Implementation Of Multilateral Environmental Agreements Research Articles

다자간환경협정상의 역량강화 및 기술이전에 관한 연구

Environmental problems of a global nature, such as climate change, are urgent challenges that pose a threat not only to developing countries but also to developed countries. Therefore, in order to effectively implement Multilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs), developed countries must take the lead and also support developing countries. Supporting developing countries that are having difficulty implementing the agreement is an essential elements as it determines the success or failure of the treaty.
 In order to effectively implement MEAs, it is necessary to establish a system to support developing countries to fulfill the environmental obligations they have accepted through technical and financial support. In particular, the international community needs to provide support to countries (mainly developing countries) that agree to the conclusion of treaties to solve specific environmental problems but do not have or lack the capacity to solve them.
 There are a number of means to support effective implementation of MEAs. Main means include financial support, technology transfer, and capacity building activities for developing countries. Looking at recent trends, provisions related to strengthening the implementation capacity of developing countries through technology transfer and financial support are gaining an important place in MEAs. Without appropriate capacity building and technology transfer, it is difficult to effectively achieve the main objectives of the relevant international environmental agreement. From this perspective, capacity building and technology transfer are essential elements for effective implementation of international environmental agreements.
 In the 2015 Paris Agreement, a treaty structure that stipulated technology transfer and capacity building in stand-alone provision(article) emerged, and in the BBNJ Agreement concluded in 2023, content related to capacity building and technology transfer was grouped into a separate chapter(Part). It has an impressive treaty structure, stipulating a total of seven articles. Capacity building and technology transfer form part of the global environmental governance architecture established by the relevant MEAs.
 In this article, I analyze the relevant provisions of major MEAs, focusing on capacity building through technology transfer for effective implementation of MEAs. First, we analyze regulations related to capacity building and technology transfer, focusing on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which deal with biodiversity and climate change, which are the most important issues in the international environmental field in the 21st century. Next, I examine the structure and content of the capacity building and technology transfer provisions of the BBNJ Agreement, which was recently adopted in 2023, as the treaty with the most impressive capacity building and technology transfer provisions. The structure and content of the capacity-building and technology transfer provisions of the BBNJ Agreement, which can be evaluated as a model for desirable capacity-building and technology transfer-related regulations in the future, will also have a significant impact on the UN Plastic Treaty, which is expected to be concluded as a new international environmental agreement.

Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements in Kazakhstan

Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements in Kazakhstan

The evolution and challenges in China’s implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity: a new analytical framework

Due to its size and surging economic growth, China could play a major role in solving global environmental problems, especially through its implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one of the most important MEAs in the world. China ratified then CBD in 1992 and has implemented the CBD with changing willingness and ability since 1993. Since China’s willingness and ability is changing, the traditional willingness–capacity framework could not accurately evaluate its implementation status. Therefore, how to evaluate the (dynamic) implementation of the CBD by countries like China which is in the process of rapid socioeconomic progress, became a new research question for scholarships. To this end, the article introduces a new analytical framework (with four factors) on implementation based on the traditional willingness–capacity framework, and employed both the historic analysis through examining historic development of China’s implementation and empirical study methods through empirical data and information. It finds that factors such as development philosophy and model, perception of national environmental interest, economic and technological level, and attitude toward global environmental governance have jointly determined China’s role in the implementation and its evolution of “follower–major participant–active contributor”. And those factors could also provide an insight into what are the challenges for China’s future implementation. The analytic framework used in this article may shed light on understanding China’s implementation of other MEAs, and on understanding other developing countries’ implementation of MEAs.

Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Rationale and Design of the Environmental Conventions Index

Global environmental conventions are created to address and resolve global environmental problems. Assessments of the achievement of specific environmental goals, however, indicate that there is room for progress and that improved collective action is required. Given the few existing studies that measure the implementation of international environmental law, it is important to expand existing analytical frameworks about international environmental agreements and their translation into national policies. This article explains the rationale and design of the Environmental Conventions Index, an implementation measurement tool we have developed at the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The Index assesses the implementation of global environmental conventions in two clusters—conservation and pollution—showcasing the main trends for both countries and conventions. Using a mixed-method approach, we explain the development of this measurement tool as an instrument to inform policy changes at the national and global levels and present aggregate results of the analysis. As global environmental challenges in the conservation of natural resources and the persistence of pollutants become critical, assessment of countries’ performance on international environmental goals is essential. We offer an innovative method that provides academic analysis and policy input to improve implementation, and thus the effectiveness of these governance instruments in addressing global environmental challenges.

The Balanced Obligation and the Basis for Compliance in International Law: Reflections on the Question of International Obligation

In this essay, we use the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in developing countries (specifically, the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Ghana) to illustrate why and how States can implement international agreements and for that matter comply with international law without necessarily compromising on equally implementing effective policies to meet their domestic responsibility, particularly when such MEAs may be deemed by some as instruments that curtail the enjoyment of benefits from a State’s natural resources and endowments.
 
 The essay examines the nexus between compliance with international law (international obligation) and meeting domestic responsibility (particularly when the international treaty or agreement to be complied with seems to have some negative implications for the domestic population or State policy). Do States always have an incentive to comply with and execute their international obligations? Should the need for or argument against an international agreement or treaty necessarily lead to its abandonment by States? Can States effectively balance the execution of international obligation with meeting domestic responsibility? Should the effective implementation of a State’s international obligation be regarded as a zero sum for the State’s domestic responsibility? What should be the basis for compliance in international law? These are some of the few questions that this essay seeks to address.

How a ‘Global Pact for the Environment’ could add value to international environmental law

The initiative for a ‘Global Pact for the Environment’ has over the course of the last year evolved into a global discourse. The United Nations (UN) General Assembly, the UN Secretary‐General, UN Environment Programme, UN member States and a vast variety of nongovernmental organizations and academics are considering the need for and possible content of a Pact. It appears that to gather necessary political support, a Pact needs to add value to already existing international environmental law. This article offers input into the debate as to whether and how a Global Pact could achieve this. It argues that a Global Pact needs not be limited to a legally binding treaty instrument that codifies environmental principles. Rather, it could be and do many things and should be guided by what is needed to increase the effectiveness of environmental protection. In a plurality of ways, a Pact could address challenges in the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), help overcome coordination deficits between MEAs and between MEAs and other international treaties, or bring together actors from the public and private sector. It could provide a common vision for global environmental action and/or a framework for bringing the different pieces, for instance sectoral and spatial agreements, together. Moreover, it could advance the development of international environmental law into areas that thus far have not been covered. The article gives a brief history of the initiative for the Global Pact, placing it against the nature and structure of international environmental law. It analyses the proposals made so far as to the possible scope, nature and content of such instrument, and provides suggestions for how it could contribute to the increased effectiveness, scope or scale of international environmental law.

How a ‘Global Pact for the Environment’ Could Add Value to International Environmental Law

The initiative for a ‘Global Pact for the Environment’ has over the course of the last year evolved into a global discourse. The United Nations (UN) General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General, UN Environment Programme, UN member States and a vast variety of nongovernmental organizations and academics are considering the need for and possible content of a Pact. It appears that to gather necessary political support, a Pact needs to add value to already existing international environmental law. This article offers input into the debate as to whether and how a Global Pact could achieve this. It argues that a Global Pact needs not be limited to a single treaty codifying environmental principles. Rather, it should be guided by what is needed to increase the effectiveness of environmental protection. In this sense, a Pact could address challenges in the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), help overcome coordination deficits between MEAs and between MEAs and other international treaties, or bring together actors from the public and private sector. It could provide a common vision for global environmental action and/or a framework for bringing the different pieces, i.e. sectoral and spatial agreements, together. Moreover, it could advance the development of international environmental law into areas that thus far have not been covered. The article gives a brief history of the initiative for the Global Pact, placing it against the nature and structure of international environmental law. It analyses the proposals made so far as to the possible scope, nature and content of a Pact, and provides suggestions for how it could contribute to the increased effectiveness, scope or scale of international environmental law.

From equality towards equity and differentiated responsibilities: A contemporary international environmental law perspective

The paper analyzes the relationship between the principles of equality, equity and differentiated responsibilities in the specific context of international environmental law. By tracing these three principles throughout the texts of relevant international environmental instruments and agreements, the author provides for distinction between various levels of differentiation through which equity is achieved. It is argued that, due to the novel solutions contained in the Paris Climate Agreement, a change has occurred in contemporary international environmental law regarding the relationship between the principles of equality, equity and differentiated responsibilities. Instead of fostering equality through equity and differentiated responsibilities, these changes have widened the gap between these principles. Differentiation has slowly detached from both equality and equity and has started to fulfill objectives other than fairness, such as achieving wider participation, effectiveness and better implementation of multilateral environmental agreements.

China’s National Plan on Implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals: from the Perspective of National Performance of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

In terms of the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, the implementation of the agreements has gradually shifted from the institutional construction of the international level to the implementation of the national level. Since the Millennium Development Goals did not reach the goal of sustainable development in the year of 2015, 2030 Sustainable Development Goals had drew the lessons, put forward the goals of economic, social and environmental, and required all countries to provide their own country’s plan. As the largest developing country, China plays a decisive role in the international environmental governance. At home, China has formulated the domestic environmental governance norms for the implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and established an inter ministerial coordination mechanism for implementing the Sustainable Development Agenda composed of 43 government departments. China is also actively participating in international environmental governance, participating and promoting the conclusion and effectiveness of treaties on environmental protection at the international and regional levels, earnestly implementing and helping other countries to implement treaties, and expanding the global partnership through various formal and informal meetings and other channels.

The influence of the Regional Coordinating Unit of the Abidjan Convention: implementing multilateral environmental agreements to prevent shipping pollution in West and Central Africa

The Regional Coordinating Unit of the Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment for West and Central Africa (the Abidjan Convention) has under its wings several multilateral environmental agreements including those addressing shipping pollution. Shipping, potentially, has negative impacts on marine fauna and flora and air quality, with implications for public health. The Regional Coordinating Unit seeks to strengthen implementation of the Abidjan Convention by party-states through co-operation with state actors using various pathways based on its internal resources and competencies but the Unit is also starting to explore engagement with potential non-state actors. The ability of the Unit to exert influence on implementation is constrained by domestic politico-administrative institutions. This paper seeks to understand the influence of the Regional Coordinating Unit on the implementation of the Abidjan Convention in the field of shipping pollution. It uses three theoretical perspectives for the analysis: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies, domestic regulatory-politics and transnational governance. The paper shows how these theories are complementary because the influence of international bureaucracies such as the Regional Coordinating Unit cannot be adequately understood through factors internal to their organisation alone but needs to be analysed in relation also to external factors, both domestic politico-institutional ones in states that international bureaucracies work with, and the role of relevant non-state actors in the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. It is concluded that, although influence cannot be measured directly, it is likely that Regional Coordinating Unit’s influence through its autonomy-centred efforts are quiet strong but negatively constrained by the traditional state-centric responsibility for implementation of international legal instruments where domestic regulatory-politics lack sufficient political will and support from and engagement with non-state actors.

Environmental mainstreaming and policy coherence: essential policy tools to link international agreements with national development—a case study of the Caribbean region

The 2030 agenda for sustainable development adopted in September 2015 advocates for a balanced integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Existing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) can provide guidance for policy-makers to promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, within safe ecological limits. This paper presents a practical approach to mainstream international obligations of MEAs with national development priorities and strategies. It identifies pathways of policy coherence from national strategies to specific instruments and indicators to advance implementation of MEAs and help counties to fulfill agreed obligations. The approach is grounded in the driving forces–pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) framework, and it was applied in two national and two regional case studies in the Caribbean. The outcomes from the case studies show that mainstreaming rate of MEAs is low, and linkages across multiple MEAs are rarely considered. The DPSIR framework was useful for addressing national development priorities and those of MEAs in tandem, through adopting a cross-sectoral, multistakeholder perspective. The research shows that addressing environmental degradation and improving MEAs’ implementation requires that international and regional agencies identify linkages among MEAs to assist in creating policy coherence to ensure their integration into national strategies by connecting with policies and strategies in tandem implementation of MEAs for national policy-makers to work with.

When implementation works: A comparison of Ramsar Convention implementation in different continents

What are the processes that shape implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in multilevel governance? In an attempt to address this question, we move from a top-down view of im ...

Bilateralism at the Service of Community Interests? Non-Judicial Enforcement of Global Public Goods in the Context of Global Environmental Law

The interaction between bilateral and multilateral action is evolving in the context of environmental � a concept that is emerging from the promotion of environmental protection as a global public good through a plurality of legal mechanisms relying on a plurality of legal orders. The notion of global public goods can thus help one better to understand recent bilateral initiatives aimed at supporting the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and the decisions of their compliance mechanisms. Innovative linkages between the compliance system under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and bilateral trade agreements recently concluded by the European Union and the US provide an example. Innovative opportunities for bilateral initiatives supporting the implementation of the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing are likely to lead to even more complex inter-relationships between different legal orders. This new approach to bilateralism that aims to support the interests of the international community can be assessed in the context of earlier debates on unilateralism, with a view to emphasizing the role of international law in the identification and delivery of global public goods, and the role of global environmental law in understanding the interactions among a plurality of legal orders.

A bottom-up ‘Convention-Check’ to improve top-down global protected area governance

This paper introduces the so-called ‘Convention-Check’ as a new bottom-up approach of assessing the contribution of large-scale protected areas to the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) that are introduced from the top down. The assessment consists of three major sub-sequential parts: the current contribution of a protected area to the implementation of the MEAs, recommendations for improvements and – through an ex-post-evaluation – the impact of the recommendations provided. The Convention-Check is carried out in a total of ten methodical working steps. A very first application of the method is presented based on the example of an Austrian National Park. In this example, a Convention-Check was carried out using five MEAs and was evaluated after two years. The results show that there is great variability regarding the number and intensity of implementation measures already taken by the different levels of governance addressed. Potential reasons and perspectives for the example situation, as well as possibilities for future improvement of the method and its global application on large scale protected areas, are discussed. A significant and causal impact of the Convention-Check towards improved protected area governance is already shown by the Austrian example after two years. The Convention-Check combines different working methods from social as well as natural sciences in a new way. Its innovative approach is designed to overcome deadlocks in the top-down implementation of MEAs by means of bottom-up initiatives out of large scale protected areas, and aims to contribute towards improved global protected area governance.

‘New Age’ Trade Agreements and their Possible Contribution to Toxic Trade

Over the past seven years, a spate of bilateral “new age” economic partnership accords have been struck between Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and several of its members namely: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. These agreements were seen as Japan’s response to the growing Chinese economic power and influence in the region. The seeds to these agreements were planted in 2002 when Japan began a parallel approach towards building closer economic relations between Japan and the ASEAN community. Japan utilised the moniker “economic partnership agreements” (JEPAs) to call the agreements, which are essentially trade agreements that complement the basic WTO agreements on goods and services, and incorporate areas presently not covered under the WTO called the “Singapore issues” (i.e., investment, government procurement, competition policy, and trade facilitation). These JEPAs have invariably been called “WTO-Plus” agreements and “Mega-Treaties” to evoke their scope and magnitude. Civil society groups voiced concerns over the JEPAs questioning their constitutionality to the impact of the trade related provisions on the local economy. Amidst the din of protests the JEPAs received in Southeast Asia the issue of toxic waste trade resonated with most prominence. The issue of Japan’s intent to make Southeast Asia its toxic waste bin and the ensuing environmental and public health blight that could occur as a result of the tsunami of Japanese toxic wastes caught the public and the government of Japan’s attention. This article examines the legal provisions under the JEPAs that gave rise to the concerns over toxic waste trade and dumping, and the implications these have on the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements, particularly that of the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal by the Southeast Asian countries who are parties to the JEPAs.

