International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments	 
Under Five Key Agreements (24-JUL-02, GAO-02-960T).		 
                                                                 
The United States is bound by five international environmental	 
agreements related 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).	 
However, the United States fell short of meeting a commitment or 
pledge in two areas--providing financial assistance to other	 
nations and timely reporting. Agencies use informal means, such  
as meetings and informal communications, to track their actions  
to fulfill commitments under the five agreements. GAO found few  
studies that evaluated the effectiveness of the U.S. actions.	 
These few studies generally concluded that the actions examined  
had positive effects.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-960T					        
    ACCNO:   A04112						        
  TITLE:     International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill       
Commitments Under Five Key Agreements				 
     DATE:   07/24/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     International agreements				 
	     International cooperation				 
	     International organizations			 
	     International relations				 
	     Convention on International Trade in		 
	     Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and		 
	     Flora						 
                                                                 
	     Montreal Protocol on Substances That		 
	     Deplete the Ozone Layer				 
                                                                 
	     North American Agreement on			 
	     Environmental Cooperation				 
                                                                 
	     United Nations					 
	     United Nations Convention to Combat		 
	     Desertification in Those Countries 		 
	     Experiencing Serious Drought			 
                                                                 
	     United Nations Framework Convention on		 
	     Climate Change					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-960T
     
Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 10: 30
a. m. INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENT U. S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under Five Key Agreements

Statement for the Record by John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources
and Environment

GAO- 02- 960T

Page 1 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Committees: I am pleased to have the
opportunity to comment on the results of work we performed for you on the
United States? actions to fulfill its commitments under five international
environmental agreements. These agreements, which were identified 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).

Because the causes and consequences of climate change and other
environmental problems do not respect national boundaries, the United States
and other nations have entered into numerous international environmental
agreements to address such problems. These agreements typically provide that
the parties will undertake various actions. Some provisions are specific and
measurable (such as having the parties establish domestic programs to, for
example, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or having them report periodically
on their progress), while others are general and difficult to measure (such
as having the parties coordinate with each other).

Today, as requested, I will discuss three issues concerning international
environmental agreements: (1) the extent of U. S. actions to fulfill
specific commitments under the five agreements, (2) the processes and
methods federal agencies use to track these actions, and (3) the results of
independent evaluations of these actions.

In summary, our work shows the following:

The United States is generally taking action to meet its specific
commitments under the five agreements. For example, it established domestic
programs, as required by three of the agreements. However, the United States
fell short of meeting a commitment or pledge in two areas. First, in the
area of providing financial assistance to other nations, the United States
provided over $1.4 billion in such assistance, but it provided less than it
pledged for the Framework Convention (25

Page 2 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

percent) and the Montreal Protocol (6 percent). Second, in the area of
reporting, while the United States submitted nearly all of the 21 reports
that it agreed to submit from 1997 through mid- 2002, about half of these
reports were submitted from 2 to 8 months late, and 2 were never submitted.
Even though many U. S. reports were late, we determined that other parties?
reports were also often late and that, for the most part, the U. S. ?s
tardiness had no significant effect.

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 at other
responsible agencies, such informal means are sufficient and there is no
need to establish formal tracking systems. We found no instance where the
United States lost track of a commitment because it lacked a formal system.

We found few studies that evaluated the effectiveness of U. S. actions.
These few studies generally concluded that the actions examined had 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 deal with
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 capabilities, resources, and concerns about particular
environmental problems. Worldwide, hundreds of international legal
instruments are aimed at environmental protection. According to a Department
of State official, the department?s Bureau of

Page 3 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

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- but 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 whether the parties are fulfilling their
commitments or for enforcing compliance. 1 To some extent, this arrangement
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:

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora
and Fauna (CITES), which is intended to control the international trade in
specified types of plants and animals (ratified by the United States in
1974);

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal
Protocol), which is intended to reduce the production and import of certain
chemicals that deplete the earth?s stratospheric ozone layer (ratified in
1988);

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Framework
Convention), the objective of which is to 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 (ratified
in 1992);

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).

Page 4 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (North American
Agreement), which is intended to establish a framework for better protecting
the continent?s environment through cooperation and enforcement of national
laws (entered into force in 1994); and

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/ or Desertification, Particularly in Africa
(Desertification Convention), which is intended to mitigate desertification
and drought through improved land use practices, increased local
participation in land use planning, and mobilization and coordination of
funding assistance (ratified in 2000).

Like many other multilateral treaties, each of these five agreements created
an institution to administer the agreement. These institutions are often
called secretariats. Under CITES and the North American Agreement, these
institutions are independent entities; under the other three agreements, the
institutions are United Nations entities. These institutions 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, the Department of State is the lead agency for
participating in the Framework Convention and Montreal Protocol. In the
former case, the Department of Energy and EPA are the key implementing
agencies domestically; in the latter case, it is EPA. The Department of the
Interior is the key implementing agency domestically under CITES, and EPA is
the key implementing agency for the North American Agreement. Although no
agency has been assigned the lead responsibility for the Desertification
Convention, the Agency for International Development provides the majority
of the funding and other assistance to nations in support of the Convention;
the Department of State also plays a significant role.

We discussed the facts included in this statement with the Director, Office
of Global Change, and other Department of State officials, as well as
officials from the Agency for

Page 5 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

International Development, the Departments of the Interior and Treasury, and
the Environmental Protection Agency. They generally agreed with the
information presented and they provided clarifications, which we included
where appropriate. We performed our work between November 2001 and July 2002
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The United States Is Taking Many Actions to Fulfill Its Commitments, but Has
Not Provided All the Funds It Pledged

The United States is, in general, taking actions to fulfill the specific
provisions of the five selected agreements. We identified three types of
provisions- establishing domestic programs, providing financial assistance
to other nations, and reporting- that were found in two or more agreements
(cross- cutting provisions), as well as agreementspecific provisions.

Establishing Domestic Programs Three of the five agreements required the
United States to establish new domestic programs to help fulfill its
commitments -CITES, the Framework Convention, and the Montreal Protocol. 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 reexport 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.
According to a July 2002 report by the Office of Management and Budget, the
United States is

Page 6 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

spending an estimated $1.2 billion for such programs in fiscal year 2002. 2
This amount primarily funds Department of Energy and EPA efforts 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.

Under the Montreal Protocol, EPA promulgated regulations- initially in 1988
and later revised- 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. As of March 2002, through the efforts of EPA and other
federal agencies, 114 individuals had been convicted of illegal schemes to
import ozone- depleting substances and $67 million in fines and restitution
had been imposed.

Providing Financial Assistance to Other Nations The United States pledged to
provide financial assistance to other nations under three of the five
agreements. In two cases- the Framework Convention 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 did provide funds. In total, the United States provided more than $1.4
billion under these three agreements.

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, which is the
financial mechanism

2 U. S. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Climate Change
Expenditures: Report to Congress

(Washington, D. C.: July 9, 2002).

Page 7 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

for the Framework Convention. 3 The facility was established to help
developing countries address climate change and other environmental
problems. 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, or $211 million (25 percent) less than the amount
pledged. 4 This shortfall resulted because, in some years, the Congress did
not appropriate enough money to meet the pledge.

In addition to providing funds to developing countries through the facility,
the United States supports developing and other countries? efforts to
address climate change through the Agency for International Development. In
fiscal year 2002, the agency is providing an estimated $167 million to
promote development that minimizes the growth in greenhouse gas emissions
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 $21.7 million (6 percent) less than its pledge
during that period. According to EPA officials, the shortfall occurred for
several reasons. The United States withheld more than half the shortfall
amount ($ 11.5 million) because of a prohibition on U. S. foreign assistance
to Iraq, North Korea, and certain other nations. 5 In addition, 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 convention

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.

4 This 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. 22 U. S. C. sect.2227( a)( 2000). The United States
withheld the share of its funds that would have gone to those entities.

Page 8 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

was ratified in 2000, the United States was already providing financial
assistance to countries experiencing desertification and drought. 6 In
fiscal year 2001, the first year of U. S. participation, the Agency for
International Development provided $93.8 million in assistance to other
nations, including $53.8 million to African countries, the Convention's
primary focus. 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 and tools to
better manage agricultural lands and natural resource areas.

Reporting Although we found that the United States did not promptly submit
nearly half the reports it had agreed to submit, many other parties were
also late in submitting their reports. Moreover, we generally found that
this tardiness had no significant effect on the agreements? secretariats or
on other parties.

From the beginning of 1997 to the present, the United States agreed to
submit 21 reports on implementation and related issues for the 5 agreements:
CITES, 7 (5 annual and 2 biennial); the Desertification Convention, 1; the
Framework Convention, 2; the Montreal Protocol, 5; and the North American
Agreement, 6. Of these 21 reports, 8 were submitted between 2 and 8 months
late, 1 is expected to be submitted soon and will be at least 3 months late,
and 2 were never submitted.

The United States has been late in submitting at least one report related to
four of the five agreements, as shown in table 1.

6 Furthermore, the President's letter transmitting the agreement to the
Senate stated that the United States? obligations under the convention would
be met under existing law and ongoing assistance programs.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

Table 1. Number of Reports for Each Agreement, by Timeliness Agreement

Submitted on time or granted

an extension Submitted late

or overdue Never

submitted Total

CITES 5 2 7 Desertification Convention 1 1 Framework Convention 2 2 Montreal
Protocol 4 1 5 North American Agreement 1 5 6

Total 10 9 2 21

For example, under the Framework Convention, both reports were submitted
late- the first by 3 months and the second by 6 months. Similarly, under the
North American Agreement, four of the six reports were from 3 to 8 months
late and one is overdue. Although the agreement itself does not require the
United States to provide such reports, the parties decided to submit country
reports in order to provide the secretariat with useful information.

Finally, the United States has not submitted two biennial reports on its
implementation of CITES. According to a CITES secretariat official, most
other parties also have not submitted them either. According to Fish and
Wildlife Service officials, the United States has submitted annual
statistical reports and other periodic reports to the secretariat on certain
activities under CITES, which provide much of the information that would
have been included in the biennial reports.

According to agency officials, in most cases, the United States? tardiness
had no significant effect on the agreements? secretariats or other parties.
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 secretariat?s reports. According to
the secretariat?s director of programs, these reports were less useful
because the information was occasionally old.

Generally, the reports contained the information required under the
respective agreements. For example, the Framework Convention reports are to
include, among other things, detailed information on its policies and
measures to mitigate climate change and its projected human- caused
emissions. We found that both reports included

Page 10 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

this information. The Convention also states that each party shall 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.? The 1997 report addressed this issue by
stating, ?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. 7 According to data from the Energy Information
Administration, U. S. emissions in 2000 were about 14 percent above the 1990
level.

In addition to these cross- cutting provisions, some of the agreements
include unique commitments. We found that the United States is generally
acting to fulfill such commitments. For example:

Under the Montreal Protocol, the United States committed to achieving
specific goals and timetables. The Protocol established a series of
deadlines- 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 chemicals by the end of 1995. 8 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. The other three agreements do not specify measurable goals.

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

7 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. 8 The
use of two other chemicals is to be eliminated in future years- by 2005, in
the one case, and 2030, in the other case.

Page 11 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

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.

Under the Framework Convention, the United States committed to collect data
on emissions of certain greenhouse gases. EPA regularly collects and
publishes these data.

Agencies Generally Use Informal Means to Track Actions

Although the United States has made many commitments under these five
agreements and taken numerous actions to fulfill these commitments, we did
not identify any policy that would require government officials to formally
track all such commitments and 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 and
continues after ratification because the agencies frequently interact while
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.

Officials expressed a preference for informally tracking U. S. actions for
three reasons. 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. Second, developing and maintaining a formal system- such
as (1) compiling a comprehensive database that captures information on all
commitments and actions to fulfill those commitments or (2) requiring
periodic progress reports on these matters- would involve substantial staff
and other costs; these costs would likely exceed the potential benefits of
having such a system.

Page 12 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

Finally, most provisions in these international agreements are fairly broad
and- even where the provisions are specific- there are generally few
penalties for a nation?s failure to fulfill a commitment. Although two of
the five agreements include mechanisms to enforce compliance, these
mechanisms are rarely used. 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. Agency officials told us that these sanctions have never been applied
against the United States. 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.

In addition to these informal tracking means, under the North American
Agreement, the United States (like the other parties) annually compiles a
detailed list of actions related to the agreement?s provisions. According to
an EPA official, the detailed reporting format (which lists actions
provision by provision) was established in the early years of the agreement
to make the parties? actions transparent and accessible to each other and to
the general public.

The Few Available Program Evaluations Deemed U. S. Actions Effective

Despite an extensive search, we found few evaluations of the effectiveness
of U. S. actions to meet its commitments under the five agreements. To
identify such studies, we conducted a search of online information retrieval
systems and contacted selected secretariats. We did not independently verify
the methods used in these studies. The few studies we identified generally
concluded that the actions examined had 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:

Page 13 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements

The two CITES studies, both by academicians, concluded that the United
States has 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. 9

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. 10

The three Montreal Protocol studies presented varying results. Two studies-
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 led to decreases in ozone- depleting chemicals. 11 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. 12 The report also noted that U. S.
authorities responded to such trade by arresting and sentencing many
individuals on counts of smuggling the substances.

9 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).

10 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.

11 EPA, Office of Inspector General, The Effectiveness and Efficiency of
EPA?s Air Program, Feb. 27, 1998; and Jacobson and Weiss, op. cit.

12 United Nations Environment Program, Ozone Secretariat, Actions on Ozone,
June 2000.

Page 14 GAO- 02- 960T International Environmental Agreements Contacts and
Acknowledgments

For further information, please contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-
3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Chase
M. Huntley, Karen Keegan, David Marwick, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and
Daniel J. Semick.

(360252)
*** End of document. ***