Advertisement

Environmental policy integration among multilateral environmental agreements: the case of biodiversity

  • José Octavio Velázquez GomarEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The system of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) comprises hundreds of conventions and protocols designed to protect the environment. Institutional interaction within the MEA system raises issues of environmental policy integration (EPI), i.e. balancing different environmental objectives and considerations. Mainstream proposals for enhancing EPI in environmental governance build upon the assumption that environmental institutions are fragmented. However, recent research reveals that the MEA system has been defragmenting over the years such that EPI is less a problem of institutional fragmentation than of effective management of institutional interplay. This paper examines the factors affecting EPI among MEAs by looking at experiences in the cluster of biodiversity-related multilateral agreements. The analysis is based on a series of interviews with MEA secretariat officials and international experts conducted between September 2011 and January 2012. The paper identifies institutional, political and cognitive barriers constraining interplay management efforts. While some have proposed regulatory changes in the cluster, national-level co-ordination appears to be the best way to advance EPI.

Keywords

Multilateral environmental agreements Environmental policy integration International environmental governance Synergies Biodiversity-related conventions 

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2012). Institutional density and the ecology of public and private institutions in world politics. Paper presented at the International Relations Colloquium, Princeton, NJ, 5 November.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2013). Organizational ecology in world politics: Institutional density and organizational strategies. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, 3–6 April.Google Scholar
  3. Adelle, C., & Jordan, A. (2014). Policy coherence for development in the European Union: Do new procedures unblock or simply reproduce old disagreements? Journal of European Integration, 36(4), 375–391.Google Scholar
  4. Andresen, S. (2007). The effectiveness of UN environmental institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 7(4), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andresen, S., & Rosendal, K. (2009). The role of the United Nations Environment Programme in the coordination of multilateral environmental agreements. In F. Biermann, B. Siebenhüner, & A. Schreyögg (Eds.), International organizations in global environmental governance (pp. 133–150). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009). The influence of international bureaucracies in world politics: Findings from the MANUS Research Program. In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental Bureaucracies (pp. 319–350). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boisson de Chazournes, L. (2009). Convention on biological diversity and its protocol on biosafety. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153013/. Accessed 3 May 2014.
  9. Briceño, S. (1999). Institutional linkages among multilateral environmental agreements: An organizational and educational development perspective. Paper presented at the International Conference on Synergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements, Tokyo, 14–16 July.Google Scholar
  10. Caddell, R. (2011). The integration of multilateral environmental agreements: Lessons from the biodiversity-related conventions. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 22(1), 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CBD Decision VII/30. Strategic plan: Future evaluation of progress. Adopted at the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur, 9–20 February 2004. CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/30.Google Scholar
  12. CBD Doc BLG-5/2. Draft Report of the fifth meeting of the Liaison Group of the Biodiversity-Related Conventions, Gland, 14 September 2006.Google Scholar
  13. CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/6/5. Report of the open-ended inter-sessional meeting on the strategic plan, National Reports and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Submitted to the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Hague, 7–19 April 2002.Google Scholar
  14. CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/MSP/2. Strategic Plan for the convention on biological diversity. Note by the Executive Secretary to the Open-Ended Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Strategic Plan, National Reports and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 19–21 November 2001.Google Scholar
  15. CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/WS-StratPlan/5. Conclusions of the Workshop on the Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Port Glaud, Seychelles, 28–30 May 2001.Google Scholar
  16. Churchill, R. R., & Ulfstein, G. (2000). Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: A little-noticed phenomenon in international law. American Journal of International Law, 94(4), 623–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corning, P. A. (1998). “The synergism hypothesis”: On the concept of synergy and its role in the evolution of complex systems. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 21(2), 133–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eberlein, B., & Newman, A. L. (2008). Escaping the international governance dilemma? Incorporated transgovernmental networks in the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 21(1), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Secretariat, C. B. D. (2006). Global biodiversity outlook 2. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  20. EMG Secretariat. (2008). Enhancing MEAs’ coherence: Analysis of existing cooperative frameworks and proposals for MEAs cooperation and synergies, in particular lessons learned and successful examples, and identification of areas where further cooperation might be explored. First unedited draft. http://www.biodivcluster.fi/default.htm. Accessed 26 April 2014.
  21. Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2010). Division of labor within institutional complexes and the evolution of interlocking structures of international governance: The complex of trade and the environment. Paper presented at the 7th Pan-European international relations conference, politics in hard times: International Relations responses to the financial crisis, Stockholm, 9–11 September.Google Scholar
  22. Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(1), 119–130.Google Scholar
  23. Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2006). Introduction. In S. Oberthür & T. Gehring (Eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15(1), 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta, J., & Sanchez, N. (2012). Global green governance: Embedding the green economy in a global green and equitable rule of law polity. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 21(1), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogl, K., & Nordbeck, R. (2012). The challenge of coordination: Bridging horizontal and vertical boundaries. In K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, & M. Pregernig (Eds.), Environmental governance: The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness (pp. 111–132). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IISD. (2008). CBD CoP 9 Highlights: Tuesday, 20 May 2008. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(444). http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cop9/. Accessed 18 November 2013.
