Norwegian Climate Policy: From Pusher to Laggard?

Initially Norwegian climate policy was very ambitious and Norway stood forth as a pusher on the international scene. Over time Norwegian policy has become more sober, stressing the need for differentiated commitments and flexible implementation. In contrast to the initial enthusiastic phase, climate change policy has been increasingly seen in pragmatic economic terms. Still, Norway is no laggard, as it has shown more willingness to pay for abatement measures than many other countries.     

Knowledge-based management of protected areas and hydropower: the case of Norway

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics - How has ecological knowledge been applied in Norwegian management of hydropower and protected areas? By recognizing a diversity...     

Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks

Over the last decade, the need for governance of human health and environmental safety risks of nanotechnology (NT) has received increased attention at international, national and EU levels. There were early calls for increased funding of independent research, risk analysis and voluntary or mandatory regulation, but currently overall regulatory efforts have not materialised. One possible explanation is that research has revealed little need to regulate environmental and health safety risks of NT. Alternatively, there is a gap between politics and governance and the evolving state of knowledge. Such a gap can be caused by various factors including change in interests, saliency and organisation. Organisational challenges related to the science–policy interface at national, international and the EU can affect how new knowledge is channelled into decision-making processes. Decrease in public saliency is another possibility. Finally, opposition to regulation among affected producers may have increased and in turn stalled regulation through lobbying. The two explanations are analysed in a multi-level governance context. Norway is chosen as an interesting case: Highly profiled as a frontrunner i.a. in regulating gene technology, but currently awaiting regulations in the EU due to the European Economic Area agreement.     

Realizing access and benefit sharing from use of genetic resources between diverging international regimes: the scope for leadership

This article examines how access and benefit sharing (ABS) in international transactions with genetic resources can be achieved and how Norway contributes to their realization. Regarding the first question, progress on the ground has been slow, but important principles have been agreed within the convention on biological diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol (NP). Although domestic legislation is adopted, key user countries remain reluctant. They argue that the ABS regime needs to be supplemented with sector approaches within forums such as the Food and Agriculture Organization. In principle, this may sound logical, but sector approaches may risk undermining the ABS regime of the CBD/NP. The principle of access is more user-oriented and benefit sharing is weaker in the relevant FAO negotiations. Against this background, the future practical significance of the ABS regime remains uncertain. Norway has played an important leadership role in ABS within the CBD/NP framework. This stems in part from ‘fortunate circumstances’, as Norway has relatively few stakes in this issue area, but also includes strong normative elements: Norway’s inclination to support weaker part, the South. The Norwegian position has also been solidified by good coordination and strong institutional capacity among the actors involved. However, there are indications of a growing split in the Norwegian position along sector lines. We do not yet have sufficient empirical evidence that this is the case—but if it is, achieving an effective ABS regime may be even more difficult.     

The effectiveness of UN environmental institutions

This is a study of the effectiveness of key UN institutions focussing on environment and sustainable development: the global conferences on development and the environment, the CSD and UNEP, primarily its co-ordinating functions. According to the indicators used to measure effectiveness here, it is concluded that the overall effectiveness of these institutions is quite low. This particularly applies to the CSD. UNEP has been quite effective in creating new institutions but has been less effective in co-ordinating them. As to the global conferences, their significance has been reduced over time.

Performance of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in China: Achievements and Challenges as Seen by the Chinese

This paper discusses the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and its achievements and challenges in China, the country obtaining most GEF support. This paper relies on Chinese perceptions, and less on views from the implementing agencies (IAs), the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP. Most attention is given to climate change and biodiversity. The paper asks what has been achieved; how effective has the GEF been? The study concludes that GEF funding has been important for China’s environmental problems. GEF and its IAs have contributed to raised awareness and technology development and have boosted institutional capacity through participation in project activities and training. The main emphasis has been placed on climate change projects and less on biodiversity. Much has been achieved by the GEF in China, but challenges exist. At the international level, the interests and roles of the GEF system, its IAs and recipient countries are not always compatible. GEF projects may suffer as a consequence. Another challenge relates to the seeming difference in effectiveness between World Bank projects and projects of the other IAs. Domestic challenges concern turf battles, problems related to information sharing, and different priorities among actors. The various government institutions’ reluctance to co-operate impacts significantly on the performance of GEF projects in China. The IAs should insist on smoother collaboration, and force the institutions to work together. Moreover, severe problems are apparent regarding financing as well as application procedures. Improvements are under way regarding the GEF application procedures. This will have a limited impact unless the Chinese side simplifies and improves procedures.     

The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of International Environmental Institutions

The Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) concluded during the past decades have established complex interlinkages between the institutions established by MEAs and institutions such as UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank and the funds administered by the Bank, in particular the GEF. Questions regarding the effectiveness and legitimacy of this system of global environmental governance have arisen both in practice and in research. This essay explores the manner in which these questions have arisen, how they have been addressed in recent research and provides the context for the subsequent contributions to this special issue. Steinar Andresen is professor of political science at the University of Oslo, Ellen Hey is professor of public international law at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam.