Global governance and the chemicals regime -- Institutional analysis and the chemicals regime -- Global chemicals use and management in a historical perspective -- The Basel Convention and hazardous waste management -- The Rotterdam Convention and the trade in hazardous chemicals -- The CLRTAP POPs Protocol and regional standards -- The Stockholm Convention and global POPs controls -- Multilevel governance and chemicals management : past, present, and future
In global environmental cooperation, legally binding agreements remain a customary way for states to set common goals and standards. This article analyzes the Minamata Convention on Mercury by addressing three questions: First, how did linkages to earlier agreements shape the negotiations? Second, what were the main legal and political issues during the negotiations? Third, what are the major issues moving forward with treaty implementation and mercury abatement? The analysis shows that the decision to start treaty negotiations was influenced by related policy developments on hazardous chemicals as well as differences in national interests. Five sets of issues dominated the negotiations: 1) supply and trade, 2) products and processes, 3) emissions and releases, 4) artisanal and small-scale gold mining, and 5) resources and compliance. The article concludes that future mercury abatement hinges on the parties' ability to move beyond the initial mandates, as the convention may affect decisions by a wide range of public, private, and civil society actors.
As global environmental governance evolves, the parties to the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and to the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants have established regional centers working on capacity building and technology transfer. This article empirically explores the following questions: Why did the parties to the Basel and Stockholm Conventions establish these regional centers? What roles do the regional centers play in treaty implementation and multilevel governance? The article argues that the parties have set up regional centers in response to three partially overlapping sets of developing- and industrialized-country interests: expanding regional cooperation (both developing and industrialized countries); attracting more resources for treaty implementation (mainly developing countries); and supporting implementation projects across smaller groups of countries (mainly industrialized countries). This article finds that the regional centers collectively operate in three broad areas important to treaty implementation: raising awareness, strengthening administrative ability, and diffusing scientific and technical assistance and information. However, the ability of the regional centers to function effectively depends on access to greater resources and stronger political support. There may also be benefits to expanding regional center mandates into areas of monitoring and compliance to improve multilevel governance. Furthermore, the regional level should be given more consideration in the study of global environmental politics.
First, I want to thank Megan Mullin for her careful review of my book, which raises several important issues worthy of careful consideration. These will be helpful to me in my continued research and analysis of global environmental governance. A main criticism offered by Mullin's review is that my book includes a great deal of empirical detail but is less focused on testing propositions. This is largely by design, however, and her critique reflects our different views on research design and our varying ways of approaching empirical case studies and analysis.
This notable book on a little-studied but central aspect of American water politics addresses analytical issues important to a range of political science fields. It is, for example, of considerable relevance to scholars working in areas of American federalism and community politics, as well as to those who are interested in cross-cutting issues of public administration and policy fragmentation, public and private stakeholder participation and democracy, and multilevel governance. In Governing the Tap, Megan Mullin analyzes the institutional context and means through which local public services are provided, the governance structures that shape policy outcomes and how they are able to meet developing community goals, and the ways in which specialized structures fit into the complex political landscape of city, county, state, and federal policymaking. Because of both its broad appeal and its own qualities, this book deserves a wide readership.
The European Union (EU) has greatly expanded its environmental legislation over the past two decades. This article analyzes the recent development of the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) regulation. It uses a process-tracing technique to explore the question of how REACH was created despite signifıcant resistance from influential and well-organized industry interests and misgivings from leading European politicians and policy-makers. Examining developing coalition politics within the EU, it is argued that a relatively small coalition of green actors from EU organizations, member states, and environmental and public health advocacy groups succeeded in ensuring the development and adoption of REACH largely because the coalition included influential members from all major EU policy-making centers (the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament). In addition, it is argued that the implementation of REACH can have important ramiıcations for international chemical politics and policy-making outside the EU.