  28. IISD. (2010). CBD CoP 10 Highlights: Wednesday, 20 October 2010. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(537). http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cop10/. Accessed 18 November 2013.
  29. Ivanova, M. (2005). Can the anchor hold? Rethinking the United Nations Environment Programme for the 21st Century. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
  30. Ivanova, M. (2007). Designing the United Nations Environment Programme: A story of compromise and confrontation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 7(4), 337–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jardin, M. (2010). Global biodiversity governance: The contribution of the main biodiversity-related conventions. In R. Billé, L. Chabason, C. Chiarolla, M. Jardin, G. Kleitz, J. Le Duc, & L. Mermet (Eds.), Global governance of biodiversity: New perspectives on a shared challenge (pp. 6–44). Paris: Institut Français des Relations Internationales.Google Scholar
  32. Jinnah, S. (2010). Overlap management in the world trade organization: Secretariat influence on trade-environment politics. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jinnah, S. (2011). Marketing linkages: Secretariat governance of the climate-biodiversity interface. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jóhannsdóttir, A., Cresswell, I., & Bridgewater, P. (2010). The current framework for international governance of biodiversity: Is it doing more harm than good? Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 19(2), 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jolly, R. (2003). Global goals—the UN experience. New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  36. Jordan, A., & Lenschow, A. (2010). Environmental policy integration: A state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keohane, R. O. (2001). Governance in a partially globalized world. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Paper presented at the Earth System Governance Tokyo Conference, Tokyo, 28–31 January.Google Scholar
  39. King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Lanchbery, J. (2006). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Responding to Calls for Action from Other Nature Conservation Regimes. In S. Oberthür & T. Gehring (Eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 157–179). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lenschow, A. (2002). Greening the European union: An introduction. In A. Lenschow (Ed.), Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe (pp. 3–32). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  42. McGraw, D. M. (2002). The CBD: Key characteristics and implications for implementation. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 11(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mee, L. D. (2005). The role of UNEP and UNDP in multilateral environmental agreements. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5(3), 227–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ministry of the Environment of Finland. (2010). Report from a Nordic Symposium: Synergies in the biodiversity cluster. Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment of Finland.Google Scholar
  45. Morin, J.-F., & Orsini, A. (2013). Regime complexity and policy coherency: Introducing a co-adjustments model. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(1), 41–51.Google Scholar
  46. Nilsson, M., Pallemaerts, M., & von Homeyer, I. (2009). International regimes and environmental policy integration: Introducing the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(4), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oberthür, S. (2002). Clustering of multilateral environmental agreements: Potentials and limitations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2(4), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oberthür, S. (2009). Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(4), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (2011). Conclusions: Decentralized interplay management in an evolving interinstitutional order. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 313–341). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orsini, A., Morin, J.-F., & Young, O. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
  51. Perez, O. (2006). Multiple regimes, issue linkage, and international cooperation: Exploring the role of the WTO. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 26(4), 735–778.Google Scholar
  52. Perry, C. (2012). Strengthening international environmental governance: System-Wide responses. New York, NY: International Peace Institute.Google Scholar
  53. Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Impacts of overlapping international regimes: The case of biodiversity. Global Governance, 7(1), 95–117.Google Scholar
  54. Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2003). Mapping institutional linkages in European air pollution politics. Global Environmental Politics, 3(3), 14–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Snape, W. J, I. I. I. (2010). Joining the convention on biological diversity: A legal and scientific overview of why the United States must wake up. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 10(3), 6–16.Google Scholar
  56. Thomas, U. P. (2010). Chemicals and wastes—A model for clustering MEAs, or more complicated than appearances. EcoLomic Policy and Law: Journal of Trade & Environment Studies, 5/6(7), 111–157.Google Scholar
  57. Ugland, T., & Veggeland, F. (2006). Experiments in food safety policy integration in the European Union. Journal of Common Market StudieS, 44(3), 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ulfstein, G. (2012). Treaty bodies and regimes. In D. B. Hollis (Ed.), The oxford guide to treaties (pp. 428–447). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Underdal, A. (1980). Integrated marine policy: What? Why? How? Marine Policy, 4(3), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UNU. (1999). Inter-linkages: Synergies and coordination between multilateral environmental agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University.Google Scholar
  61. Urho, N. (2009). Possibilities of enhancing cooperation and co-ordination among MEAs in the biodiversity cluster. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Velázquez Gomar, J. O., & Stringer, L. C. (2011). Moving towards sustainability? An analysis of CITES’ conservation policies. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(4), 240–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Velázquez Gomar, J. O., Stringer, L. C., & Paavola, J. (2014). Regime complexes and national policy coherence: Experiences in the biodiversity cluster. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 20(1), 119–145.Google Scholar
  64. von Moltke, K. (2001a). On clustering international environmental agreements. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  65. von Moltke, K. (2001b). Whither MEAs? The role of international environmental management in the trade and environment Agenda. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  66. Wehrli, J. (2012). Clustering assessment: Enhancing synergies among multilateral environmental agreements. Boston, MA: Center for Governance and Sustainability.Google Scholar
  67. White, H., & Black, R. (2004). Millennium Development Goals: A drop in the ocean? In R. Black & H. White (Eds.), Targeting development: critical perspectives on the Millennium development goals (pp. 1–24). London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson, J. (2008). Institutional interplay and effectiveness: assessing efforts to conserve western hemisphere shorebirds. International environmental agreements: Politics, law and economics, 8(3), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Zürn, M., & Faude, B. (2013). Commentary: On fragmentation, differentiation, and coordination. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations