 1987 1985

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 1994 1988

International Tropical Timber Agreement 1983 1985 1985

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 1985 1988 1990

Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident 1986 1986 1990

Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency

1986 1987 1990

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 1987 1989 1990

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

1989 1992 1992

27

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation

1990 1995 1998

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context

1991 1997 –

Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991 1998 1995

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992 1992* 1992*

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 1994 1994

Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 2005 1994

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction

1993 1997 1996

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa

1994 1996 1997

Convention on Nuclear Safety 1994 1996 1997

Energy Charter Treaty 1994 1998 –

United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

1995 2001 2000

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty 1996 – 1998

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

1997 2005 2002

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters

1998 –

–

Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

1998 2004 2004

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity

2000 2003 2004

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2001 2004 2004

World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 2002* 2002*

International Tropical Timber Agreement 2006 2011 2013

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development 2012 2012* 2012*

Legend * There was no document with obligations for ratification. Entry into force considered immediate. In this case, the repetition of the year in Brazil column confirms the country's participation in these agreements. – Arrangements that have not yet entered into force, or without Brazilian membership. ( ) Period in which Brazil denounced the treaty.

Source: VERSIEUX, Bernardo Hoffman. Adapted from informations avaiable in Ronald Mitchell (2014) database and from environmental agreements’ sites.

The available table informations reinforce the analysis of the Brazilian

environment performance. Brazilian politics’ greatest concern in the twentieth

century, crucial to foreign policy leading, of was the pursuit of economic development,

either through industrialization in the Vargas government, openness to international

capital with Kubitschek, or import substitution industrialization during the military

regime. Thus, the environment was not a priority issue and, although major

environmental conferences participants, the developing countries posture was very

defensive. At the Stockholm Conference of 1972, the Brazilian government attitude, called

sovereignist, established the right to development for third world countries; the accountability

28

of 1st and 2nd worlds countries for environmental problems due to the predatory use of

natural resources in its economic development; and the conception that environmental

control insinde countries should only happens after the economic development of each

country. The Brazilian performance was significant and recognized, making it leader of the

third-world countries (LAGO, 2013; BASTOS, 2009; FRANÇA, 2010; SILVA, 2012;

NASCIMENTO, 2011).

During the 1970s and 1980s, the country was under the disapproving looks of

the actors of civil society concerned with the international environmental degradation,

mainly due to the high deforestation rate that endangered the enormous biodiversity

of the country (FRANÇA, 2010). With the end of military rule and the decline of the

import substitution model, there were changes in Brazil’s position related to

international bargains, which became more open in several areas, including

environment, in order to improve their image and attract international investors

(SILVA, 2012).The end of the Cold War in 1991 determined the rise of the perception of

multilateralism as a means of solving international dilemmas and also of marginal

topics such as the environment and human rights (LAGO, 2013) (NASCIMENTO, 2011).

By taking sustainable development concept as the basis of the Brazilian position and

for the Rio-92 preparation, since economic development remains the main foreign

policy objective, Brazil return to be one of the most active countries in environmental

bargains, now in confluence with the international environmental movement (FRANCE

2010). In this context, Brazil assumes a mediating position between the North and the

South, seeking to reconcile the environmental problems demands with the

socioeconomic development demands (BASTOS, 2009).

Rio-92 was responsible for creating a dialogue between developed and

developing countries around the sustainable development and by reaffirming the

principle of common, but differentiated responsabilities between countries. The

Johannesburg Summit in 2002, in turn, tried to put this model into practice bringing

renewable energy and corporate accountability issues to environmental discussions

(LAGO, 2013) (NASCIMENTO, 2011). Rio+20 confirms all these developments in

international environmental policy in adopting, by consensus, the "The Future We

Want" document which proposes the integration of environmental, economic and

social areas. The Brazilian performance was again crucial to the outcome of the

29

conference, especially with the country’s articulation with southern countries through

the G-77 + China, which has had a remarkable effect of strengthening the southern

prospects in the front of change attempts of the North (LAGO, 2013; FRANÇA, 2010).

The political situation in Brazil by the time of Rio+20 Conference can be

summarized as follows:

"What was Brazil’s goal to convene and organize the Rio +20? For some, the

strengthening of its status as "emerging" and a country that wants to be the

bridge between the developing and the developed worlds. For others, a

country seeking to reaffirm itsr credentials as balanced leader, determined

to strengthen multilateralism. The reality is closer to an opportunity for the

country to reiterate 1992’s correct diagnosis to balance the economic, social

and environmental pillars and maintain Brazil's leadership in this area. At

the same time, the country could show how it was different from that which

had organized the Rio-92. While at the time, faced serious obstacles in the

three pillars - immense inequality in social pillar, economic paralysis, coupled

with high rates of inflation, and destruction of the Amazon rainforest - Brazil

today stands out for progress in those three pillars: reduction inequality,

economic growth and stability, and significant reduction in the deforestation

of the Amazon. "(LAGO, 2013, pp.170-171).

In this sense, more than acting in international environmental issues, the

environment has become, in fact, a Brazilian politics priority. Changes in practices are

remarkable, being the country today, recognized by the "Union of Concerned

Scientists" as one who has the greatest reductions in deforestation and in emissions of

greenhouse effect gases in the world80. This remarkable change in Brazilian

environmental policy, at the national and international level, is also reflected in

development cooperation performed by the country. According to Fernando de Abreu,

Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC) director, environment is a priority area for the

Brazilian technical cooperation (Figure 3, p.30). It is emphasized that the Brazilian

South-South environmental cooperation has a recent development. While the changes

the country in international environmental cooperation are felt since democratization

process, South-South cooperation for the environment projects have their records

started in 1998, during the second Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC) government.

80

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/UCS-2014-DeforestationSuccessStories-Portugues-final.pdf

30

Figure 3: Brazilian internacional cooperation main areas

Source: ABREU, Fernando. A Evolução da Cooperação Técnica Internacional no Brasil (2013).

Overall, considering all areas of south-south cooperation, Brazil's performance

starts to be present in the second FHC government and expands significantly under

Lula’s governments (IPEA, 2010 and 2013). The disbelief in multilateralism as

negotiation model able to provide developing countries needs of and the rise of

emerging countries in international bargains influenced Brazilian foreign policy, which

realizes the South-South axis being able to project (soft power) Brazilian international

aspirations (AYLLÓN, 2010; MILANI, 2012). In addition to the political aspirations of

each emerging, South-South cooperation can also be understood as a way out of the

global financial crisis. According to the report of the 64th Session of the UN General

Assembly81, South-South cooperation has grown in crisis context, either in number of

projects, such as the themes object of interest. And, generally, the interactions of

81 Para esse e outros relatórios sobre a cooperação sul-sul, acesse o escritório das Nações Unidas para a cooperação sul-sul: http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc/services/policy/documents_reports/main_reports.html

31

emerging countries occur mainly in regional scale (neighbors) and with Africa (UNITED

NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 2009).

Specifically on the south-south environmental cooperation, with 232 activities

performed by the central government, Brazil is the most significant country,

accounting for 35.36% of all projects developed by emerging countries, most of them

in technical cooperation and scientific and technological cooperation sectors. The

Brazilian cooperation time horizon analysis (Figure 4, p.31) reflects the overall

perspective of the Brazilian South-South cooperation, which it is stressed the second

FHC government as an initial landmark of cooperation activities; Lula's governments as

the major contributor to South-South environmental cooperation, especially in the

period between 2005 and 2010; while Dilma governement represents a regression of

the South-South activities for the environment.

Source: VERSIEUX, Bernardo Hoffman. Elaborated by author from research “A Cooperação Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e perspectivas” database.

Through environmental areas, it is revealed the role of four of them (Figure 5,

p.33): Nature, with 69 projects; Species, with 51 projects; Water Resources, with 47

projects; and Energy, with 38 projects. Pollution, with 15 projects, and Habitat and

Oceans, with 12 projects, are marginal areas of the Brazilian environmental

32

cooperation. Weapons and Environment is not an object of the country’s interest. On

the domestic level, these projects are out of the strict environment’s scope, with

activities in the field of agriculture, fisheries and mining and energy.

Source: VERSIEUX, Bernardo Hoffman. Elaborated by author from research “A Cooperação Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e perspectivas” database.

The implementation of these projects involves dozens of government entities

at federal, state and municipal levels as well as public universities and public security

organs. The highlight is given by Brazilian Agricultural Enterprise82 (EMBRAPA)

performance, responsible for the execution of a quarter (58) of South-South

environment cooperation activities. Other organisms that deserve mention are: the

82

https://www.embrapa.br/

33

National Water Agency83 (ANA), with 12 projects; the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock

and Supply84 (MAPA), with 10 projects; the Ministry of Education85 (MEC), with 7

projects; and the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Resources86 (IBAMA),

with 6 projects.

In terms of geographical distribution, it is noted two axes of cooperation,

reflecting the general trends in South-South cooperation of regional and with Africa

interactions (Figure 6, p.34). The first, and principal, axis is Latin America, with more

than 50% (140 projects) of the environmental cooperation activities developed

between neighbors. It is worth noting an almost equal division of activities between

South America (75) and Central America and the Caribbean (65). The second axis of

Brazilian environmental cooperation is Africa, with 30% of projects. It is noteworthy

that, from the 70 activities on the continent, 31 were signed with the Community of

Portuguese Speaking Countries87 (CPLP) members. Asia receives marginal attention

with only ten projects. And Brazil is both donor and recipient, through triangular

cooperation, in three projects. The other regions of the globe have not been object of

interest to the Brazilian environmental cooperation.

Most of these international agreements occurred through direct bilateral

channels, with 197 records. In multilateral modality, there are 27 projects in which

Brazil donates to more than one country. Are also recorded 5 international

cooperation activities with blocks: three with the Caribbean Community88 (CARICOM)

and two with the CPLP. And the only triangular cooperation projects that the country

divides the donation are the three in which Brazil is also the recipient country, cited

above. On the application of financial resources, little information is available, it is

impossible to give an overview of the Brazilian South-South investment in

environmental cooperation. Anyway, from the number of projects, the diversity of

topics and the number of countries involved, it can be inferred that Brazil is one of the

largest investors in South-South environmental cooperation, certainly is in what

concerns the use of domestic and international political resourses.

83

http://www2.ana.gov.br/Paginas/default.aspx 84

http://www.agricultura.gov.br/ministerio 85

http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php 86

http://www.ibama.gov.br/ 87

http://www.cplp.org/ 88

http://www.caricom.org/

34

Source: VERSIEUX, Bernardo Hoffman. Elaborated by author from research “A Cooperação Internacional e a projeção externa do estado de Minas Gerais – cenários e perspectivas” database.

So, the Brazilian South-South cooperation for the environment it is delimited

within the overall picture of South-South cooperation in the world of growth during

financial crisis and also with the spatial distribution of activities among neighboring

countries and Africa. On the domestic level, South-South environmental cooperation

results also confirm analyzes that highlight the Lula governments’ importance for the

whole Brazilian South-South cooperation. The Rousseff administration, especially in

the 2013 year, presents a major downturn in Brazilian South-South environment, but it

is not yet possible to determine its meaning, since this retraction may reflect a

difficulty in registering South-South cooperation activities (yet to be compiled with

delay), a reversal of the Brazilian environmental foreign policy, or even a broader

change in the south-South cooperation in the world. It is for the time and the evolution

of research in the field to respond to such questions.

35

In conclusion, Brazilian performances in international environmental order and

in South-South environmental cooperation are extremely relevant. The country

became one of the main leaders of the international negotiations, with a strong lead

ahead of the G-77 + China, being able to impact directly in bargaining outcomes. The

domestic political changes, though not entirely satisfactory, make the country to be

recognized by civil and international societies as one of the great advocates and

proponents of sustainable development solutions to environmental dilemmas. This

demand and defense attitude of a sustainable development model makes the country

strongly interested in the dissemination of environmental good practices, which is

reflected in the country's leadership as the main emerging country of South-South

cooperation for the environment.

Conclusions

This work hopes to have contributed to the studies of South-South cooperation,

especially in what relates to the environment. First, with the international cooperation

definition developed, is expected to have reached a theoretical framework that is able

to understand better the richness of human behavior at the international level. It is

reiterated that the design of a multi-theoretical approach is best suited for the study of

international cooperation.

Second, this paper proposes a particular classification of international

environmental order in four distinct phases, aiming to detail the main features of

international politics for the environment. It is understood that this classification

better reflects the political evolution of environmental themes, agreements and

regimes.

Third, recovering the South-South environmental cooperation of emerging

countries paper developed along with Paula Haddad and the deepening of the Brazilian

environmental performance, this study aims to reinforce the incipient studies on

South-South cooperation for the environment, filling the gaps in that interesting and

important field of international politics

Fourth, studies on Brazilian environmental performance from international

agreements and from South-South environmental cooperation are pioneers. During

36

this work, it has not come across at any specific literature on these subjects. In this

sense, it is expected to have contributed significantly to the research on the Brazilian

environmental performance, being certain that these analyzes are still the first steps.

At last, in what refers to Brazilian foreign policy analysis, it is perceived a space

to deepen considerations. This work was dedicated to making the initial thoughts on

the subject and hopes to develop them in the future, especially in what refers to the

understanding of foreign policy as public management, focusing on Brazilian important

institutional changes in recent decades that have enabled the development of an

environmental foreign policy with recognized success

References

ABREU, Fernando. A evolução da cooperação técnica internacional do Brasil. Revista

Mural Internacional, vol.4, nº2, 2013 ASSELT, Harro. Managing fragmentation of international environmental law: forest at the intersection of the climate and biodiversity regimes. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics.Vol 44, nº 4, pp. 1205-1278, 2012. AUSUBEL & VICTOR.Verification of international environmental agreements.Annual Review of Energy and Environment.Vol.17, pp.1-43, 1992. AYLLÓN, Bruno. Agentes transformadores de la cooperación para el desarrollo: Poderes emergentes y Cooperación Sur – Sur. Relaciones Internacionales - Nº 40, 2011.Real Instituto Elcano, 2010. AYLLÓN, Bruno. Brazilian Cooperation: a model under construction for an emerging power. 2010. http://www.cbd.int/financial/southsouth/brazil-cooperation.pdf AYLLÓN, Bruno. Contribuciones de Brasil al desarrollo internacional: coaliciones emergentes y cooperación Sur-Sur.Revista CIDOB d’afersinternacionals, n.º 97-98, p. 189-204, 2012. AYLLÓN, Bruno. Cooperación Sur – Sur, Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil y Desarrollo de Capacidades en América Latina. Seminario Internacional “Retos y Nuevos Temas en la Relación entre Gobiernos y Sociedades Civiles”, 2012. AYLLÓN, Bruno. O sistema Internacional de Cooperação ao Desenvolvimento e seu estudo nas Relações Internacionais: a evolução histórica e as dimensões teóricasRevista de Economia e Relações Internacionais. Vol.5, Nº8, 2006.

37

BARRETT, Scott. On the Theory and Diplomacy of Environmental Treaty-Making.Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3–4): 317–333, 1998. BARRETT, Scott, Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements, Oxford

Economic Papers 46, 878–894, 1994 BASTOS, Fabrício. A POLÍTICA EXTERNA BRASILEIRA E A CONSTRUÇÃO DE UMA ORDEM AMBIENTAL INTERNACIONAL: DE ESTOCOLMO AO RIO. Trabalho de conclusão de curso (Graduação em Relações Internacionais). Faculdade de História, Direito e Serviço Social, da Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, 2009. BEYERLIN, Ulrich. Bridging the North-South Divide in InternationalEnvironmental Law.ZaöR Vol.66, pp.259-296, 2006. BORN, Rubens.Consumo sustentável: o impacto no meio ambiente dos atuais padrões de produção e consumo. In: BORN, Rubens. Diálogos entre as esferas global e local. Ed. FundaçãoPetrópolis, São Paulo, 2002. BREITMEIER, Helmut. (1994-2004) International Regimes Database. Disponível em:http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/polis/lg2/projekte/InternationalRegimesDatabase.shtml Acessado pela última vez em junho de 2014. BREITMEIER, Helmut. International Organization and the creation of environmental regimes.In: YOUNG, O. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the environmental experience. MIT Press, 1997 BREITMEIER & UNDERDAL. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Comparing and Contrasting Findings from Quantitative Research International Studies Review 13, 579–605, 2011. BUCK, Susan. The Global Commons: na introduction. Island Press, Washington, 1998. BULL, Hedley. A sociedade anárquica. Brasília, Ed. da UnB/ IPRI, 2002 BUZAN, WAEVER & WILDE.Security: A New Framework for Analysis.Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998

COSTA & GAYARD.As dinâmicas do conhecimento na cooperação internacional para o meio ambiente. Liinc em Revista, v.8, n.1, pp. 141-150, Rio de Janeiro, 2012. FINUS, M., Game Theoryand International Environmental Cooperation: AnyPracticalApplication?In: Böhringer, C., M. Finus and C. Vogt (eds.), Controlling Global Warming: Perspectives from Economics, Game Theory and Public Choice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, ch. 2., pp. 9-104, 2002

38

FINUS, M. Stability and design of international environmental agreements: the case of transboundary pollution. In: FOLMER 7 TIETENBERG. The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resourses Economics 2003/2004.Cheltenham, pp.82-158, 2003 FRANÇA, Joan. A POLÍTICA EXTERNA BRASILEIRA PARA O MEIO AMBIENTE: DE ESTOCOLMO A JOANESBURGO . CADERNOS DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS, v. 3, n. 1, 2010

GILPIN, Robert. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1981 GLEICK, Peter. Water and Conflict: fresh water resources and international security. International Security.Vol.18, Nº1, pp.79-112, 1993. HAAS, Peter. Doregimes matter?: epistemic communities and meditteranean pollution control. International Organization, v. 43, 1989. HAFTENDORN, Helga. Water and International Conflicts .Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 51-68, 2000. HOMER-DIXON, Thomas. Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from cases.International Security, Vol.19, Nº1, 1994. HOMER-DIXON, Thomas. On the threshold: environmental changes as causes of acute conflict.International Security, Vol.16, Nº1, 1991. HURREL & KINGSBURY. The International politics of the environment, actors, interests, and institutions.Clarendon Press, 1992.

IPEA. Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional: 2005-2009. Brasília, 2010

IPEA. Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional: 2010. Brasília, 2013.

JAYADEVAPPA & CHHATRE. International trade and environmental quality: a survey. Ecological Economics.Vol.32, pp.175–194, 2000.

JERVIS, Robert. Deterrence and Perception. Harvard University Press, 1983 JERVIS, Robert. Hypotheses on Misperception. World Politics, vol. 20, nº03, 1968 KEOHANE, Robert. After Hegemony. Princeton University Press, 1984. KEOHANE, Robert. International Institutions And State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Westview Press, 1989

KEOHANE, Robert. Reciprocity in International Relations. International Organization. Vol.40, Issue 1, pp.1-27, 1986.

39

KEOHANE, Robert. The Demand for International Regimes. International Organization, vol. 36, n.2, 1982. KEOHANE & OSTROM. Local Commons and Global Interdependence. Sage Publication London, 1995. KRASNER. Stephen. International regimes.Ithaca: Cornell University, 1983. KRASNER, Stephen. Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regime as Intervenient Variables. International Organization, vol.36, n.2, 1982. KRATOCHWIL, F. Rules, Norms and Decision: on the conditions of pratical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge University Press, 1989. KURULULASURIYA & ROBINSON. Training Manual on International Environmental Law.UNEP/Earthprin, 2006.

