Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clustering of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Potentials and Limitations

  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of clustering of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), i.e. the integration of groups of MEAs or parts thereof, has acquired prominence in recent discussions about reforming international environmental governance. Understood as a continuing process, clustering of MEAs aims at advancing the ongoing process of integrating the elements of this system more systematically and dynamically. This paper proceeds in three steps. First, it demonstrates that a distinction needs to be made between clustering of organisational elements of MEAs and their functions, since the conditions and the effects of their integration differ significantly. Second, it argues that – in contrast to several existing approaches that seek to build clusters starting from similarities in one dimension – any attempt to integrate elements of MEAs needs to be based upon the analysis of a range of factors that influence the prospects of such integration (including overlap of membership and issues, practical feasibility, legal obstacles, and functional requirements). Third, the article contrasts the main potential benefits of a clustering of MEAs, namely efficiency gains and an increase in the coherence of international environmental governance, with the main challenges of international environmental policy, namely reaching agreement, implementing such agreement effectively and preventing/managing inter-institutional conflict. While clustering cannot be expected to make a significant direct contribution to addressing these challenges, it has a potential to economise and enhance the system of international environmental governance with positive indirect effects promoting better international environmental protection in the longer term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawala, Shardul (1998), “Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, Climatic Change 39(4), 621–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Molly, Trevor Findlay and Clare Tenner (2001), “The Kyoto Protocol: Verification Falls into Place”, in Trevor Findlay and Oliver Meier, eds., Verification Yearbook 2001, London: VERTIC, pp. 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, Steinar, Tora Skodvin, Arild Underdal and Jørgen Wettestad (2000), Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes.Between Integrity and Involvement. Manchester: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, Jesse H. and David. G. Victor (1992), “Verification of International Environmental Agreements”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 17, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, Frank (2000), “The Case for a World Environment Organisation”, Environment 42(9), 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, Robin R. and Geir Ulfstein 2000: “Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law”, The American Journal of International Law 94, 623–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSombre, Elizabeth R. and Joanne Kauffman (1996), “The Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund: Partial Success”, in Robert O. Keohane and Marc A. Levy, eds., Institutions for Environmental Aid.Pitfalls and Promise. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press, pp. 89–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrmann, Markus (2000), Erfüllungskontrolle im Umweltvölkerrecht – Verfahren der Erfüllungskontrolle in der umweltvölkerrechtlichen Vertragspraxis. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairman, David (1996), “The Global Environment Facility: Haunted by the Shadow of the Future”, in Robert O. Keohane and Marc A. Levy, eds., Institutions for Environmental Aid.Pitfalls and Promise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 55–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • GEF (2002), Focusing on the Global Environment. The First Decade of the GEF, second overall performance study (OPS 2), Global Environment Facility, 25 January 2002 (available at <http://www.gefweb.org/> under Results and Impacts).

  • Gehring, Thomas (1994), Dynamic International Regimes: Institutions for International Environmental Governance. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, Thomas and Sebastian Oberthür (2000), “Was bringt eine Weltumweltorganisation? Kooperationstheoretische Anmerkungen zur institutionellen Neuordnung der internationalen Umweltpolitik”, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 7(1), 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, Owen (1998), “The System for Implementation Review in the Ozone Regime”, in David G. Victor, Kal Raustiala and Eugene B. Skolnikoff, eds., The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyvarinen, Joy and Duncan Brack (2000), Global Environmental Institutions.Analysis and Options for Change. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. and Marc A. Levy (eds.) (1996), Institutions for Environmental Aid.Pitfalls and Promise. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, Oliver and Clare Tenner (2001), “Non-Governmental Monitoring of International Agreements”, in Trevor Findlay and Oliver Meier, eds., Verification Yearbook 2001. London: VERTIC, pp. 207–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltke, Konrad von (2001), On Clustering International Environmental Agreements. Winnipeg: IISD, June 2001 (available at <http://iisd.ca/pdf/trade_clustering_meas.pdf>).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltke, Konrad von (2001a), Whither MEAs? The Role of International Environmental Management in the Trade and Environment Agenda. Winnipeg: IISD, July 2001 (available at <http://iisd.ca/pdf/trade_whither_meas.pdf>).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian (2001), Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances 1986–1999.The Data Reporting System under the Montreal Protocol. Eschborn: GTZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian (2001a), “Linkages Between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate”, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian and Hermann E. Ott (in collaboration with Richard G. Tarasofsky) (1999), The Kyoto Protocol.International Climate Policy for the 21st Century. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian and Simon Marr (2002), “Das System der Erfüllungskontrolle des Kyoto-Protokolls: Ein Schritt zur wirksamen Durchsetzung im Umweltvölkerrecht”, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 13(2), 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian, Matthias Buck, Sebastian Müller, Alice Palmer, Stefanie Pfahl, Richard G. Tarasofsky and Jacob Werksman (2002), Participation of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Environmental Governance: Legal Basis and Practical Experience. Berlin: Ecologic (available at www.ecologic.de).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlando, Bret (1999), Issue Management, paper prepared for International Conference on Synergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Tokyo: UNU, 14–16 July 1999, available at <http://www.geic.or.jp/interlinkages/docs/online-docs.html>.

  • Ott, Hermann E. (1998), Umweltregime im Völkerrecht.Eine Untersuchung über neue Formen internationalisierter Kooperation am Beispiel der Verträge zum Schutz der Ozonschicht und zur Kontrolle grenzüberschreitender Abfallverbringung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parson, Edward A. (1993), “Protecting the Ozone Layer”, in Peter M. Haas, Robert O. Keohane, and Marc A. Levy, eds., Institutions for the Earth.Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Court of Arbitration (2001), Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment. The Hague, 19 June 2001: The Secretary-General and the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (available at <http://pca-cpa.org/BD/>).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontecorvo, Concetta Maria (1999), “Interdependence between Global Environmental Regimes: The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and Forest Protection”, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 59(3), 709–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, Rosalind (2001), “Verification Mechanisms in CITES”, in Trevor Findlay and Oliver Meier, eds., Verification Yearbook 2001, London: VERTIC, pp. 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, Ian H. (1993), “The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Report and Reflection”, Environment 35(6), 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sach, Karsten and Moritz Reese (2002), “Das Kyoto Protokoll nach Bonn und Marrakesch”, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 13(2), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sand, Peter H. (1990), Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sand, Peter H. (1994), Trusts for the Earth.New Financial Mechanisms for International Environmental Protection. Hull: University of Hull.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sand, Peter H. (1997), “Commodity or Taboo? International Regulation of Trade in Endangered Species”, Green Globe Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development 1997, 19–36.

  • Szell, Patrick (1995), “The Development of Multilateral Mechanisms for Monitoring Compliance”, in Winfried Lang, ed., Sustainable Development and International Law. London: Kluwer Law International, pp. 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarasofsky, Richard G. (1997), “Ensuring Compatibility Between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and GATT/WTO”, Yearbook of International Environmental Law 7, 52–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (1999), Global Environment Outlook 2000. Nairobi: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2000), Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 5th Edition. Nairobi: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2001), Implementing the Clustering Strategy for Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Framework. Background Paper by the Secretariat, UNEP doc. UNEP/IGM/4/4, Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives on International Environmental Governance, 16 November 2001.

  • UNEP (2001a), Use of the World Customs Organization”s "Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System" by Multilateral Environmental Agreements, a discussion paper for the Ninth Meeting on Coordination of Convention Secretariats, 11–12 February 2001, Nairobi, Kenya (UNEP) (on file with author).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2002), Report of the Governing Council Seventh Special Session (13–15 February 2002), UN General Assembly Doc. A/57/25, New York: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations University (1999), Inter-Linkages: Synergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Tokyo: UNU Institute of Advanced Studies and Global Environment Information Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, David G. (1999), The Market for International Environmental Protection Services and the Perils of Coordination, paper prepared for the International Conference on Synergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements, United Nations University, Tokyo, 14-16 July 1999 (available at <http://www.geic.or.jp/interlinkages/docs/online-docs.html>).

  • Victor, David G., Kal Raustiala and Eugene B. Skolnikoff (eds.) (1998), The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (2001), World in Transition: New Structures for Global Environmental Policy. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werksman, Jacob (1996), “Consolidating Governance of the Global Commons: Insights from the Global Environment Facility”, Yearbook of International Environmental Law 6, 27–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WSSD (2002), Draft Plan of Implementation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Advance Unedited Text, 12 June 2002 (available at <http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs.html>).

  • Yamin, Farhana (2001), “NGOs and International Environmental Law: A Critical Evaluation of their Roles and Responsibilities”, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 10(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran R. (2002), The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecologic, Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Pfalzburger Str. 43-44, 10717, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Oberthür

  2. Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Feldkirchen str. 21, 96045, Bamberg, Germany

    Sebastian Oberthür

Authors
  1. Sebastian Oberthür
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oberthür, S. Clustering of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Potentials and Limitations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2, 317–340 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021364902607

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021364902607

Search

Navigation