Global Environmental Governance and Regional Centers

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 18-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Selin

As global environmental governance evolves, the parties to the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and to the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants have established regional centers working on capacity building and technology transfer. This article empirically explores the following questions: Why did the parties to the Basel and Stockholm Conventions establish these regional centers? What roles do the regional centers play in treaty implementation and multilevel governance? The article argues that the parties have set up regional centers in response to three partially overlapping sets of developing- and industrialized-country interests: expanding regional cooperation (both developing and industrialized countries); attracting more resources for treaty implementation (mainly developing countries); and supporting implementation projects across smaller groups of countries (mainly industrialized countries). This article finds that the regional centers collectively operate in three broad areas important to treaty implementation: raising awareness, strengthening administrative ability, and diffusing scientific and technical assistance and information. However, the ability of the regional centers to function effectively depends on access to greater resources and stronger political support. There may also be benefits to expanding regional center mandates into areas of monitoring and compliance to improve multilevel governance. Furthermore, the regional level should be given more consideration in the study of global environmental politics.

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 286
Author(s):  
Stefan Bößner ◽  
Francis X. Johnson ◽  
Zoha Shawoo

With increasing globalisation of bioresource use, expanding trade in bio-based products, and transboundary environmental impacts, distinct international dimensions arise in the governance of the bioeconomy. These international dimensions suggest that—despite bioeconomy strategies being largely national endeavours thus far—increased international cooperation and collaboration on the emerging bioeconomy is warranted. This paper looks at the global environmental governance landscape and investigates which fora, institutions, and processes might support and strengthen the international governance of bioeconomy pathways. The paper focuses on institutions that work in a cross-sectoral manner and is, to our knowledge, a first attempt at this exploration in the bioeconomy literature. Thus, the paper aims at increasing our understanding of how global bioeconomy pathways are governed and which venues of cooperation could play a more important role in the future. Based on a focused literature review, stakeholder engagement and semi-structured interviews with bioeconomy experts, we observe that, while there are many institutions playing a role in global bioeconomy governance, several barriers remain. We propose that regional cooperation might be a promising way forward to address common challenges and opportunities.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Said Mahmoudi

The issue, international organization for the protection of the environment perhaps more than those in any other area of international law, is characterized by the contestation of the policies and aspirations of developing and industrialized countries. The discussions which preceded the 1972 Stockholm Conference concerned partly the type of international institutional arrangement required for addressing the environmental problems. As regards the institutional reforms with respect to international environmental governance (IEG), the main question is whether to focus on the existing global institution, i.e. UNEP, or to create a new functional international organization. After almost five decades of existence, turning UNEP into a ‘specialized agency’ within the UN system is a reasonable move. It would meet the long-felt need to elevate its status and equip it with the necessary competence and financial stability for the demanding task it should have as an efficient global environmental organization.


2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Bretherton

Environmental governance may be distinguished from environmental management by the implication that, in the former, some form of participatory process is involved. Here, the focus is upon the potential for women's movements and networks to influence the principles and practices of global environmental governance (GEG). It is contended that, in principle, women are uniquely placed to oppose the dominant norms informing GEG; and that women's participation would, in consequence, be crucial to the achievement of equitable and environmentally sound forms of governance. In practice, however, a number of factors combine to create divisions between women, and hence to impede transnational mobilization by women around environmental issues. This article examines these issues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document