Multi-Level Governance Conditions for Implementing Multilateral Environmental Agreements: The Case of CDM Forestry Readiness in Cameroon

Multilateral Environmental Agreements including the Clean Development Mechanism represent complex multi-level governance systems that often face serious implementation challenges especially in developing countries. This paper presents a framework for assessing the capacity or readiness for the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), within the context of CDM forestry of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC in the first instance, and specifically analyses issues of multi-level governance relevant for successful implementation in Cameroon. The framework highlights a set of key cross-scale enabling conditions for MEA implementation including regulatory compatibility, institutional synergy, complementary and coordinated capacities, information and data availability and the presence of governance mechanisms. The research has identified the need for targeted policy actions for enhancing regulatory compatibility and institutional synergy between levels of the formal system – i.e. global, national, sectoral, sub-national and local levels. However, we have also highlighted the problems of, not just the conflicts between forms and functions of governance between the formal national set ups and community ‘traditional’ institutions, but even the lack of common understanding between them. Overcoming these gaps will require considerably more open-minded and reciprocal communication, and respect for differing perceptions in the implementation of MEAs. The relevance of a framework for assessing multi-level governance in a post 2012 Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation mechanism is also underlined.

Implementing Multilateral Environmental Agreements: An Analysis of EU Directives

While a number of different theoretical models have been advanced to explain why states implement—or, indeed, do not implement—multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), very little empirical work has been undertaken to validate their predictions. With a view to narrowing this gap, the present article adopts a large-N, econometric approach to test the explanatory power of four distinct models of compliance—domestic adjustment, reputational, constructivist and managerial—in the context of European Union (EU) environmental policy. Using data on the number of ofıcial infringements received by 15 member states for non-implementation of environmental directives over the period 1979–2000, we ınd that all four models make a statistically signiıcant contribution to explaining spatio-temporal differences in legal implementation. Thus, our results suggest that the implementation of MEAs is shaped by a combination of rational calculations of domestic compliance costs and reputational damage, domestically institutionalized normative obligations, and legal and political constraints. We conclude by suggesting a greater need for multi-causal theoretical models of supranational legal compliance.

The Role of UNEP and UNDP in Multilateral Environmental Agreements

This study examines the role of the UN’s programmes for environment and development (UNEP and UNDP) in the genesis and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). This is set in the wider context of the changing dominant focus of the international agenda, from ‘environment’ at the Stockholm Conference in 1972, to ‘environment and development’ at Rio in 1992, and ‚sustainable development’ in Johannesburg in 2002. UNDP is a development organisation strongly rooted in its country office network. Its role is becoming increasingly normative however, particularly since 2002 when UNDP opted to root most of its activities on the Millennium Development Goals. UNEP, as an environmental organisation has been successful at catalysing MEAs at the global and regional level; but without a significant increase in its budget over 30 years, its capacity has been spread very thinly. Many of the institutional arrangements for MEAs have effectively become independent of UNEP resulting in a very loosely and sometimes poorly coordinated network. Two case studies are used to illustrate the current institutional arrangements: UNEP’s Regional Seas Conventions and Protocols, and the Convention for Biological Diversity. These illustrate the fragmentation of current institutions, the need for strengthened technical and scientific support, the importance of addressing problems at their root causes and the need to increase the devolution of global governance to the regional level. Satisfying the identified needs requires actions within the remit of both UNEP and UNDP. It is argued that current institutional arrangements have not kept pace with the requirements of evolving policy. As part of a reform process, one option may be to merge the two programmes into a single structure that conserves and strengthens vital technical functions but enables a balanced and integrated approach to sustainable development.

Theory and Practice on the Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Theory and Practice on the Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements