Skip to main content
Log in

Policy adoption, legislative developments, and implementation: the resulting global differences among countries in the management of biological resources

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

Abstract

Policy adoption and implementation depend on a wide range of considerations that include the level of stakeholder participation and the choice of top-down or bottom-up approaches. The existence of a stakeholder participation platform is often seen as critical to facilitate both adoption and implementation of international treaties. However, it may not automatically lead to improved policy outcomes or legislative effectiveness. This study compares countries with and without stakeholder participation platforms for policy implementation and assesses whether there are differences in their management of biological resources. The study had two goals: (1) examining the adoption and implementation of public policies and legislation at national and local levels within countries; and (2) analyzing the differences between countries that have developed stakeholder participation platforms for sustainable forest management. Data were obtained from the Global Forest Resources Assessment Report 2015 of the Food and Agricultural Organization. Cross-tabulation and independent sample t test findings show strong relationships at higher levels of government between countries, but weak relationships at local levels. Significant differences are observed at all levels. These results shed light on the severe challenges that governments face in adopting global environmental policies and passing them down to local levels for implementation. The study concludes that although excellent policies and regulations may exist, they often do not lead to significantly better outcomes at all levels of government.

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

Access this article

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CBD:

Convention on biological diversity

FAO:

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

SFM:

Sustainable forest management

SPP:

Stakeholder participation platform

TEEB:

The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity

References

  • Alstyne, M. V., & Parker, G. (2017). Platform business: From resources to relationships. GFK Marketing Intelligence Review,9(1), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betts, M. G., Wolf, C., Ripple, W. J., Phalan, B., Millers, K. A., Duarte, A., et al. (2017). Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature,547(7664), 441.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • British Ecological Society. (2017). Policy guide 1: An introduction to policy in the UK. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org.

  • Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2019). Causal logics and mechanisms in policy design: How and why adopting a mechanistic perspective can improve policy design. Public Policy and Administration,0(0), 1–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CBD. (2010a). Global biodiversity outlook 3. Montreal: The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD. (2010b). Action for biodiversity: Towards a society in harmony with nature. Montreal: The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunkley, R., Baker, S., Constant, N., & Sanderson-Bellamy, A. (2018). Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries. International Environmental Treaties: Politics, Law and economics,18, 779–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D. C. & Ivanova, M. (2004). Globalization and environmental protection: A global governance perspective. Working paper No. 0402. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

  • FAO. (2009). Forest fires and the law: A guide for national drafters based on the fire management voluntary guidelines. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Retrieved March 6, 2019, from www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0488e/i0488e00.htm.

  • FAO. (2015). Global forest resources assessment. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faure, M., & Lefere, J. (2012). Compliance with global environmental policy. Social science research network. Maastricht: Maastricht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, L., & Rabinowitz, G. (2019). Balancing multilevel politics in local environmental policy choices. Public Works Management and Policy,0(0), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, I. B., & Tracey, J. (2019). Community capacity-building for sustainable development: Effectively striving towards achieving local community sustainability targets. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,20(4), 691–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,16(3), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrop, S. R., & Pritchard, D. J. (2011). A hard instrument goes soft: The implications of the convention on biological diversity’s current trajectory. Global Environmental Change,21, 474–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helm, D., & Hepburn, C. (2012). The economic analysis of biodiversity: An assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,28(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoberg, G., Malkinson, L., & Kopzak, L. (2016). Barriers to innovation in response to regulatory reform: Performance-based forest practices regulation in British Columbia. Forest Policy and Economics,62, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1994). Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: Evidence from cases. International Security,19(1), 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2018). Moving policy implementation theory forward: A multiple streams/critical juncture approach. Public Policy and Administration,34(4), 405–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2016). Weaving the fabric of public policies: Comparing and integrating contemporary frameworks for the study of policy processes. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice,18(3), 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koetz, T., Farrell, K. N., & Bridgewater, P. (2011). Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: Assessing potential within the intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services. International Environmental Treaties,12(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, H. H. (1997). Why do nations obey international law?. New Haven: Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, Yale Law School.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, M., & Felici, F. (2009). Indicators to identify the agricultural pressures on environmental functions and their use in the development of agri-environmental measures. Regional Environmental Change,9, 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of policy process (pp. 21–64). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation,141(10), 2417–2431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanou, C. (2018). External influencing on structural reform: Did policy conditionality strengthen reform capacity in Greece? Public Policy and Administration,33, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staab, M. J. (2003). Public-private sector relationships in developing countries. Journal of Economic Development,28(2), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, J. K., & Williamson, P. (1987). Policy implementation, policy development, and policy change: The youth training scheme. Public Policy and Administration,2(3), 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Z., Brody, S. D., Quinn, C., Chang, L., & Wei, T. (2010). Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating local climate change action plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,53(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB. (2009). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers—summary: Responding to the value of nature. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http://www.teebweb.org/media/2009/11/National-Executive-Summary_-English.pdf.

  • Valente de Macedo, L., Setzer, J., & Rei, F. (2016). Transnational action fostering climate protection in the city of São Paulo and beyond. The Planning Review,52(2), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gossum, P., Arts, B., & Verheyen, K. (2010). From smart regulation to regulatory arrangements. Policy Sciences,43(3), 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, A., & Bull, G. Q. (2014). Mapping research topics and theories in private regulation for sustainability in global value chains. Journal of Business Ethics,124, 585–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, E. B., & Jacobson, H. K. (1998). Engaging countries: Strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Data for this research were obtained from FAO, The Global Forest Assessment Report of 2015. I am also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers who provided me with insightful and valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Atisa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atisa, G. Policy adoption, legislative developments, and implementation: the resulting global differences among countries in the management of biological resources. Int Environ Agreements 20, 141–159 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09467-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09467-7

Keywords

Navigation