Global environmental politicsthree, between, for example, one of the lowest, France, which has a large
nuclear industry, and the highest, Luxembourg, with its important metal-
lurgical industry (EEA2006b). Not surprisingly, countries tend to lobby for
theequity principle that best matches their national self-interest. At Kyoto,
theEUtried to resolve such conflicts through a Community-wide ‘bubble’
strategy that set an overall reduction target for Community emissions but
incorporated different targets for individual states so that increased emis-
sions in poorer states such as Greece and Portugal would be offset by larger
cuts in richer states such as Germany and Britain (see Box9.4). The bub-
ble approach attracted criticism from non-Annex 1 states who wanted all
industrialised countries to make the same percentage cut in emissions, and
from some, such as the USA, who believed this collective strategy conferred
unfair advantages on the EU. The bubble strategy certainly allowed the EU
totake a lead role in pushing for tougher targets, but meant it was allo-
cated a larger share of the emissions reduction burden. Thus equity is a
source of conflict between developed countries as well as between North and
South.
Lastly, international environmental co-operation raises some interesting
issues ofdemocracybecause national sovereignty, and the role of the state
in delivering sustainable development, is threatened in several ways (Litfin
1998b). Obviously, the transboundary nature of an international environ-
mental problem puts it beyond the competence of an individual state to
defend itself unilaterally from damage. Consequently, the creation of a com-
plex structure of international treaties, institutions and laws has required
nation states to concede some authority and control to these higher bodies –
what Hurrell ( 1995 ) calls ‘the erosion of sovereignty from above’ (p. 136). This
growing network of international institutions has taken power even further
awayfrom the local communities and indigenous peoples who many envi-
ronmentalists argue should be at the centre of sustainable development ini-
tiatives. Conversely, sovereignty is also threatened from below by the inabil-
ity of many developing states to implement environmental commitments.
Yet,while state sovereignty may be ebbing away in a globalising world, the
willingness of governments to defend this principle at all costs has been a
major bone of contention in environmental diplomacy. Few countries have
been prepared to sacrifice even small areas of sovereignty, hence MEAs rarely
include meaningful sanctions that have any force over the sovereign terri-
toryof nation states. Developing countries have been particularly suspicious
of Northern attempts to control their economic development, a sentiment
that underpinned Malaysian opposition at the Rio Earth Summit to a con-
vention toprotectforeststhat would have imposed external constraints on
thewayit exploited its own resources (although it subsequently came out in
support of a convention as a means to secure technology transfer, financial
assistance and debt relief) (Humphreys 1998 ).
It could be argued that whatever sovereignty a state surrenders by par-
ticipating in a regime is partly compensated by the benefits it gains from