Search results

This article investigates if higher levels of social capital, better governance structures, and a more ambitious conservation policy are positively linked to the ability of states to address biodiversity loss. Serving this purpose is a data set containing estimates of woodpecker diversity in 20 European countries. These data are argued to be a more valid indicator of biodiversity than most other available cross-national measures of environmental quality. A seemingly unrelated regression analysis reveals that none of the indicators are linked to higher levels of woodpecker diversity, which in turn leads to the conclusion that present institutions, environmental policies, and social structures have negligible effects on biodiversity compared to long-term landscape transformations.

The continuous submission and scaling-up of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) constitutes a key feature of the Paris Agreement. In their NDCs, states propose governance mechanisms for implementation of climate action, in turn distinguishing appropriate roles for the state in climate governance. Clarity on Parties suggested roles for the state makes explicit assumptions on the premise of climate policy, in turn contributing to enhanced transparency in negotiations on the scaling-up of NDCs. This also speaks to ongoing debates on roles for the state in climate governance literature. This article identifies the governance mechanisms proposed by states in their NDCs and the roles for the state envisioned by those governance mechanisms, and also examines how cross-national patterns of roles for the state break or converge with conventional patterns of international politics. The analysis shows that states propose a plurality of roles, which to different extents may be complementary or conflictual. We conclude that income, region, and the Annexes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are important for understanding suggested roles for the state, but that there are nuances to be further explored. We argue that this paper has three key findings: i) a majority of states rely on market mechanisms to implement their NDCs while rules on implementation and assessment of market mechanisms are still an outstanding issue in the negotiations, meaning that resolving this issue will be essential; ii) the process for evaluating and assessing qualitative governance mechanisms needs to be specified; and iii) increased awareness of differing views on the states roles makes explicit different perspectives on what constitutes an ambitious and legitimate contribution to combating climate change. Key policy insights A majority of states (amp;gt; 75%) envision the state as regulator (creating and strengthening legislation), market facilitator (creating and maintaining market structures), or facilitator (creating more favourable material conditions for climate-friendly behaviour). Greater awareness of differing views on roles for the state can increase understanding of different perspectives on ambition and legitimacy of contributions, in turn facilitating trust in negotiations. A distinction between substantive and procedural qualitative governance mechanisms and their function and interaction would facilitate the stocktaking dialogues. ; Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council Formas through the project A Global Potluck: Cross-national patterns of state engagement and performance in the new landscape of international climate cooperation [2015-00871]; Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research -Mistra through the research programme Mistra Geopolitics [2016/11, 5]

While there is broad consensus that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sometimes succeed in influencing policy making within international organizations (IOs), there is much less agreement on the factors that make NGO lobbying effective. This article makes two contributions to this debate. First, the determinants of influence among NGOs active in different IOs, issue areas and policy phases are examined. The analysis builds on original survey data of more than 400 NGOs involved in five different IOs, complemented by elite interviews with IO and state officials. Secondly, the article advances a specific argument about how the strategic exchange of information and access between NGOs and IOs increases NGO influence in IOs. This argument, derived from theories of lobbying in American and European politics, is contrasted with three alternative explanations of NGO influence, privileging material resources, transnational networks and public opinion mobilization, and the broader implications of these results for research on NGOs in global governance are explored.

For several decades, national environmental framework laws have come into existence to define its citizens' environmental rights and duties, as well as express how the government will manage and protect the environment. However, previous research has not considered how a nation's highest form of law promising environmental protection and management conveys its role or supports relevant parties. To fill this gap, we do a narrative analysis to see what themes emerged in 44 national environmental framework laws across the world. The main themes are (1) Rights and responsibilities of citizens and corporations, (2) Rights of the natural environment, (3) Environmental knowledge, (4) Governing the natural environment, and (5) External influences. Overall, we argue that the narratives we observed in the national environmental framework laws helps shape and reify the existing human domination of the natural environment for our own benefit and survival under the guise of protection.