Regional clustering of chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements to improve enforcement

  • Ning LiuEmail author
  • Carl Middleton


Illegal trade in chemicals and waste has brought severe negative impacts to human health and the environment. Fragmentation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) has challenged implementation due to disconnects and inconsistencies between regimes that causes inefficiencies, overlapping norms, and duplication. Since the late 1990s, there have been proposals to cluster MEAs organizationally and functionally to create synergies between them. This paper evaluates whether the proposition on clustering of MEAs has worked in practice through an empirical case study of the “MEA Regional Enforcement Network (REN)”. MEA REN sought to cluster at the organizational and functional elements of the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention, and the Montreal Protocol in South and Southeast Asia. Regarding organizational clustering, through co-organizing regional network meetings cross-MEA learning was enhanced and costs were saved, but co-locating regional offices proved more challenging. For the clustering of functional elements, MEA enforcement was ultimately strengthened through several joint initiatives across MEAs. However, not all functions could be clustered as anticipated, including data reporting due to incompatibility between the conventions and overall workloads. The paper concludes with recommendations for future environmental enforcement.


Clustering Building synergies International environmental governance Multilateral environmental agreements Environmental enforcement 



We would like to express our gratitude to Professor Lorraine Elliott from Australian National University, Dr. Wanhua Yang from UNEP, Dr. Vira Somboon, Professor Surichai Wun’gaeo, Dr. Charit Tingsabadh, and Dr. Sangchan Limjirakan from Chulalongkorn University, and Dr. Pattanan Tarin from Thailand’ Pollution Control Department for their support towards this research. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions.


  1. BRS Secretariat. (2015a). Matrix-based management approach and ad interim organization of the Secretariat of the Basel and Stockholm Conventions and the UNEP part of the Rotterdam Convention as of 1 September 2015. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  2. BRS Secretariat. (2015b). The Basel Convention Regional Centers. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  3. BRS Secretariat. (2015c). The convention overview. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  4. Conca, K. (2007). Transnational dimensions of freshwater ecosystem governance. In A. R. Turton, H. J. Hattingh, G. A. Maree, D. J. Roux, M. Claassen, & W. F. Strydom (Eds.), Governance as a trialogue: Government-society-science in transition (pp. 101–122). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DTINEWS. (2015). Thousands of abandoned containers clog Vietnam ports. Dantri International Accessed 1 May 2017.
  6. Environmental Investigation Agency. (2014). New-Trends-in-ODS-smuggling. Paper presented at the 26th meeting of parties to the montreal protocol. Paris, France. Accessed 17 July 2016.
  7. Gareau, B. J. (2008). Dangerous holes in global environmental governance: The roles of neoliberal discourse, science, and california agriculture in the montreal protocol. Antipode. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00572.x.Google Scholar
  8. Gareau, B. J. (2013). From precaution to profit. Contemporary challenges to environmental protection in the montreal protocol. London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. General Administration of China Customs. (2013). Green fence campaign. Accessed 17 July 2016.
  10. Gutierrez, R. (2010). Illegal global trafficking in hazardous waste: A call to action. Paper presented at the 4th multilateral environmental agreement regional enforcement network workshop. Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  11. Hopson, E., & Puckett, J. (2016). Scam recycling: E-dumping on Asia by US Recyclers. Seattle: Basel Action Network.Google Scholar
  12. Isailovic, M., Widerberg, O., & Pattberg, P. (2013). Fragmentation of global environmental governance architectures: A literature review. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies VU University.Google Scholar
  13. Ivanova, M., & Roy, J. (2007). The architecture of global environmental governance: Pros and cons of multiplicity. New York: Center for UN Reform Education.Google Scholar
  14. Koskenniemi, M., & Leino, P. (2002). Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15(3), 553–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu, N., & Bagai, A. (2007). Illegal trade in ozone depleting substances. Bangkok: UNEP.Google Scholar
  16. Lucier, C. A., & Gareau, B. J. (2016). Obstacles to preserving precaution and equity in global hazardous waste regulation: an analysis of contested knowledge in the basel convention. Politics, Law and Economics International Environmental Agreements. doi: 10.1007/s10784-014-9261-6.Google Scholar
  17. Middleton, C., & Makarady, K. (2004). Pesticide use and consequence in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Center for Education and Development of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  18. Moltke, K. (2001). On clustering international environmental agreements. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  19. Oberthür, S. (2002). Clustering of multilateral environmental agreements: Potentials and limitations. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  20. O’Neill, K. (2009). The environment and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pan, A. P. (2009). Community monitoring of SAICM implementation on pesticide use and practices: Initial results of the community monitoring and international advocacy project in Asia. Penang: Pesticide Action Network in Asia and Pacific.Google Scholar
  22. Prakash, N. (2015). Canada is dumping tons of garbage in the Philippines. Fusion. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  23. Puckett, J., Byster, L., Westervelt, S., Gutierrez, R., Davis, S., Hussan, A., et al. (2002). Exporting harm-the high-tech trashing of Asia. Seattle: Basel Action Network.Google Scholar
  24. RILO-AP. (2012). Project sky hole patching. Presentation in customs coordination meeting in Saint Petersburg, (pp. 11–13).Google Scholar
  25. Risby, L. A., & Amador, T. (2013). Review of the arrangements adopted pursuant to the “Synergies Decisions” on cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions. Published by UNEP and FAO Evaluation Offices. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  26. Rucevska I., Nellemann C., Isarin N., Yang W., Liu N., Yu K., et al. (2015). Waste crime—waste risks: Gaps in meeting the global waste challenge. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. Nairobi and Arendal: UNEP and GRID-Arendal.Google Scholar
  27. Scott, K. N. (2011). International environmental governance: Managing fragmentation through institutional connection. Melbourne Journal of International law, 12, 177–216.Google Scholar
  28. Tampubolon, H. D. (2012). UK, Netherlands criticized over toxic waste shipments to RI. The Jakarta Post. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  29. UNEP. (2002). Report of the governing council. Seventh special session (13–15 February 2002) (UN General Assembly Doc. A/57/25). Accessed 1 May 2017.
  30. UNEP. (2003). New initiative to combat growing global menace of environmental crime—2 June 2003. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  31. UNEP. (2007). Networking counts. combatting Illegal trade in ozone depleting substances. Paris: UNEP DTIE.Google Scholar
  32. UNEP. (2014a). The first multi-stakeholder expert meeting on elaboration of options for synergies among biodiversity-related Multilateral Environmental Agreements” Interlaken, Switzerland, 26–28 August 2014. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  33. UNEP. (2014b). Informal prior-informed consent (iPIC): Supporting compliance through prevention of illegal and unwanted trade. Paris: UNEP.Google Scholar
  34. UNEP. (2015). About regional enforcement network for chemicals and waste. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  35. UNEP. (2016). Reducing Hydrofluorocarbons via the Montreal protocol is the most significant climate action the world can take this year. Accessed 1 May 2017.
  36. United Nations University. (1999). Interlinkages: Synergies and coordination between multilateral environmental agreements. Toyko: United Nations University.Google Scholar
  37. Weisss, B. (1995). International environmental law: Contemporary issues and the emergence of a new world order. Georgetown Law Journal, 81(1), 675–693.Google Scholar
  38. Young, O. R., & Levy, M. A. (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Zaelke, D., & Borgford-Parnell, N. (2015). The importance of phasing down hydrofluorocarbons and other short-lived climate pollutants. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s13412-014-0215-7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Coordinating UnitNorthwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP), United Nations Environment ProgrammeBusanRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Center for Social Development Studies, Faculty of Political ScienceChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations