I just spent the last few hours digging through the documents that are available for the ongoing negotiations in Doha on the UNFCCC website.  Transparency is great, of course, and the amount of available information for such negotiations is a night-and-day difference from just a decade ago.  But it also provides a deluge of information and documents that can bury some of the more significant documents and processes.  I always wonder how some of the smaller nation (or those with lesser resources to focus on international environmental negotiations) can possibly keep up with the mountain of paperwork and meetings. 

I came across the latest draft (dated December 1) of negotiation proposals (as prepared by the chair of that workgroup) for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, i.e. amendment of the the KP for a new commitment period (2013-2017 or 2020), emission reduction commitments, and related issues.  Here’s link:  http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600007231

Unfortunately, the document shows lots of unresolved issues — all of the major ones, essentially.  And of course, stark acknowledgment that Russia, Japan, and Canada are out for the next commitment period (and apparently also New Zealand). 

The 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change started on Monday, Nov. 26. Undoubtedly, COP 18 is a key meeting since it is the last meeting before the expiration of the first commitment period on December 31, 2012 for the Kyoto Protocol’s Annex B emission reduction commitments. This meeting will hopefully lead to the adoption of amendments to the Kyoto Protocol allowing for the commencement of a second commitment period in January 2013.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development provides terrific daily meeting summaries, available at http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb.  Among the key things that happened on Monday were not just the opening statements, which included mandatory posturing, but also the adoption of the meeting’s rules of procedure.  These rules are critical not only for the orderly conduct of the meeting but also for the adoption of decisions that become the official outcomes of this gathering of the COP (the governments that are parties to the treaty).

According to the Monday summary, the COP adopted the 1996 draft rules of procedure (FCCC/CP/1996/2), with the exception of draft rule 42.  (The draft rules can be found here: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop2/02.pdf .)  The 1996 draft rules were first put forward for adoption by the COP at its second meeting in 1996.  In spite of UNFCCC Article 7.2(k), which requires that the COP “agree upon and adopt, by consensus, rules of procedure . . . for itself,” and Article 7.3, which requires that the COP adopt these rules of procecure at its first session, that has never occurred in the 20 year history of the UNFCCC.  Thus, as far as I can tell, at each COP meeting since then, the parties have used the draft rules provisionally with the exception of draft rule 42.

What is draft rule 42?  In essence draft rule 42 sets out the key voting requirement for COP “decisions on matters of substance,” i.e. anything that really matters.  Without draft rule 42, there is no explicit voting rule for the meeting.  However, that does not mean that there can be no binding votes.  Instead, the default rule in international law applies – decisions must be taken by consensus of all the parties.

Thus, if one ever wondered why it is so difficult to for the UNFCCC parties (and Kyoto Protocol parties, or for that matter many international environmental treaty organizations) to make controversial decisions, the inability to adopt a voting rule altering the consensus requirement should tell a lot.

Here’s a story by Dawn Reeves from today’s Inside EPA on Scott Fulton:

http://insideepa.com/Inside-EPA-General/Inside-EPA-Public-Content/epas-counsel-plans-to-retire-leaving-another-top-slot-open/menu-id-565.html

Scott Fulton, my former boss at EPA, is retiring from the Agency effective January 3.  Principal Deputy GC Brenda Mallory will be acting until a new successor is confirmed by the Senate.  This was not so unexpected, but means that the Agency is losing one of its most experienced and thoughtful senior leaders who has helped steer it in the right direction for the last few decades.  He has also been one of the Agency’s most versatile leaders, with an amazing grasp of the Agency’s operations, having served in a number of very different roles at EPA.

He started his career doing enforcement work at the Environment Division in the Justice Department in the early 80s, then moved to the Enforcement Office at EPA, where he eventually rose to the  Deputy Assistant Administrator position.  He then served as Principal Deputy General Counsel, was appointed a judge on EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board, and then joined the Office of International Affairs as Deputy Assistant Administrator.  For a while, Scott also served as the Acting Assistant Administrator for the International Affairs Office.  At the beginning of President Obama’s first term, EPA Administrator Jackson asked Scott to serve as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Agency, the number 2 role in the organization.  Eventually, he was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as the Agency’s General Counsel, the role that he is now stepping down from. 

When he leaves EPA, Scott will be joining the Environmental Law Institute as a visiting scholar and possibly become engaged in other matters. 

Incidentally, here’s an interesting record that Scott holds:  He is already the longest-serving General Counsel in the history of EPA.  By the time he leaves, he will have served in his capacity for about 3 years and 5 months – longer even than Jonathan Cannon, who logged 3 years at General Counsel. 

This is sad news (for me as a former faculty member of Vermont Law School), but not surprising.  Law school applications have been lower nation-wide over the past couple of years.  The expectation expressed by some, such as Dean Frank Wu of Hastings, is that this is  part of a permanent adjustment for law schools that reflects fundamental changes in the market for legal services. 

