scholarly journals Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International Institutions?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 286
Author(s):  
Stefan Bößner ◽  
Francis X. Johnson ◽  
Zoha Shawoo
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
International Governance ◽  
Global Environmental Governance ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Global Environmental ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities

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.

scholarly journals Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Oberthür ◽  
Thomas Gehring
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Complex Interaction ◽  
International Governance ◽  
Global Environmental Governance ◽  
Institutional Interaction ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Global Environmental ◽  
Cartagena Protocol ◽  
Institutional Influence

The competitive quest of the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO for authority to regulate international trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) exemplifies a typical interaction between international institutions with diverging objectives. This article first develops a conceptual framework for the analysis of institutional interaction that emphasizes disaggregation of complex interaction situations into separate cases of clearly directed inter-institutional influence. These cases can follow different causal mechanisms. Second, applying this framework to the interaction between the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO reveals that existing commitments have driven parties toward a step-wise delimitation of the institutions' jurisdictions. Although the WTO acquired a firstmover advantage by structuring the regulatory field, the Cartagena Protocol showed surprising strength in exploiting the remaining room for maneuver. The structure of international governance thus steers institutions with differing objectives toward a jurisdictional balance that, while reflecting existing power relations, limits the potential for conflict and frames available policy choices.

scholarly journals What the Framework Convention on Climate Change Teaches Us About Cooperation on Climate Change

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G. Victor
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Environmental Problems ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Global Environmental Governance ◽  
Effective Management ◽  
Global Environmental ◽  
Basic Concepts

Arild Underdal has been at the center of an important community of scholars studying global environmental governance. Since the 1990s that community, along with many other scholars globally, has offered important insights into the design and management of international institutions that can lead to more effective management of environmental problems. At the same time, diplomats have made multiple attempts to create institutions to manage the dangers of climate change. This essay looks at what has been learned by both communities—scholars and practitioners—as their efforts co-evolved. It appears that despite a wealth of possible insights into making cooperation effective very few of the lessons offered by scholars had much impact during the first two decades of climate change diplomacy. Indeed, basic concepts from cooperation theory and evidence from case studies—many developed in Arild’s orbit—can explain why those two decades achieved very little real cooperation. The new Paris agreement may be changing all that and much better reflects insights from scholars about how to build effective international institutions. Success in the Paris process is far from assured and scholars can contribute a lot more with a more strategic view of when and how they have an impact.

Global Environmental Governance and Regional Centers

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 18-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Selin
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Multilevel Governance ◽  
Political Support ◽  
Global Environmental Governance ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Global Environmental ◽  
Regional Centers ◽  
Treaty Implementation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document