Policy Coherence, Global Environmental Governance, and Poverty Reduction

This paper explores linkages between policy coherence, global environmental governance, and poverty reduction. It begins with a few thoughts on what these terms mean, and how they are linked. It then provides some perspectives on how the linkages might be improved over time. The paper takes the view that the most coherent institutional framework for both poverty reduction and environmental protection is likely to be one that is relatively decentralised, and based on a modular (networking) structure. The implication is that this framework should rely mainly on domestic and regional governance institutions, rather than on global ones. Effective management of environmental problems (both national and international) also implies a judicious mix of strong government institutions, smooth-functioning markets, and well-targeted infrastructure investments. The business and labour communities are therefore crucial. Other elements of civil society, notably the NGOs, also have important roles to play. Global environmental governance will have to overcome significant resistance insofar as the interests of the developing countries are concerned. Developing countries will need to be convinced that it is in their best interest to participate in global environmental institutions. The best way of making this case is to link (local) poverty reduction objectives explicitly to (both local and global) environmental protection goals. Bringing greater coherence to international trade, investment, and development co-operation policies could make an important contribution to strengthening these linkages. Investment is particularly important here – in the future, investment governance will likely prove to be more important for poverty reduction than environmental governance. Focusing on global environmental governance will not be enough.     

Reforming International Environmental Governance: An Institutionalist Critique of the Proposal for a World Environment Organisation

This article argues that a World Environment Organisation (WEO) does not promise to enhance international environmental governance. First, we claim that the establishment of an international organisation alone in a policy field currently populated by regimes cannot be expected to significantly improve environmental governance because there is no qualitative difference between these two forms of governance institutions. Second, we submit that significant improvement of international environmental governance through institutional re-arrangement must rely on a modification of decision-making procedures and/or a change of institutional boundaries. Third, we develop three principal models of a possible WEO. A WEO formally providing an umbrella for existing regimes without modifying issue-areas and decision-making procedures would be largely irrelevant. A WEO integrating decision-making processes of existing regimes so as to form comprehensive world environment rounds of intergovernmental bargaining would be largely dysfunctional and prone to a host of negative side-effects. A supranational WEO including large-scale use of majority decision-making and far-reaching enforcement mechanisms across a range of environmental issues might considerably enhance international environmental governance, but it appears to be grossly utopian. In conclusion, a WEO cannot be at the same time realistic, significant and beneficial for international environmental governance. Available political resources should be invested in advancing existing and emerging sectoral environmental regimes rather than in establishing a WEO.     

Environmental policy integration among multilateral environmental agreements: the case of biodiversity

The system of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) comprises hundreds of conventions and protocols designed to protect the environment. Institutional interaction within the MEA system raises issues of environmental policy integration (EPI), i.e. balancing different environmental objectives and considerations. Mainstream proposals for enhancing EPI in environmental governance build upon the assumption that environmental institutions are fragmented. However, recent research reveals that the MEA system has been defragmenting over the years such that EPI is less a problem of institutional fragmentation than of effective management of institutional interplay. This paper examines the factors affecting EPI among MEAs by looking at experiences in the cluster of biodiversity-related multilateral agreements. The analysis is based on a series of interviews with MEA secretariat officials and international experts conducted between September 2011 and January 2012. The paper identifies institutional, political and cognitive barriers constraining interplay management efforts. While some have proposed regulatory changes in the cluster, national-level co-ordination appears to be the best way to advance EPI.     

Norway in UN environmental policies: ambitions and influence

This is a study of Norway’s ambitions for influencing UN environmental policies and then on the scope for impact. On the whole, it is clear that Norway has not been particularly successful in its general efforts at strengthening UNEP. These proposals have failed, due mainly to opposition from key states. Norway is after all a minor player in global governance issues, even in those pertaining to the environment. Norway has been more successful in efforts that indirectly strengthen UNEP, by supporting UNEP in initiating new MEAs. We found three main factors that help to explain why Norway has a relatively high level of influence at the international environmental arena compared to its size. First, there is a relatively straightforward domestic decision-making process with little conflict. Second, Norwegian officials and NGOs possess considerable expertise in these issues, adding to the intellectual leadership role of Norway in pushing for new principles and international legislation through UNEP. Third, Norway is sometimes able to join forces in environmental alliances with other like-minded countries. This would seem to carry the widest scope for increasing impact.

Will International Investment Rules Obstruct Climate Protection Policies? An Examination of the Clean Development Mechanism

Rules governing the global environment and the international economy are currently decided in separate arenas. Yet, environmental agreements can have strong economic implications, particularly with the growing use of market mechanisms. Economic liberalization rules, meanwhile, may limit the effectiveness of environmental agreements. This paper assesses the potential interaction between one important market-based environmental mechanism – the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change – and the framework of international investment law.     

What Role for Private Rule-Making in Global Environmental Governance? Analysing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

This article assesses the recent trend of rule-making by private multi-stakeholder initiatives – a hitherto largely unnoticed phenomenon in global environmental governance – by analysing the multiple functions and impacts of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), one of the best-known private institutions in global environmental politics. After clarifying the general context of private governance, I turn to the specific function of private rule-making institutions. I argue that rule-making can be understood as the act of agreeing on both constitutive and regulative rules that prescribe the behaviour of a specific group of actors, whether individuals or organisations. Further, I argue that the FSC, as one example of private rule-making in world politics, performs three additional functions that shape the contours of global governance: (1) facilitating a solution to complex multi-interest problems, (2) brokering knowledge and norms among a wide range of stakeholders, and (3) constituting a learning network in environmental governance.     

Environmental policy integration and the architecture of global environmental governance

This article discusses environmental policy integration—a concept so far mainly applied to domestic and European politics—at the global level. The article distinguishes between integration of institutions, of organizations, and of their bureaucracies, and it addresses both internal integration (within the environmental policy domain) and external integration (between environmental policies and non-environmental policies). The overall focus is on one set of policy reform proposals that have been salient in the global environmental governance debate for the last decades: the question of whether the creation of a world environment organization would improve the effectiveness, legitimacy, and efficiency of global environmental governance. We revisit this debate and explore the options for organizational change, including clustering, upgrading, streamlining, and hierarchical steering, with a focus on whether the reform proposals can bring about environmental policy integration. We conclude that in the longer term, upgrading of the UN Environment Programme to a UN specialized agency, with additional and increasing streamlining of other institutions and bureaucracies, offers the most potential for environmental policy integration and does not appear to be unrealistic.     

共同但有区别责任原则:演进、属性与功能

在没有核心性国际法律文件和世界性专门机构引领的情况下,全球环境治理只能凭借一系列的环境原则,其中包括构成维系国际环境合作体系之支柱的共同但有区别责任原则。共同但有区别责任原则并非天生就是国际环境法的基本原则,其首先是一项全球环境治理原则。该原则不仅具有法律属性,同时也具有伦理与政治属性。相应地,共同但有区别原则也就具有了多重功能。只有厘清共同但有区别责任原则的属性和功能,才能避免落入"法律中心主义"的窠臼。     

我国环境冲突研究回顾及未来展望——基于CSSCI文献(1998-2020)的可视化分析

环境冲突是社会冲突的主要类型之一,环境冲突的有效治理是防范化解由环境问题引致的社会冲突的关键。本文借助Citespace软件,以1998-2020年间中文社会科学索引(CSSCI)数据库收录的135篇环境冲突相关文献为研究样本,综合采用文献计量和知识图谱分析两种方法对样本进行分析。研究发现,我国环境冲突文献发表数量各年份起伏较大,产生了高产学者和发文量较多的科研机构,关键词聚类分析确定了环境冲突的4个主题,邻避冲突是环境冲突领域研究的重点。未来应加强环境冲突研究领域研究者共同体、研究机构共同体建设以及多学科的融合,加强对大数据、区块链技术融入环境冲突治理等前沿问题的研究。     

WTO与中国环境标志法律对策

随着世界经济一体化的深入和各国对环境保护问题的日益重视,环境标志成为发达国家新的一种"绿色贸易壁垒",对环境和国际贸易产生重大影响,加入WTO后,中国环境标志面临新的机遇与挑战。我们应大力发展和完善我国的环境标志制度,充分利用WTO的现行规则,在WTO的法律框架内寻求相应的法律对策。     

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Step Towards Stronger Involvement of Business in MEA Implementation?

