International Environment
U.S. Actions to Fulfill Committments Under Five Key Agreements Gao ID: GAO-03-249 January 29, 2003Environmental problems do not respect national boundaries. These problems include (1) climate change, (2) drought and the expansion of degraded land, (3) environmental cooperation among the countries of North America, (4) illegal trade in endangered species, and (5) substances that deplete the earth's protective ozone layer. To address such problems, the United States and other nations have entered into numerous international environmental agreements. In implementing these agreements, the parties typically commit to establish domestic programs and report periodically on their progress. Developed nations like the United States may also pledge to provide funds to assist developing nations. GAO was asked to examine (1) U.S. actions to fulfill its commitments under five international agreements identified by the requesters, (2) the means used to track these actions, and (3) the results of others' evaluations of these actions for the selected agreements.
The United States is generally taking actions to meet its commitments under the five specified agreements. Federal agencies established domestic programs, reported periodically on progress, and provided funding to other nations. For example, the United States committed to stop producing and importing certain substances that deplete the earth's ozone layer by 1996 and did so. Although the United States did not make a treaty commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the President set a goal in 1993 to reduce emissions to their 1990 level by 2000 and the United States spends over $1 billion a year to do so. However, U.S. emissions in 2001 exceeded the 1990 target level by about 12 percent. GAO also found that, while the United States provided $1.4 billion between fiscal years 1991 and 2002 to assist other countries in addressing their environmental problems related to three agreements, it provided less than it pledged relating to two agreements. Specifically, the shortfall was 25 percent for the fund that finances climate change and other environmental projects and 6 percent for ozone depletion. Federal agencies generally use informal means, such as meetings and informal communications, to track their actions to fulfill commitments under the five agreements. Officials at the Department of State and other agencies said informal means are effective and cost less than establishing a formal tracking system. The few studies that evaluated the effectiveness of U.S. actions concluded that the actions had positive effects on the environment. The agencies involved generally agreed with the facts presented in this report.
GAO-03-249, International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Committments Under Five Key Agreements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-249
entitled 'International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill
Committments Under Five Key Agreements' which was released on February
10, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and
Public Works, and the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign
Relations, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
January 2003:
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT:
U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under Five Key Agreements:
GAO-03-249:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-249, a report to the Ranking Minority Members of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works and Committee on Foreign
Relations, United States Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study
Environmental problems do not respect national boundaries. These
problems include (1) climate change, (2) drought and the expansion of
degraded land, (3) environmental cooperation among the countries of
North America, (4) illegal trade in endangered species, and
(5) substances that deplete the earth‘s protective ozone layer. To
address such problems, the United States and other nations have
entered into numerous international environmental agreements.
In implementing these agreements, the parties typically commit to
establish domestic programs and report periodically on their progress.
Developed nations like the United States may also pledge to provide
funds to assist developing nations. GAO was asked to examine (1) U.S.
actions to fulfill its commitments under five international agreements
identified by the requesters, (2) the means used to track these
actions, and (3) the results of others‘ evaluations of these actions
for the selected agreements.
What GAO Found
The United States is generally taking actions to meet its commitments
under the five specified agreements. Federal agencies established
domestic programs, reported periodically on progress, and provided
funding to other nations. For example, the United States committed to
stop producing and importing certain substances that deplete the
earth‘s ozone layer by 1996 and did so. Although the United States did
not make a treaty commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the
President set a goal in 1993 to reduce emissions to their 1990 level
by 2000 and the United States spends over $1 billion a year to do so.
However, U.S. emissions in 2001 exceeded the 1990 target level by about
12 percent. GAO also found that, while the United States provided $1.4
billion between fiscal years 1991 and 2002 to assist other countries in
addressing their environmental problems related to three agreements, it
provided less than it pledged relating to two agreements. Specifically,
the shortfall was 25 percent for the fund that finances climate
change and other environmental projects and 6 percent for ozone
depletion.
Federal agencies generally use informal means, such as meetings and
informal communications, to track their actions to fulfill commitments
under the five agreements. Officials at the Department of State and
other agencies said informal means are effective and cost less than
establishing a formal tracking system. The few studies that evaluated
the effectiveness of U.S. actions concluded that the actions had
positive effects on the environment. The agencies involved generally
agreed with the facts presented in this report.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The United States Is Taking Many Actions to Fulfill Its Commitments
Under Five Agreements, but Has Not Provided All of Its Pledged Funds:
Agencies Generally Use Informal Means to Track Actions:
The Few Available Program Evaluations Deemed U.S. Actions Positive:
Scope and Methodology:
Agency Comments:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Information on the Five Agreements:
Table 2: Federal Expenditures for Selected Climate Change Programs
Related to Framework Convention, Fiscal Years 1999-2003:
Table 3: U.S. Contributions to Secretariats for Five Agreements, Fiscal
Years 1998-2002:
Table 4: U.S. Funding for Global Environment Facility, Fiscal Years
1994-2002:
Table 5: U.S. Contributions Under the Desertification Convention, by
Region, Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 6: Timeliness of U.S. Reports for Each Agreement:
Figures:
Figure 1: U.S. Funding to Other Nations Related to Three Agreements:
Figure 2: U.S. Consumption of Chlorofluorocarbons, Related to Montreal
Protocol, 1986-99:
Figure 3: U.S. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Related to Framework
Convention, 1990-2001:
Abbreviations:
AID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
January 29, 2003:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment
and Public Works
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate:
Because environmental problems do not respect national boundaries, the
United States and other nations have entered into numerous
international environmental agreements to address the causes and
consequences of such problems as climate change, ozone depletion, and
trade in endangered species. These agreements typically provide that
the parties will undertake various actions to improve the environment.
Some provisions are specific and measurable (such as having the parties
establish domestic programs, for example, to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, or having them periodically report their progress). Others
are more general and therefore difficult to measure (such as having the
parties coordinate with each other).
As you requested, we examined the United States‘ actions to fulfill its
commitments under five key international environmental agreements.
These agreements, which were selected for review by your offices,
relate to climate change (Framework Convention), desertification
(Desertification Convention), the earth‘s ozone layer (Montreal
Protocol), endangered species (CITES), and North American environmental
cooperation (North American Agreement). We examined (1) U.S. actions to
fulfill specific commitments, (2) the processes and methods that
federal agencies use to track these actions, and (3) the results of
independent evaluations of these actions for each of the selected
agreements.
Results in Brief:
Generally, the United States is taking actions to meet its commitments
under the five agreements. For example, under the Montreal Protocol,
the United States committed to stop producing and importing certain
substances that deplete the earth‘s ozone layer by 1996 and did so.
However, the United States fell short of its pledge to provide
financial assistance to other nations related to two agreements.
Specifically, although the United States has provided over $1.4 billion
in such assistance since 1991 related to three agreements, it provided
25 percent less than it pledged for a fund that finances climate change
and other environmental projects, and 6 percent less than it pledged
for the Montreal Protocol. No pledge was required for the
Desertification Convention. Moreover, while the United States did not
make a treaty commitment, the President set a goal in 1993 to reduce
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 level by 2000 and the
United States spent over $1 billion a year to do so. Nevertheless, U.S.
estimated emissions in 2001 were about
12 percent above the 1990 level.
Agencies generally use informal means, such as meetings and informal
communications, to track their actions to fulfill commitments under the
five agreements. According to officials at the Department of State and
other responsible agencies, such informal means are sufficient and
there is no need to establish formal tracking systems. We found no
instance in which the United States lost track of a commitment because
it lacked a formal tracking system.
Of the nine studies that we identified that evaluated the effectiveness
of U.S. actions, all generally concluded that the actions examined had
some positive effects. For example, four studies of Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) activities pursuant to the Framework Convention
concluded that they helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Background:
Just as nations have established international agreements to address
trade, weapons, and other issues, the United States and other nations
have joined together to respond to transboundary environmental
problems. Like other international agreements, environmental
agreements are legal instruments that are negotiated, signed, and
adopted by two or more countries. Developing such agreements involves
achieving voluntary commitments among nations with various levels of
industrial development, technical capability, resources, and concerns
about particular environmental problems. Worldwide, hundreds of
international legal instruments are aimed at environmental protection.
The Department of State‘s Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, which is primarily responsible
for environmental and related matters, is involved in more than 100
bilateral and multilateral agreements in which the United States is a
party or has an interest.
International agreements are intended to accomplish broad goals, such
as controlling the trade in certain endangered or at-risk species and
eliminating the production of certain ozone-depleting chemicals.