LAGO, André. As Conferências de Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Ed. FUNAG, Brasília, 2013. LE PRESTE, Phillipe. Ecopolítica Internacional. SENAC, São Paulo, 2000. LEROY, Jean. Insustentabilidade na agricultura e insegurança alimentar. In: BORN, Rubens. Diálogos entre as esferas global e local. Ed. Fundação Petrópolis, São Paulo, 2002. MARTIN, Lisa. Interest, Power andMultilateralism. International Organization, vol. 46, n.4, 1992. MARTIN & SIMMONS. Theories and empirical studies of international institutions.International Organization Vol.52, Nº4, 199.8. MILANI, Carlos. APRENDENDO COM A HISTÓRIA: críticas à experiência da Cooperação Norte-Sul e atuais desafios à Cooperação Sul-Sul. Caderno CRH, Vol.25, Nº65, 2012. MITCHELL, Ronald. 2002-2014. International Environmental AgreementsDatabase Project (Version 2013.2).Disponível em: http://iea.uoregon.edu/.Acessado pela última vez em junho de 2014. NASCIMENTO, Paulo. O meio ambiente e os orientadores da política externa ambienal brasileira. Trabalho de conclusão de curso (Especialização em Relações Internacionais), UnB, Brasília, 2011. PETERSON, M. International Organization and the Implementation of Environmental Regimes.In: YOUNG, O. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the environmental experience. MIT Press, 1997

40

PORTER, BROWN & CHASEK.Global Environmental Politics.Westview Press, 2000.

RAUSTIALA, Kal. States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions. International StudiesQuarterly. Vol41, 719–740, 1997. RIBEIRO, Wagner. A Ordem Ambiental Internacional.Ed. Contexto, 2005 RODRIGUES, Délcio. Energia para todos: é possível? Os “sem energia” e as mudanças climáticas globais. In: BORN, Rubens. Diálogos entre as esferas global e local. Ed. Fundação Petrópolis, São Paulo, 2002. ROSSEEL, Peter et all. Approaches to North-South, South-South and North-South-South Collaboration: A Policy Document.University Administration and Central services – miscellaneousEducation and Training. 2009. RUGGIE, John. MultilateralismatCentury´s End. In: RUGGIE, J. Constructing the World Polity, 1993. SCHELLING, Thomas. The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University, 1960. SILVA, Rodolfo. A política externa para o meio ambiente: antecedentes e evolução da agenda até a Rio+20. Revista Monções, vol.1, nº2, 2012. STOKKE, Olav. Regime as Governance Systems.In: YOUNG, O. Global Governance. Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience.MIT Press, 1997. SUSSKIND & OZAWA.Negotiating More Effective International Environmental Agreements.In: HURREL & KINGSBURY. The international politics of the environment.Oxford University Press, 1992. TULKENS, Henry. COOPERATION vs. FREE RIDING IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS: TWO APPROACHES. In: HAILEY & FOLMER: Game Theory and Environment. Eduard Elgar, 1998 UNEP. REGISTER OF INTERNATIONALTREATIES AND OTHERAGREEMENTS IN THE FIELD OFTHE ENVIRONMENT.Nairóbi, 2005. UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. The State of South-South Cooperation.2009 VERSIEUX, Bernardo & HADDAD, Paula. A Cooperação Sul-Sul para o Meio Ambiente. 2014. Trabalho apresentado no VII Congresso da Associação Portuguesa de Ciência Política, Coimbra, 2014. WENDT, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics.Cambridge University Press, 1999.

41

ZARTMAN, William. Negotiating the Rapids: The Dynamics of Regime Formation. In: SPECTOR & ZARTMAN. Getting It Done: Post-Agreement Negotiation and International

Regimes, US Institute of Peace Press, 2003 ZIEMMERMANN & SMITH. Policy Arena: more actors, more money, more ideas for international development co-operation. Journal of International Development.Vol. 23, 722–738, 2011.