This article explores the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). It offers an overview of the linkages, a survey of relevant provisions of key MEAs, and a review of the relationship between global trade rules and MEAs. Finally, the article highlights three ongoing discussions with relevance to linkages between CSR and MEAs: (1) whether, and if so how, to identify minimum global business standards in the environmental sphere; (2) the rapidly evolving 'sub-theme' within the CSR agenda which addresses the business/development interface, and the contribution of business to poverty reduction, sustainable livelihoods and achieving the Millennium Development Goals; and (3) the development by the International Organization for Standardization of an international guidance standard on 'organizational social responsibility', which, if adopted, will become ISO 26000. The risk of seeing CSR as a new pathway to MEA implementation is that the role of MEAs in informing the development of minimum acceptable environmental norms of business behaviour will be 'watered down'. If MEAs are to learn from CSR, their competitors and often stronger counterparts in the international architecture – intergovernmental trade and investment arrangements – also need to be equipped not only to be sensitive to CSR, but actively to support it. ¹     

International Law-Making in the Field of Sustainable Development:The Unequal Competition Between Development and the Environment

Since 1992, the tension between environmental and developmental concerns has been a central element in the international law-making process which has resulted in the adoption of various treaties and international instruments in the field of sustainable development. These instruments show that reconciliation between environment and development has not been easy to achieve. The balance seems to tip in favour of the protection of the environment. This paper explores how some of the "well-established" principles and concepts of international environmental law, as well as some new developments in this field, may have contributed to the tendency of excluding conditionality and equitable considerations from the elaboration and application of an increasing number of obligations taken by States in the field of environmental protection. It is contended here that environmental protection has developed to a certain extent at the expense of international economic law relating to development. This has been an incidental consequence of, at least, three elements: the movement toward more participation of transnational civil society in the international environmental law-making process; the use of a rights and duties language which helps to mask the developmental aspects sometimes involved in the prevention of environmental damage; and, the attractiveness of the establishment of a right to a healthy environmental.     

论中国环境标志法律制度的建立和完善

在世界贸易中,环境标志的实施有利于产品的销售,也有成为发达国家新的贸易壁垒的趋势,利用环境标志设置绿色壁垒已成为不可回避的环境标志制度问题,特别是WTO关于环境标志议题达成的共识对协调国际贸易的自由化和可持续发展具有重要意义,因此,本文旨在探讨中国环境保护政策为中国产品顺利进入国际市场方面的基础作用,并系统分析了WTO环境标志议题对中国的影响和面临的新的机遇及挑战,提出了充分利用WTO现行规制以完善中国环境标志制度、积极开展环境标志的国际合作和国际互认的法律措施以及促进贸易与环境协调发展的对策。     

国际法视野下的标准治理

全球化带来的世界转型,使国际体系呈现一体化和碎片化交织的复杂模式。而依循国际法进行的全球治理,则因其治理乏力而饱受争议。究其原因,公私治理主体间的矛盾、治理方式的僵硬,导致治理价值的受损。以标准作为全球治理的技术(以下简称"标准治理"),更好地折射出全球治理的优势和限度。一方面,多元多层级标准治理主体之间的合作和互动,增进了决策权的复制与移转,使治理方式更为灵活有序。另一方面,国家导向与市场导向权威之间的可能摩擦,恐使全球治理屈从于"排除知识落伍者"的单一治理模式。更为重要的是,标准治理激发了对国际法秩序,特别是国际法传统渊源的反思和重塑,对于如何更好地推动公私标准的融合、改善国际立法及其遵守,继而推动全球治理的可持续发展提供了新契机。     

环境治理和可持续发展：中国环境法的成就、问题和展望

本文阐明了中国环境法60年的发展概况、所取得的成就、所存在的主要问题以及今後的发展方向。主张在环境立法内容方面,加强有关环境治理、环境善治、公民环境权、环境民主、公秉参与、环境知情权、环境公益诉讼、政府环境责任及政府环境责任问责制方面的立法：在环境法学研究方面提出：促进研究范式从“主、客二分”到“主、客一体”的转变;促进环境法上的人的模式从经济人模式、主体人模式向生态人模式转变。认为环境法治理建设应该以可持续发展为目标,以生态文明为方向,以环境法治为灵魂,以维护环境正义公平为宗旨,以环境安全为前提,以人与自然和谐相处为核心,以环境民主为手段,以追求环境效益和环境效率为激励机制,以健全综合生态系统管理和环境“善治”机制为导向,充分发挥环境法律调整人与自然关系的作用,使其成为建设环境友好社会、资源节约型社会和生态文明社会的法律保障。环境法学应该研究生态化方法和综合生态系统管理理论,促进环境法向生态法转变,促进环境法律制度的生态化．     

BBNJ国际协定中人类共同继承财产原则的去留探析——人类命运共同体理念下的中国因应之策

国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性(BBNJ)养护和可持续利用国际协定的立法进程已进入关键阶段。其中,关于BBNJ国际协定的一般原则或方法条款中是否包含人类共同继承财产原则这一问题,各方代表立场不同,再次成为谈判焦点之一。从全球海洋治理中,国际法理论与实践创新以及国家利益视角分析,得出中国应当支持此原则被明确列入BBNJ国际协定一般性条款之中。但是,解构当前人类共同继承财产原则的法律内涵与适用,结合现有各方立场,得出此原则最终被明确列入BBNJ国际协定一般原则或方法条款中的实然可能性偏小。基于此,建议中国首先立足争议问题本身,将人类命运共同体理念作为价值导向引入BBNJ国际协定,增强各方国际合作与责任承担共识,平衡诉求矛盾,推进BBNJ国际协定的出台与生效;其次,通过引入人类命运共同体理念,完善人类共同继承财产原则的国际法内涵,增强该原则在谈判中的国际认同度与采纳度,并通过阐释中国支持性的主张,进一步增强中国运用人类命运共同体理念参与并引导全球海洋治理的能力。     

BBNJ国际协定中人类共同继承财产原则的去留探析——人类命运共同体理念下的中国因应之策

国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性(BBNJ)养护和可持续利用国际协定的立法进程已进入关键阶段。其中,关于BBNJ国际协定的一般原则或方法条款中是否包含人类共同继承财产原则这一问题,各方代表立场不同,再次成为谈判焦点之一。从全球海洋治理中,国际法理论与实践创新以及国家利益视角分析,得出中国应当支持此原则被明确列入BBNJ国际协定一般性条款之中。但是,解构当前人类共同继承财产原则的法律内涵与适用,结合现有各方立场,得出此原则最终被明确列入BBNJ国际协定一般原则或方法条款中的实然可能性偏小。基于此,建议中国首先立足争议问题本身,将人类命运共同体理念作为价值导向引入BBNJ国际协定,增强各方国际合作与责任承担共识,平衡诉求矛盾,推进BBNJ国际协定的出台与生效;其次,通过引入人类命运共同体理念,完善人类共同继承财产原则的国际法内涵,增强该原则在谈判中的国际认同度与采纳度,并通过阐释中国支持性的主张,进一步增强中国运用人类命运共同体理念参与并引导全球海洋治理的能力。     

Improving Cost-effectiveness and Facilitating Participation of Developing Countries in International Emissions Trading

This paper discusses ways in which the next climate agreement – a renegotiated Kyoto Protocol or a second-period agreement – can be made more cost-effective. The discussion focuses on the design of international emissions trading to facilitate early participation by developing countries. Four aspects are highlighted: the design of compensation rules, the need to regulate the use of the CDM, the effect of allowing borrowing and the implications of a Commitment Period Reserve.     

International regimes and environmental policy integration: introducing the special issue

Pressure is mounting for states to become better at integrating its environmental policies into sector policy, a challenge often referred to as environmental policy integration (EPI). Policy research on EPI has grown to become a distinct and substantial field of study at the national and EU levels, where political commitment and interest in the topic have been large. In the study of international regimes, EPI analytical concepts have so far not been applied although the EPI quest is at least as important and critical at this level. This special issue addresses this gap, by combining these two sets of literature and examining various aspects of EPI in international regimes, its manifestations and its challenges. This introductory paper introduces key conceptual discussions underlying the development of this special issue, distils and discusses some of the key findings and messages from the four ensuing research articles and presents directions for future research. It finds that many EPI challenges and institutional barriers are strongly accentuated at international levels of governance, but also that similarities with the national level suggest that closer interactions between the two fields of study are warranted. At both levels, the EPI “game” is full of inherent tensions and goal conflicts, institutional constraints abound, and cognitive interactions and learning processes appear as key mechanisms to advance EPI. Suggestions for how to enhance EPI in international regimes are still tentative, and analysis beyond international relations and regime theory is needed to capture potential institutional innovations for advancing EPI.