Go to the data at the end of this page on increasing participation in international environmental agreements. The integration of environmental legislation can be controversial. For some, the integration of environmental legislation offers untapped potential for real environmental protection, making these agreements more compatible with environmental and climate policy. However, trade critics often view these provisions as mere “fig leaves” contained in modern ASPs to make them less controversial in the eyes of public opinion and legislators. For other critics, they are an instrument of “green protectionism” to drive cheaper products from developing countries away from the market. Secondly, the interaction between SAAs and other environmental or climate agreements must be understood. The encoding terms used for inclusion are the 16 years it took the World Heritage Convention and the VILLES agreements, which were first ratified in the 1970s, to be ratified by more than 100 countries. However, the Kyoto Protocol was first ratified in 1998 and took only five years to reach the same point, and the Paris Agreement (2016) received 121 ratifications in its first year. The purpose of this category and sub-categories is to identify agreements relating to the regulation of lakes and rivers.
In most cases, agreements for the protection of freshwater resources are referred to by the name of the body of water concerned, the title being unclear as to the environmental aspect that is protected. I assumed that the word “protection” of a river or lake included environmental protection. In other cases, however, I have used the preamble to distinguish environmental protection of freshwater resources from agreements on rivers or lakes that are only for navigation. . . .