However, they do not always provide that the parties must achieve
specific objectives within certain time frames. Furthermore, agreements
do not always include mechanisms for monitoring parties‘ fulfillment of
commitments or for enforcing compliance.[Footnote 1] To some extent,
this lack of specifics reflects the belief that strict compliance and
enforcement mechanisms would discourage nations from participating in a
treaty. Therefore, the extent of a nation‘s compliance with
international agreements generally depends on peer or public pressure.
The five agreements we reviewed are summarized below, in chronological
order:
Table 1: Selected Information on the Five Agreements:
Agreement: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Number
of parties: 160; Purpose: Control the international trade in specified
types of animals and plants; Date of entry
into force: 1975.
Agreement: Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol); Number
of parties: 181; Purpose: Reduce the production and import of certain
chemicals that deplete the earth‘s stratospheric ozone layer; Date of
entry
into force: 1989.
Agreement: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(Framework Convention); Number
of parties: 185; Purpose: Stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide
and certain other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system;
Date of entry
into force: 1994.
Agreement: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (North
American Agreement); Number
of parties: 3; Purpose: Establish a framework for better protecting the
continent‘s environment through cooperation and enforcement of national
laws; Date of entry
into force: 1994.
Agreement: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those
Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification,
Particularly in Africa (Desertification Convention); Number
of parties: 184; Purpose: Mitigate desertification and drought through
improved land use practices, increased local participation in land use
planning, and mobilization and coordination of funding assistance; Date
of entry
into force: 1996.
[End of table]
Source: GAO.
Like many other multilateral treaties, each of these five agreements
created an institution, called a secretariat, to administer the
agreement. The secretariats are responsible for such tasks as compiling
reports based on submissions from the parties, administering requests
for technical assistance, and arranging the logistics for meetings of
the parties.
Within the U.S. government, a variety of agencies have a role in
negotiating and implementing international agreements. The Department
of State normally takes the lead in international negotiations, and
other agencies are involved in domestic implementation. For example,
for CITES, the Department of the Interior is the lead implementing
agency; for the Framework Convention, the Department of Energy and EPA;
and for the Montreal Protocol, EPA. For the Desertification Convention,
the Department of State takes the lead in coordinating U.S. policy
approaches, and the Agency for International Development (AID) provides
the majority of U.S. funding and other assistance to nations in support
of the Convention. For the North American Agreement, according to an
Executive Order, EPA represents the United States on the agreement‘s
governing body; consequently the agency has a major role in developing
policy, as well as the primary role in domestic implementation.
The United States Is Taking Many Actions to Fulfill Its Commitments
Under Five Agreements, but Has Not Provided All of Its Pledged Funds:
The United States is generally acting to fulfill its commitments under
the five agreements. However, while the United States provided
substantial funding to other nations, in two cases it did not provide
all that it pledged. Some commitments--such as establishing domestic
programs, providing funds to secretariats and other nations, and
reporting--are found in two or more of the agreements. Other
commitments--such as reducing the production and import of ozone-
depleting substances--are found in only one agreement. This section
discusses U.S. actions according to the types of commitments in the
five agreements.
Establishing Domestic Programs:
Three of the five agreements--CITES, the Framework Convention, and the
Montreal Protocol--require the United States to establish domestic
programs to help fulfill its commitments. The Desertification
Convention and the North American Agreement required no new programs.
Under CITES, for example, the Department of the Interior‘s Fish and
Wildlife Service created a permit program to review the import, export,
and
re-export of parts and products of species listed as threatened with
extinction. It issues about 4,500 such permits annually. Additionally,
in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture‘s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service and Treasury‘s Customs Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service monitors U.S. ports for illegal shipments of listed
species‘ parts and products.
Under the Framework Convention, the United States has developed a wide
array of domestic programs directly related to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As shown in table 2, according to a July 2002 report by the
Office of Management and Budget, the United States anticipated spending
an estimated $1.2 billion for such programs in fiscal year
2002.[Footnote 2] This amount primarily funds efforts by the Department
of Energy and EPA to research, develop, and deploy renewable energy
technologies and energy-efficient products that help reduce the use of
fossil fuels, as well as U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Table 2: Federal Expenditures for Selected Climate Change Programs
Related to Framework Convention, Fiscal Years 1999-2003A:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of table]
Source: Office of Management and Budget.
[A] Includes spending on programs directly related to climate change
through technology research, development, and deployment. Excludes tax
credits, spending to improve scientific understanding, international
assistance, and spending on programs indirectly related to climate
change.
[B] Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Under the Montreal Protocol, EPA promulgated regulations for the 16
companies that produced or imported certain ozone-depleting substances.
It established a schedule for them to phase out their production and
net import of these substances, granting them an initial allowance to
produce or import such substances and reducing the allowance gradually.
In addition, EPA established programs to ensure that certain substances
used in refrigerators and halon fire extinguishers were properly
recycled and to develop safe and effective alternatives to ozone-
depleting substances.
Also, EPA and other federal agencies undertook efforts to enforce
compliance with these regulations. As of March 2002, 114 individuals
had been convicted of illegal schemes to import ozone-depleting
substances and $67 million in fines and restitution had been imposed.
Providing Funds to Secretariats:
The United States agreed to contribute funds to the secretariats of the
five agreements. Voluntary contributions to the organizations are
generally used for administrative purposes including day to day
activities and arranging meetings of the parties to the agreements. In
the case of the North American Agreement, some of the funds are also
used to carry out cooperative environmental projects related to air
pollution, chemical and hazardous waste management, and other areas in
the three nations. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002, the
United States contributed about $49.3 million to the international
organizations for the five agreements. The largest amount was $22.2
million for the Framework Convention, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: U.S. Contributions to Secretariats for Five Agreements, Fiscal
Years 1998-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of table]
Source: Department of State.
[A] Even before the United States became a party to the Desertification
Convention in 2001, it made voluntary contributions to the Secretariat.
Providing Financial Assistance to Other Nations:
The United States pledged to provide financial assistance to other
nations related to three of the five agreements. In two cases--the
funding mechanism for the Framework Convention and other environmental
problems and the Montreal Protocol--the United States pledged to
provide specific amounts of funds, and in both cases it provided less
than it pledged. In the third case--the Desertification Convention--it
did not pledge to provide a specific amount, but it did provide funds.
In total, the United States provided more than $1.4 billion relating to
these three areas The amounts pledged and provided are shown in figure
1 below.
Figure 1: U.S. Funding to Other Nations Related to Three Agreements:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of AID, EPA, and Treasury data.
[A] The United States did not pledge a specific amount under the
Desertification Convention.
[B] Amounts related to support for the Global Environment Facility.
[C] Represents U.S. contributions to the Montreal Protocol Multilateral
Fund.
Under the Framework Convention, the United States committed to provide
an unspecified amount of funds. Separately, the United States later
pledged to provide specific amounts to the Global Environment Facility-
-a trust fund established to help developing countries address
biodiversity, climate change, and other environmental
problems.[Footnote 3] The United States pledged to provide $860 million
to the facility for fiscal years 1995 through 2002. However, through
2002, the Congress had appropriated $649 million (25 percent) less than
the amount pledged.[Footnote 4] This shortfall resulted from the
Congress not appropriating sufficient funding to meet the pledge. (See
table 4.):
Table 4: U.S. Funding for Global Environment Facility, Fiscal Years
1994-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of table]
Source: Treasury.
In addition to providing funds to developing countries through the
Global Environmental Facility, the United States supports developing
and other countries‘ efforts to address climate change through AID. In
fiscal year 2002, the agency provided an estimated $167 million to
promote development that minimizes emissions of greenhouse gases and
reduces vulnerability to climate change.
Under the Montreal Protocol, the United States pledged to provide
$363.6 million between 1991 and 2001 for technical assistance and
investment projects aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals in
developing nations. However, it provided $21.7 million (6 percent) less
than its pledge during that period. According to EPA officials, the
shortfall occurred primarily for two reasons. First, the United States
withheld about half the shortfall amount ($11.5 million) because of a
prohibition on U.S. foreign assistance to Iraq, North Korea, and
certain other nations.[Footnote 5] Second, in some years the Congress
appropriated less than the amount requested or imposed an across-the-
board rescission to EPA‘s appropriation accounts.
Finally, under the Desertification Convention, the United States
committed to provide an unspecified level of financial assistance to
developing countries. When the United States became a party to the
Convention in 2001, it was already providing financial assistance to
countries experiencing desertification and drought.[Footnote 6] In
fiscal year 2001, the first year of U.S. participation, AID provided
$93.8 million in assistance to other nations. Most of this amount
($85.1 million) was provided to particular regions of the world, with
the largest amount going to the Convention‘s primary focus, the African
nations. (See table 5.) These amounts include bilateral and
multilateral assistance designed to mitigate desertification and
drought by improving the capacity of communities and local institutions
to use new technologies to better manage natural resources and
agricultural lands. For example, AID‘s assistance to the Upper Niger
River Valley Program in Mali helped 33,000 agricultural producers adopt
practices that improved and diversified their livelihoods while
decreasing degradation of the land. In addition, $8.7 million was
provided for agricultural management that is conducted on an
international basis in various regions.
Table 5: U.S. Contributions Under the Desertification Convention, by
Region, Fiscal Year 2001:
Dollars in millions: Region: Africa; $53.8.
Dollars in millions: Region: Asia and Near East; 14.4.
Dollars in millions: Region: Europe and Eurasia; 4.2.
Dollars in millions: Region: Latin America and Caribbean; 12.7.
Dollars in millions: Region: Total; $85.1.
[End of table]
Source: AID.
Reporting:
From the beginning of 1997 through the end of calendar year 2002, the
United States agreed to submit 23 reports on implementation and related
issues for the 5 agreements: CITES, 8 (6 annual and 2 biennial); the
Desertification Convention, 1; the Framework Convention, 2; the
Montreal Protocol, 6; and the North American Agreement, 6. We reviewed
recent reports submitted under the five agreements and found that they
contained the information required. However, we also found that the
United States did not promptly submit about 43 percent of the reports
it had agreed to submit. Many other parties were also late in
submitting their reports, and according to State Department and other
agency officials the U.S. tardiness generally had no significant effect
on the agreements‘ secretariats or on other parties.
We reviewed recent reports under each agreement for completeness and
found that they contained the information required. For example, under
CITES the United States met its commitment to provide an annual report
on, among other things, the number and type of permits and certificates
it granted related to trade in listed wildlife species, the nations
with which such trade occurred, and the numbers or quantities and types
of specimens. Similarly, under the Framework Convention, the United
States met its commitment to publish reports that contained, among
other things, detailed information on its policies and measures to
mitigate climate change and its projected human-caused emissions for
the period 1990 to 2000. The Convention also required each party to
report on these two matters ’with the aim of returning individually or
jointly to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic [human-caused]
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.“[Footnote 7]
The 1997 report addressed this issue, stating that ’the measures listed
in this report are not expected to reduce U.S. emissions below 1990
levels by the year 2000.“ The 2002 report did not address this
issue.[Footnote 8] Under the Montreal Protocol the United States met
its commitment to provide the Secretariat with statistical data on
annual production, imports, and exports of each of the controlled
substances.
Of these 23 reports that the United States was required to submit under
the five agreements, 13 were submitted on time; 9 were submitted up to
8 months late; and 1 was never submitted at all, as shown in table 6.
Under each of the five agreements, at least one report was submitted
late or not at all.
Table 6: Timeliness of U.S. Reports for Each Agreement:
Agreement: CITES; Submitted
on time[A]: 7; Submitted late
or overdue: 0; Never
submitted: 1; Total: 8.
Agreement: Desertification Convention; Submitted
on time[A]: 0; Submitted late
or overdue: 1; Never
submitted: 0; Total: 1.
Agreement: Framework Convention; Submitted
on time[A]: 0; Submitted late
or overdue: 2; Never
submitted: 0; Total: 2.
Agreement: Montreal Protocol; Submitted
on time[A]: 5; Submitted late
or overdue: 1; Never
submitted: 0; Total: 6.
Agreement: North American Agreement[B]; Submitted
on time[A]: 1; Submitted late
or overdue: 5; Never
submitted: 0; Total: 6.
Agreement: Total; Submitted
on time[A]: 13; Submitted late
or overdue: 9; Never
submitted: 1; Total: 23.
[End of table]
[SOURCE: GAO.]
[A] Submitted within 30 days of the original target date or the date of
an extension granted by the secretariat.
