INEA has featured many articles covering the dilemmas, puzzles, and tensions related to global biodiversity governance; this coverage was infrequent in earlier issues but has steadily increased as both environmental diplomacy and international law on biodiversity conservation and environmental justice have expanded. Using the definition found in the Convention on Biological Diversity, we scanned INEA articles and derived several lessons learnt over the 2000–2020 period. These include: implementation remains a central challenge, but challenge should not be conflated with ineffectiveness; multilateral environmental agreements are vital for success; coordination and policy coherences are often lacking, insufficient, or superficial; institutional change and policy reform within existing institutions are incremental at best; understanding local political dynamics is critical; equity concerns remain central to biodiversity policy development at all levels; the role of non-state actors and private voluntary standards fluctuates; tensions over state sovereignty and collective action and the commons have often been visible but as often lurk in the shadows of environmental diplomacy and most ongoing discussions of global biodiversity governance. After elaborating on each of these lessons, we offer some insights on research gaps and potential thematic directions for future contributors to INEA.

INEA 发表了许多文章，涵盖与全球生物多样性治理相关的困境、困惑和紧张局势；这种报道在早先的几期中并不常见，但随着环境外交和关于生物多样性保护和环境正义的国际法的扩大，这种报道稳步增加。使用《生物多样性公约》中的定义，我们浏览了 INEA 的文章，并得出了 2000-2020 年期间的一些经验教训。其中包括： 实施仍然是一项核心挑战，但不应将挑战与无效混为一谈；多边环境协定对成功至关重要；协调和政策连贯性往往缺乏、不足或肤浅；现有机构内的机构变革和政策改革充其量只是渐进式的；了解当地的政治动态至关重要；公平问题仍然是各级生物多样性政策制定的核心；非国家行为者的作用和私人自愿标准波动；围绕国家主权、集体行动和公地的紧张局势通常是显而易见的，但也常常潜伏在环境外交和大多数正在进行的全球生物多样性治理讨论的阴影中。在详细阐述了这些课程之后，我们为未来的 INEA 贡献者提供了一些关于研究差距和潜在主题方向的见解。围绕国家主权、集体行动和公地的紧张局势通常是显而易见的，但也常常潜伏在环境外交和大多数正在进行的全球生物多样性治理讨论的阴影中。在详细阐述了这些课程之后，我们为未来的 INEA 贡献者提供了一些关于研究差距和潜在主题方向的见解。围绕国家主权、集体行动和公地的紧张局势通常是显而易见的，但也常常潜伏在环境外交和大多数正在进行的全球生物多样性治理讨论的阴影中。在详细阐述了这些课程之后，我们为未来的 INEA 贡献者提供了一些关于研究差距和潜在主题方向的见解。