Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance

Abstract

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.

Appendix

Lessons learnt	Suggested conditions for effective and improved biodiversity governance	Potential reasons for governance failure	Sources
Implementation remains a central challenge, but challenge should not be conflated with ineffectiveness	Close interdependence of national and international regulation Active participation by diverse set of non-state actors Broad range of innovative techniques to ensure and control compliance Substantive domestic legal innovations	Insufficient resource capacities Policy incoherence across international and national level Disparate preferences of negotiators Institutionalized uncertainty (i.e., the outcomes of interactions between actors within institutions is largely unpredictable)	Birhanu (2010), Elvan et al. (2021), Groen (2019), Kalaba et al. (2014), Nijar (2013), Sand (2001) and Zainol et al. (2015)
Multilateral environmental agreements are vital for success	Multilateral environmental agreements can support national policy development Regional agreements and agreements between similar countries (in terms of their benefits and costs related to conservation) may contribute to more effective conservation There are some examples of successful bilateral agreements	Bilateral arrangements, including those between donor and recipient countries are generally insufficient Insufficiently resourced MEAs will be less effective	Alvarado-Quesada and Weikard (2017), Bezerra et al. (2018), Birhanu (2010), Groen (2019), Law and Kriwoken (2017), Lorenzo et al. (2018), Mbatu (2016), Rosendal and Andresen (2016) and Schulz et al. (2017)
Coordination and policy coherence are often lacking, insufficient, or superficial, but can be promoted	Overlapping membership and higher awareness of issues can enhance coherence in norms across international institutions Supporting national-level synergies, could enhance political will and promote state ownership over coordination and policy coherence	Inherent goal conflicts Negative policy interactions between interrelated issues Technical issues difficult to align Coordination and policy coherence not considered politically salient issues	Fernandez-Blanco et al. (2019), Haas et al. (2021), Kalaba et al. (2014), Moynihan and Magsig (2020), Rosendal (2001), Sand (2001) and Velazquez Gomar (2016), Young and Schram (2020)
Institutional change and policy reform within existing institutions is incremental at best	Shifting international venue Combination of incremental reforms from within existing governance structures and transformative reform of institutional design Inter-organizational collaboration	Long history of international institutions, elements of institutional design, state preferences and geopolitical context can impede institutional change and policy reform	Axelrod (2017), Haas et al. (2021), Pentz and Klerk (2020), Rosendal (2001), Sand (2001), Stoett (2002) and Wilson (2008)
Understanding local political dynamics is critical	NGOs can contribute to compliance through naming and shaming Good knowledge of local dynamics is well worth the costs of obtaining	Lack of awareness of national political developments National vested interests	Axelrod (2017), Fernandez-Blanco et al. (2019), Filoche (2013), Kim (2019), Marsden (2018) and Rosendal (2001), Lim (2016), Guarino et al. (2017)
Equity concerns remain central but are not often addressed in biodiversity policy development at all levels	Buy-in of local communities is critical Post 2020 global biodiversity framework should incorporate a rights-based approach, shift from a focus on legality to legally empowering local forest producers	Benefit-sharing mechanisms often lead to elite capture, disempowerment of local communities, enhanced poverty, and dispossession of natural resources Legality movement tend to disadvantage IPLCs Institutional design aspects of the IPBES limits integration of indigenous and local knowledge	Atisa (2020), Challender et al. (2015), Coolsaet et al. (2020), Dunkley (2018), Ituarte-Lima et al. (2019), Koetz (2012), Nijar et al. (2017), Tladi, (2019) and Stoett (2002)
The role of non-state actors and private voluntary standards fluctuates	Multinational corporations should go beyond engaging in business-led coalitions and making public pledges to address deforestation	The array of non-legally binding and voluntary regulatory landscape in forestry has benefitted the private sector interests	Blanco et al. (2019), Fernandez- Weber (2018), Gulbrandsen (2005), Kim (2019), Pattberg (2005) and Sand (2001)
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	Governments should act as normative leaders in environmental diplomacy, making use of windows of opportunity	Tension between the concepts of “common heritage of [hu]mankind”, and issues related to sovereignty, the presence of domestic economic interests and state capture, and patterns of privatization and enclosure Reluctance to change by some powerful states	Axelrod (2017), Humphries (2018), Pentz and Klerk (2020), Rosendal and Andresen (2016), Schulz et al. (2017) and Tladi (2019)