[B] Although the agreement itself does not require parties to provide
such reports, the parties decided to submit country reports in order to
inform each other and the public.
For example, although the United States promptly submitted all six
annual reports and one biennial report under CITES, it did not submit
one biennial report on implementation. According to Fish and Wildlife
Service officials, the annual statistical reports and other periodic
reports submitted to the Secretariat provided much of the information
called for in that biennial report. Under the Framework Convention,
both reports were submitted late--the first by 3 months and the second
by 6 months.
The late submission of reports under the various agreements has had no
significant effect on the agreements‘ secretariats or other parties,
according to agency officials. However, the Secretary of the North
American Agreement‘s governing council said that the late submission of
reports by the United States and other parties delayed the publication
of the council‘s reports and the reports were less useful when the
information was outdated. According to EPA officials, the Secretariat
and the parties are working to streamline the process of country
reporting in an effort to make the reports more readable and timely.
Actions to Fulfill Unique Provisions:
The United States committed to achieving specific goals and timetables
under the Montreal Protocol. The Protocol established a series of
deadlines--extending from 1989 through 2030--for phasing out the
production and import of dozens of chemicals that deplete the ozone
layer. According to EPA data, the United States virtually eliminated
the production and import of nearly all of these chemical compounds by
the end of 1995, including chlorofluorocarbons, scheduled for phaseout
in the United States by 1996. Chlorofluorocarbons were the most
extensive compound, used for aerosols, air conditioning, refrigeration,
and solvents.[Footnote 9] (See fig. 2.):
Figure 2: U.S. Consumption of Chlorofluorocarbons, Related to Montreal
Protocol, 1986-99:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Because different chemicals have different capacities to deplete
the ozone layer, ’ozone depleting potential“ provides a consistent
means of measurement among the various chemicals.
Under the Framework Convention, the United States did not commit to
achieving a specific goal but did commit to reporting ’with the aim“ of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 level by 2000. In
addition, in 1993--the year before entry into force for the Framework
Convention--the President established a domestic goal of reducing
greenhouse emissions to their 1990 level by 2000. However, in 1997 the
United States reported that it did not expect to reduce U.S. emissions
below the 1990 level by the year 2000. According to data from the
Energy Information Administration, the 2001 level was about 12 percent
above the 1990 level. (See fig. 3.) The other three agreements did not
specify measurable goals.
Figure 3: U.S. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Related to Framework
Convention, 1990-2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of Energy Information Administration data.
The five agreements contain other unique provisions. For example, under
the Desertification Convention, parties are required to submit
nominations to the Secretariat for inclusion on a roster of independent
experts in disciplines relevant to combating desertification and
mitigating the effects of drought. Maintained by the Secretariat, the
roster is used as a central source of experts for technical assistance
and other purposes. The United States established a Web site to receive
applications for membership on the roster. Applications are received by
the Department of State, subjected to an interagency review process,
and then transmitted to the Secretariat. In addition, parties to the
Framework Convention commit to collect data on emissions of certain
greenhouse gases. EPA regularly collects and publishes these data.
Agencies Generally Use Informal Means to Track Actions:
Officials at the Department of State and other agencies told us that
they generally use informal means to track U.S. actions to fulfill its
many commitments. Officials said their interagency coordination begins
while an agreement is being negotiated. Furthermore, the agencies
frequently work together after ratification when preparing for periodic
meetings of the parties. Actions taken under all five agreements are
tracked mainly through periodic meetings of officials from the various
implementing agencies and other communications among these officials.
The officials noted that they may also consider the views of interest
groups and other parties to these agreements to help determine how well
U.S. actions are fulfilling commitments. Although the United States has
made many commitments under the five agreements and taken numerous
actions to fulfill them, we did not find any policy that would require
formal tracking of all such commitments and actions. The issue of
formally tracking international agreements was raised by the Senate
Committee on Finance more than a decade ago.
Officials expressed three reasons why informally tracking U.S. actions
is preferable to formally tracking them. First, the current system is
effective in helping to ensure that the United States acts to meet its
commitments. They added that they were unaware of any instance in which
the United States had failed to meet a commitment because it lacked a
formal tracking system and we did not find any such instance among the
five agreements we reviewed. Second, developing and maintaining a
formal tracking system--such as compiling a comprehensive database that
captures information on all commitments and actions to fulfill those
commitments or requiring periodic progress reports on these matters--
would require substantial staff and other costs, which would likely
exceed the potential benefits of having such a system. Finally, they
noted that most provisions in these international agreements are fairly
broad and--even where the provisions are specific--there are generally
few mechanisms to penalize a nation for not fulfilling a commitment.
Although three of the five agreements have mechanisms to penalize a
nation for not fulfilling certain commitments, they are rarely used and
no penalties have been imposed against the United States. Under CITES,
parties can disallow imports of CITES-listed species parts and products
from countries that are not properly implementing CITES, thus
restricting or preventing trade in such items. Under the Montreal
Protocol, noncompliance with the treaty can lead to suspension of
rights under the treaty, such as technology transfer. Under the North
American Agreement, monetary penalties may be levied if a party is
found to have a persistent pattern of failing to effectively enforce
its environmental laws. However, according to the Secretariat‘s
director of programs, these sanctions have never been applied. Actions
have never been taken against the United States, but they have been
applied to other nations under CITES, according to State Department
officials. Warnings have been given to some nations but not the United
States under the Montreal Protocol. No penalties have been imposed
against any nation under the North American Agreement, according to the
Secretariat‘s director of programs.
However, the North American Agreement also includes a mechanism for any
person or nongovernment organization in the United States, Mexico, or
Canada to submit an assertion to the Secretariat that one of the
parties is failing to enforce its environmental laws. Assertions have
been made involving all three governments. According to EPA officials,
the purpose of this provision is to create a public record.
In addition to the informal tracking means and as discussed above in
the section on reporting, under the North American Agreement, the
United States (like the other parties) submits an annual report on its
actions to fulfill the agreement‘s provisions. According to an EPA
official, the detailed reporting format (which lists actions provision
by provision) makes the parties‘ actions transparent and accessible to
each other and to the general public.
The issue of tracking international environmental agreements was raised
more than a decade ago by the Senate Committee on Finance. The
Committee Chairman said many agreements relied on trade restrictions to
achieve their goals, but there was no comprehensive and systematic
source of information to identify the agreements or their
implementation mechanisms. He asked the U.S. International Trade
Commission to consider, among other things, a methodology for
conducting periodic evaluations of environmental treaties. In response,
the Commission conducted a study and reported in 1991 that there was no
single source of information on the subject of international
environmental agreements and the extent of their
effectiveness.[Footnote 10] The Commission suggested that an
’environmental practices report“ could be compiled periodically and
that such a report could serve to facilitate congressional oversight
activities and to indicate the need for appropriate domestic or
international initiatives. However, the Commission did not address the
costs of implementing such a reporting system. When we spoke with the
study‘s project manager last year, he told us that he was unaware of
any action taken as a result of the study. Similarly, we found no
efforts to implement the concept.
The Few Available Program Evaluations Deemed U.S. Actions Positive:
Reviews of U.S. actions to fulfill international environmental
agreements concur that these actions have had positive effects. We
found two evaluations for CITES, four for the Framework Convention,
three for the Montreal Protocol, and none for the other two agreements.
Specifically:
* The two CITES studies, both conducted by academicians, concluded that
the United States had generally fulfilled its obligations by
establishing a sophisticated program for implementing CITES.
Nevertheless, according to one study, the United States has not been
able to prevent all illegal trade in endangered and at-risk
species.[Footnote 11]
* The four Framework Convention studies, performed primarily by EPA
contractors, concluded that EPA‘s programs helped reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by spurring the introduction of energy-efficient lighting
technology and encouraging producers to include energy-efficiency
features in computers and other office equipment.[Footnote 12]
* The three Montreal Protocol studies presented varied results. Two
studies--the one issued in 1998 by EPA‘s Office of Inspector General
and the other published in the same year by two academicians--found
that production bans under U.S. law had led to decreases in ozone-
depleting chemicals.[Footnote 13] The third study, issued in 2000 by
the Ozone Secretariat of the United Nations Environment Program, noted
the growth of illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances in the United
States.[Footnote 14] The report also noted that U.S. authorities
responded to such trade by arresting and sentencing many individuals on
counts of smuggling the substances.
We identified the studies by conducting a search of online information
retrieval systems, asking officials from the lead implementing agencies
and State Department for references, and contacting selected
secretariats. We did not independently verify the methods used in these
studies.
Scope and Methodology:
To answer all three questions, we reviewed documents prepared by, and
held discussions with officials of, the Department of State and other
implementing agencies. These included AID, EPA, Interior, and Treasury.
We performed our work from November 2001 through January 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Agency Comments:
We provided a copy of this draft to the Administrator, AID;
Administrator, EPA; Secretary of the Interior; Secretary of State; and
Secretary of the Treasury for review and comment. The agencies provided
written or oral clarifying comments, which we incorporated where
appropriate.
As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 10 days after the date of this letter unless you publicly
announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies to
appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, AID;
Administrator, EPA; Secretary of the Interior; Secretary of State; and
Secretary of the Treasury. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, copies are available at no cost from our Web
site, www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff need further information,
please contact me or David Marwick on (202) 512-3841. Key contributors
to this report include Chase M. Huntley, Karen Keegan, Jonathan
McMurray, and Daniel J. Semick.
Signed by John B. Stephenson:
John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources
and Environment:
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, International Environment:
Literature on the Effectiveness of International Environmental
Agreements, GAO/RCED-99-148 (Washington, D.C.: May 1999).
[2] U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Climate Change
Expenditures: Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002).
[3] The facility was established on a pilot basis in 1991 and was
restructured in 1994. It is funded by the United States and other
countries, and its projects are implemented and overseen by the United
Nations Development Program, United Nations Environmental Program, and
World Bank. See International Environment: Information on Global
Environment Facility‘s Funding and Projects (GAO/RCED-99-149, June 15,
1999). According to the Treasury Department, most of the facility‘s
projects related to biodiversity (42 percent) and climate change (38
percent). The other projects related to cleaning up international
waters and protecting fisheries (15 percent) and phasing out ozone-
depleting chemicals (5 percent). According to a Treasury official, U.S.
contributions to the facility are not earmarked according to purpose.
[4] This amount includes $30 million appropriated in fiscal year 1994
that was applied to fiscal year 1995.
[5] Federal law prohibits the use of U.S. foreign assistance to
international organizations for programs in Burma, Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, North Korea, and Syria, as well as to the Palestine Liberation
Organization under 22 U.S.C. §2227(a)(2000). The United States withheld
the share of its funds that would have gone to those entities.
[6] Furthermore, the President‘s letter transmitting the agreement to
the Senate for its advice and consent stated that the United States‘
obligations under the Convention would be met under existing law and
ongoing assistance programs.
[7] U.S. reporting on greenhouse gas emissions is discussed on page 14.
[8] According to a Department of State official, the 2002 report did
not address this issue because the ’aim“ set out in the Convention
refers only to the year 2000 and does not address emissions levels in
later years.
[9] The production and import of two other chemicals is to be
eliminated in future years--methyl bromide by 2005 and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons by 2030.
[10] U.S. International Trade Commission, International Agreements to
Protect the Environment and Wildlife, U.S. International Trade
Commission Publication 2351 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1991).
[11] Michael J. Glennon and Alison L. Stewart, ’The United States:
Taking Environmental Treaties Seriously,“ and Harold K. Jacobson and
Edith Brown Weiss, ’Assessing the Record and Designing Strategies to
Engage Countries,“ in Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with
International Environmental Accords, edited by Edith Brown Weiss and
Harold K. Jacobson (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998).
[12] Richard Duke and Daniel M. Kammen, ’The Economics of Energy Market
Transformation Programs,“ The Energy Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1999);
Marvin J. Horowitz, ’Economic Indicators of Market Transformation:
Energy Efficient Lighting and EPA‘s Green Lights,“ The Energy Journal,
Vol. 22, No. 4 (2001); Gartner Consulting, Energy Star Consumer
Campaign and Product Labeling, Marketing, and Communications:
Effectiveness Evaluation (Dec. 12, 2001); and Carrie A. Webber et al.,
Savings Estimates for the Energy Star Voluntary Labeling Program--2001
Status Report, Feb. 15, 2002.
[13] EPA, Office of Inspector General, The Effectiveness and Efficiency
of EPA‘s Air Program, Feb. 27, 1998; and Jacobson and Weiss, op. cit.
[14] United Nations Environment Program, Ozone Secretariat, Actions on
Ozone, June 2000.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
