Suchergebnisse

The fragmentation and complexity of governance are well recognized among scholars and policy makers. The debate on fragmentation has itself, however, also remained rather fragmented. This has inhibited the drawing of common lessons among the different communities, and has delayed the development of more concerted efforts to enhance synergies and address trade-offs between different societal goals. In order to move forward, this theme issue shows that the various disconnected debates are in essence trying to do the same thing—contribute to the discussion on the relationships between governance instruments. In order to do so, it is based on and advances the notion of Integrative Governance, defined as the theories and practices that focus on the relationships between governance instruments and/or governance systems. The theme issue serves the debate in two ways: (1) it contributes to the "defragmentation" of the debate by bringing together the different concepts and approaches used to study Integrative Governance and (2) it furthers the debate by addressing the main gaps in the Integrative Governance literature. Each article contributes to both aims of the theme issue by making conceptual links between the different approaches, and by addressing multiple gaps in the literature. As such, the theme issue as a whole contributes to a better understanding of the relationships between governance instruments, with a view to enhance these relationships and governance performance.

This article presents a framework to analyze and practice Integrative Governance, defined as the theories and practices that focus on the relationships between governance instruments and/or systems. The need to pay explicit attention to such relationships is increasingly recognized, especially in achieving the transformative change needed for sustainable development. The Integrative Governance framework focuses on explanatory analyses of the relationships and performance of governance instruments and/or systems, and is inspired by a pragmatic theoretical perspective. It includes three steps of analysis, with the first focused on the governance instruments and the relationships between them, the second on the combined performance of governance systems, and the third on explanations for the relationships and performance. Especially for this third step, insights from different theoretical perspectives are used, incorporating insights from rational choice theory, institutionalism, constructivism and critical theory. The application of the framework is illustrated by the example of the global animal and conservation governance systems. The preliminary analysis shows that the global conservation governance system is relatively more developed than the global animal governance system. The latter is mainly focused on animal health, with fewer instruments on welfare, and none on animal rights. The former includes more governance instruments and has some systems in place for monitoring implementation. The performance of both systems however remains limited, and there are few interactions between the systems. Main explanations include the interests of countries involved in the governance systems, the dominant anthropocentric discourses, and the current mostly animal-unfriendly and unsustainable political economy. Applying the Integrative Governance framework enables an enhanced understanding of the multiple and intertwined explanations of the relationships and performance of governance systems, allowing academics and practitioners to develop more realistic, durable solutions both in the shorter and longer term.

This article contributes to the debate on Integrative Governance by studying integration in the global forest–agriculture–climate change nexus. Since the 1990s, the role of the land-use sector, in particular forests and agriculture, has become increasingly prominent in climate change debates due to its vulnerability and its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing agriculture, climate change and forest policies in an integrated way could therefore create important synergies and reduce trade-offs. This article aims to analyse the extent of integration in current global governance in the nexus of agriculture, forests and climate change, and to explain this extent of integration. Based on the analysis of secondary data, participation in key events and semi-structured interviews, this article concludes that efforts to enhance integration have taken different forms for the different pairs of domains (climate change–agriculture, agriculture–forest, forest–climate change) as well as for the nexus of the three. Integration has been mainly enhanced through soft law, programmes and integrative approaches (e.g. landscape approach, climate smart agriculture, agroforestry). The analysis also shows that the extent of integration among the governance systems has differed. Interplay management efforts on forests and climate change have been relatively successful. Agriculture and forest, and agriculture and climate have low and modest levels of integration respectively, except adaptation in agriculture, which enjoys higher integration levels. Differences in integration can be explained by the medium to high degrees of legalization and the (in)compatibility of the dominant frames present in the different governance systems. Furthermore, our results show that integration in a governance system with a high degree of legalisation, and dominated by one regime, as is the case in climate change, presents important challenges. In such cases, integration might have greater potential outside the intergovernmental regime through soft law approaches.

This article examines the contributions that partnerships make to interaction management. Our conceptualization of interaction management builds on earlier contributions to the literature on regimes and governance. The article focuses on the interactions among the biodiversity and climate change governance systems, since these systems interact intensively on the issues of biofuels and forests (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation—REDD+). The article shows that seven partnerships actively manage the interactions by fulfilling several critical interaction management functions. Their main contributions include creating markets for sustainable biofuels through the development of certification standards and creating markets for "multiple benefit" REDD+. Although the partnerships improve interactions on case-by-case bases, they fail to fundamentally improve existing interactions between the biodiversity and climate change governance systems. Improved meta-governance and public-private interplay are necessary for more effective interaction management and, more generally, the effective governance of sustainable development.