In response to these trends, VLS will be reducing staff, including potentially faculty, according to VLS President Marc Mihaly.  Good luck to VLS and all of my former colleagues there.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/2012/11/25/law-school-cutting-jobs-preparing-for-changes/QlBibvMJqGla0P9FAuSEPI/story.html

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

SYSU student Mark Qiu (Ph.D. canddidate in administrative law) has written a paper on the super ministry reform in China that occurred last March. The reform resulted in the elevation of the State Environmental Protection Administration to the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Below is a download link to paper and an abstract:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1273230

On March 15, 2008, China’s 11th National People’s Congress passed the super ministry reform (SMR) motion proposed by the State Council and created five “super ministries,” mostly combinations of two or more previous ministries or departments. The main purpose of this SMR was to avoid overlapping governmental responsibilities by combining departments with similar authority and closely related functions. One of the highlights was the elevation of the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) to the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), which we also refer to as the environmental super ministry reform.The reference to “super ministry” is short-hand for the creation of a “comprehensive responsibilities super administrative ministry framework”. In order to promote comprehensive management and coordination, several departments are merged into a new entity, the “super ministry”, based on their similar goals and responsibilities. By enlarging the ministry’s responsibilities and authority, the reform essentially turns some inter-department tasks to intra-department issues, so one single department can cope with comprehensive problems from multiple perspectives, avoiding overlapping responsibilities and authority. Thus, administrative efficiency is increased and administrative costs are reduced. During this super ministry reform, MEP was upgraded and was the only department to retain its organizational structure and governmental responsibilities. This demonstrates the strong political will and commitment of China’s central government to environmental protection. This article first introduces the background of the SMR, followed by a discussion of the motivations and positive impacts of the SMR in the environmental protection sector. The authors then analyze significant problems of the current environmental protection administrative framework, which the environmental super ministry reform can potentially solve but so far has not touched. Finally, the article presents recommendations on key issues for future development.

Vermont Law School Awarded $300,000 Federal Grant To Expand VLS-China Environmental Law Partnership. See the VLS press release at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/x7762.xml.

DEPUTY PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE PARTNERSHIP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN CHINA

Vermont Law School seeks an extraordinary attorney with substantial experience in China, knowledge of environmental law, interested in the administration and development of our extraordinary Partnership in Environmental Law in China. Under the current Director, Professor Tseming Yang, the program trains Chinese attorneys in environmental law in China and Vermont, sends Vermont students to China, and produces collaborations and scholarship among its participants.

In the immediate future, the Deputy Director will have direct responsibility for the implementation of a new in-depth training project for Chinese law scholars at Vermont Law Scholars, involvement in the implementation of other parts of the ongoing program, and associated administrative responsibilities.

In the long term, the Deputy Project Director will acquire primary responsibility for the implementation and operation of the program, and share responsibility for development and the formation of strategic partnerships.

(1) Implement the strategic objectives of the Partnership under the supervision of the Director, Professor Tseming Yang.

(2) Provide assistance to members of the Chinese legal community in their efforts to become more effective environmental and energy problem solvers through:

§ Implementing environmental and energy law conferences, workshops, seminars, and roundtables in China and in Vermont.

§ Assisting in the design, funding, and taking the lead in implementing an LLM program for Chinese attorneys in Vermont.

§ Researching and consulting on regulatory policy, legislative drafting and general environmental and policy matter to Chinese government agencies.

§ Expanding and diversifying partnership activities by collaborating with law school faculty in China.

§ Implementing an Environmental and Energy Law Professors Network.

§ Strengthening collaboration on joint clinical and research projects at VLS and in China.

§ Administering and coordinating academic residencies at VLS for Chinese faculty and visiting Chinese graduate students.

(3) Seek and secure funding for all continuation and, as appropriate, expansion of the China project consistent with the goals set forth in section 2 above, including through foundation and government grants.

(4) Develop strategic partnerships with educational, environmental, and governmental entities both in China, the United States and elsewhere
.
(5) Oversee compliance with USAID and other funding sources’ requirements.

(6) Possible opportunity for teaching and faculty rank.

Essential Competencies

§ Knowledge of broad environmental and energy law issues in China.
§ Some proficiency in Mandarin Chinese and/or Cantonese highly preferred,.
§ Demonstrated fundraising capacity.
§ Demonstrated experience with grant administration.
§ Demonstrated teamwork and project management skills.
§ Ability to work flexibly on a range of assignments, and adjust to and prioritize a variety of complex and evolving tasks.
§ Excellent interpersonal, verbal communication and writing skills, as well as the ability to develop effective multi-agency/institutional relationships.
§ Interest and willingness to regularly travel to China.

Selection Criteria

§ Candidate must have an outstanding academic record with a J.D. and
§ at least 3 years of relevant work experience
§ Understanding of environmental and energy law.
§ Experience working with environmental and energy law networks in the US and China.
§ Experience and understanding of USAID regulations and processes, helpful.
§ Demonstrated achievement in positions that require strong analytical and writing skills.
§ Work experience with national and international policymakers, helpful.
§ Has presented to audiences in a variety of cultural and institutional settings.
§ Work or living experience in China highly preferred.

For more information about Vermont Law School and the Partnership for Environmental Law in China, please see http://www.vermontlaw.edu/x1463.xml.

To apply, please send a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and references to Diane Hayes, Director of Human Resources, Vermont Law School, PO Box 96, South Royalton, VT 05068. Electronic applications are preferred and can be sent to jobs@vermontlaw.edu. Applications will be considered as they are submitted. The position will remain open until filled.

9/19/2008