The urgency of transforming biodiversity governance / Ingrid J.Visseren-Hamakers and Marcel Kok -- Defining Nature / Hans Keune, Marco Immovilli, Roger Keller, Simone Maynard, Pam McElwee, Zsolt Molnár, Gunilla A. Olsson, Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, Anik Schneiders, Machteld Schoolenberg, Suneetha M. Subramanian and Wouter Van Reeth -- Global biodiversity governance : what needs to be transformed? / Joanna Smallwood; Amandine Orsini; Marcel Kok; Christian Prip and Katarzyna Negacz -- How to save a million species? Transformative governance through prioritization / Ingrid J. Visseren Hamakers, Benjamin Cashore, Derk Loorbach, Marcel Kok, Susan de Koning, Pieter Vullers and Anne van Veen -- One health and biodiversity / Hans Keune, Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, Serge Morand and Simon Rüegg -- Biodiversity finance and transformative governance : the limitations of innovative financial instruments / Richard van der Hoff and Nowella Anyango-van Zwieten -- Emerging technologies in biodiversity governance : gaps and opportunities for transformative governance / Florian Rabitz, Jesse L. Reynolds and Elsa Tsioumani -- Rethinking and upholding justice and equity in transformative biodiversity governance / Jonathan Pickering, Brendan Coolsaet, Neil Dawson, Kimberly Marion Suiseeya, Cristina Y. A. Inoue and Michelle Lim -- Mainstreaming the animal in biodiversity governance : broadening the moral and legal community to non-humans / Andrea Schapper, Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers, David Humphreys and Cebuan Bliss -- Industry responses to evolving regulation of marine bioprospecting in Polar Regions / Kristin Rosendal and Jon Birger Skjærseth -- Transformative biodiversity governance for protected and conserved areas / Janice Weatherley-Singh, Madhu Rao, Elizabeth Matthews, Lilian Painter, Lovy Rasolofomanana, Kyaw T. Latt, Me`ira Mizrahi and James E.M. Watson -- The convivial conservation imperative : exploring 'biodiversity impact chains' to support structural transformation / Bram Büscher, Kate Massarella, Robert Coates, Sierra Deutsch, Wolfram Dressler, Robert Fletcher, Marco Immovilli and Stasja Koot -- Transformative biodiversity governance in agricultural landscapes : taking stock of biodiversity policy integration and looking forward / Yves Zinngrebe, Fiona Kinniburgh, Marjanneke J. Vijge, Sabina J. Khan and Hens Runhaar -- Cities and the transformation of biodiversity governance / Harriet Bulkeley, Linjun Xie, Judy Bush, Katharina Rochell, Julie Greenwalt, Hens Runhaar, Ernita van Wyk, Cathy Oke and Ingrid Coetzee -- Transformative governance for ocean biodiversity / Bolanle Erinosho, Hashali Hamukuaya, Claire Lajaunie, Alana Malinde S.N. Lancaster, Mitchell Lennan, Pierre Mazzega, Elisa Morgera and Bernadette Snow -- Enabling transformative biodiversity governance in the post-2020 era / Marcel Kok, Elsa Tsioumani, Cebuan Bliss, Marco Immovilli, Hans Keune, Elisa Morgera, Simon Ruegg, Andrea Schapper, Marjanneke J. Vijge, Yves Zinngrebe and Ingrid J.Visseren-Hamakers.

Over the last two decades, governance has become a central area of research in various disciplines of social sciences. Although scholars widely recognize the importance of governance in sustainable development, the quality of governance and how to measure it in a comprehensive way are still under discussion. In response to this, we developed a framework for assessing governance capacity that is based on the policy arrangement approach. The framework highlights three elements—enabling rules of the game, converging discourses, and facilitating resources—and their inter-linkages. To illustrate the use of the framework, we present its application to the policy of forest land allocation in Vietnam. Our findings indicate the complicated link between institutional capacity and governance performance and the effects of socioeconomic contexts on actors' interactions in a policy arrangement.

AbstractA growing scholarship on multistakeholder learning dialogues suggests the importance of closely managing learning processes to help stakeholders anticipate which policies are likely to be effective. Much less work has focused on how to manage effective transnational multistakeholder learning dialogues, many of which aim to help address critical global environmental and social problems such as climate change or biodiversity loss. They face three central challenges. First, they rarely shape policies and behaviors directly, but work to 'nudge' or 'tip the scales' in domestic settings. Second, they run the risk of generating 'compromise' approaches incapable of ameliorating the original problem definition for which the dialogue was created. Third, they run the risk of being overly influenced, or captured, by powerful interests whose rationale for participating is to shift problem definitions or narrow instrument choices to those innocuous to their organizational or individual interests. Drawing on policy learning scholarship, we identify a six-stage learning process for anticipating effectiveness designed to minimize these risks while simultaneously fostering innovative approaches for meaningful and longlasting problem solving: Problem definition assessments; Problem framing; Developing coalition membership; Causal framework development; Scoping exercises; Knowledge institutionalization. We also identify six management techniques within each process for engaging transnational dialogues around problem solving. We show that doing so almost always requires anticipating multiple-step causal pathways through which influence of transnational and/or international actors and institutions might occur.