Abstract
This article investigates how and to what extent the current management of inter-institutional relationships within International Environmental Governance (‘interplay management’) contributes to Environmental Policy Integration (EPI), and identifies options for enhancing EPI among international institutions. To this end, it first develops a framework for the systematic analysis and assessment of interplay management as a means for achieving ‘strong’ EPI, distinguishing four levels and two principal modes of management. On this basis, the article assesses the current contribution of International Environmental Governance to advancing EPI as regards three categories of institutional interaction. The analysis demonstrates the need to fit interplay management to the particular governance conditions of varying interaction situations and highlights the lack of systematic and consistent support for EPI among international institutions. Options to improve this situation include in particular promoting inter-institutional learning and assistance for the benefit of environmental institutions as well as ensuring consideration of and respect for environmental requirements. Adapting the statutes and mandates of individual institutions and developing suitable guidance under general international (environmental) law have the highest potential for implementing these options. In contrast, joint management initiatives and a strengthened international environmental organisation have a much more limited, supplementary potential.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Both terms will be used interchangeably throughout this article.
The category of disruptive institutional interaction as introduced here refers to both disruptive “interaction through commitment” and related “behavioural interaction”; see Gehring and Oberthür 2006, 2009. Assessing the compatibility of the objectives of international institutions requires taking into account that these objectives are socially constructed. For example, many objectives such as advancing international trade (WTO) are not necessarily per se in contradiction to environmental objectives pursued by MEAs. Objectives diverge as defined by actors under present circumstances (technologies, interest definitions, etc.). With the evolution of these circumstances, objectives currently construed to be in tension may well develop towards compatibility (and vice versa).
Social learning processes that may support deep changes of underlying interest definitions and a reinterpretation of previously diverging objectives require long time horizons and need to extend far beyond the remit of the members of international institutions.
Improved knowledge and awareness can provide important support for maximising synergy in the regulatory design (although opponents may admittedly also ‘learn’ that they should oppose effective rules even more vigorously). For example, different design options for the aforementioned preferential trade tariffs for environmental technology exist within the WTO, which are likely to differ as to the extent to which they would support the implementation of the climate change regime and other MEAs (Charnovitz 2003).
Information of this kind may feed into requests for assistance from other institutions, as occurred when CITES requested the WCO to adapt its customs codes (see Sect. 3.1). This inter-institutional learning mechanism (cognitive interaction) may thus trigger inter-institutional assistance (interaction among overlapping institutions).
Relevant requirements include: (1) international environmental institutions to systematically screen other institutions for useful models and for their potential to assist in implementing the own objectives; (2) all institutions to (a) consider requests of environmental institutions and exploit any potential for assisting them, (b) conduct environmental impact assessments and to consult with relevant environmental institutions prior to taking decisions with significant environmental impact, (c) give priority to (certain) environmental objectives, and (d) secure approval of relevant environmental institutions prior to taking decisions with significant environmental impact.
Abbreviations
- CITES:
-
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
- EPI:
-
Environmental Policy Integration
- IEG:
-
International Environmental Governance
- MEA:
-
Multilateral Environmental Agreement
- OECD:
-
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
- UNEP:
-
United Nations Environment Programme
- WCO:
-
World Customs Organisation
- WEO:
-
World Environment Organisation
- WTO:
-
World Trade Organisation
References
Adler, E. (2002). Constructivism and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 95–118). London: Sage.
Axelrod, M. (2009). Savings clauses and the “chilling effect”: Regime interplay as constraints on international governance/law. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interplay and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes.
Biermann, F., & Bauer, S. (Eds.). (2005). A World Environment Organization. Solution or threat for effective International Environmental Governance? Aldershot: Ashgate.
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (Eds.). (2009). Managers of global change. The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brack, D. (2002). Environmental treaties and trade: Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the multilateral trading system. In G. P. Sampson & W. B. Chambers (Eds.), Trade, environment, and the millennium (pp. 321–352). Tokyo: UN University Press.
Chambers, W. B. (2008). Interlinkages and the effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Chambers, W. B., & Green, J. F. (Eds.). (2005). Reforming International Environmental Governance: From institutional limits to innovative reforms. Tokyo: UN University Press.
Charnovitz, S. (2003). Trade and climate: Potential conflict and synergies. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Gehring, T. (2009). From disruption to division of labor: The emerging governance structure on trade and environment. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interplay and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes.
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2004). Exploring regime interaction: A framework of analysis. In A. Underdal & O. R. Young (Eds.), Regime consequences: Methodological challenges and research strategies (pp. 247–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2006). Comparative empirical analysis and ideal types of institutional interaction. In S. Oberthür & T. Gehring (Eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance. Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 307–371). Cambridge: MIT-Press.
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2008). Interplay: Exploring institutional interaction. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 187–223). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15, 125–156.
Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F., & Mol, A. P. J. (Eds.). (2007). Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: Reflections on theory and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gupta, J. (2008). Global change: Analyzing scale and scaling in environmental governance. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haas, P. M., Keohane, R. O., & Levy, M. A. (Eds.). (1993). Institutions for the earth. Sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hertin, J., & Berkhout, F. (2003). Analysing institutional strategies for Environmental Policy Integration: The case of EU enterprise policy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5, 39–56.
International Law Commission. (2006). Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the study group of the international law commission. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682. Geneva: International Law Commission.
Ivanova, M. (2007). Designing the United Nations Environment Programme: A story of compromise and confrontation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 7, 337–361.
Jacquemont, F., & Caparrós, A. (2002). The convention on biological diversity and the climate change convention 10 years after Rio: Towards a synergy of the two regimes? Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 11, 139–180.
Jungcurt, S. (2008). Institutional interplay in International Environmental Governance: Policy interdependence and strategic interaction in the regime complex on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Aachen: Shaker.
Keohane, R. O., & Levy, M. A. (Eds.). (1996). Institutions for environmental aid: Pitfalls and promise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lafferty, W. M., & Hovden, E. (2003). Environmental Policy Integration: Towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics, 12, 1–22.
Lanchbery, J. (2006). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Responding to calls for action from other nature conservation regimes. In S. Oberthür & T. Gehring (Eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance. Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 157–179). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meinke, B. (2002). Multi-Regime-Regulierung. Wechselwirkungen zwischen globalen und regionalen Umweltregimen. Darmstadt: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.
Metcalfe, L. (1994). International policy co-ordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60, 271–290.
Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness. Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. M. (Eds.). (2006). Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
Najam, A., Papa, M., & Taiyab, N. (2006). Global environmental governance: A reform agenda. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Nilsson, M., & Persson, A. (2003). Framework for analysing Environmental Policy Integration. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5, 333–359.
Oberthür, S. (2002). Clustering of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Potentials and limitations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2, 317–340.
Oberthür, S. (2003). Institutional interaction to address greenhouse gas emissions from international transport: ICAO, IMO and the Kyoto protocol. Climate Policy, 3, 191–205.
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2004). Reforming International Environmental Governance: An institutionalist critique of the proposal for a World Environment Organization. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 4, 359–381.
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (Eds.). (2006a). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006b). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance. The case of the Cartagena protocol and the World Trade Organization. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 1–31.
Oberthür, S., Roche Kelly, C. & Matsumoto, Y. (2009). Managing policy contradictions between the Montreal and Kyoto protocols: The case of fluorinated greenhouse gases. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interplay and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes.
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (Eds.) (2009a). Institutional interplay and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes.
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (2009b). Institutional interaction in global environmental change. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interplay and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes.
Palmer, A., Chaytor, B., & Werksman, J. (2006). Interaction between the World Trade Organization and international environmental regimes. In S. Oberthür & T. Gehring (Eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 181–204). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Persson, A. (2004). Environmental Policy Integration: An introduction, policy integration for sustainability background paper, June 2004. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
Raustalia, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58, 277–309.
Schneider, L., Graichen, J., & Matz, N. (2005). Implication of the clean development mechanism under the Kyoto protocol on other conventions. The case of HFC-23 destruction. Environmental Law Network International (elni) Review, 1, 41–52.
Simmons, B. A., & Martin, L. L. (2002). International Organizations and Institutions. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 192–211). London: Sage.
Skjærseth, J. B. (2006). Protecting the Northeast Atlantic. One problem, three institutions. In S. Oberthür & T. Gehring (Eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance. Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 102–125). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stokke, O. S. (2000). Managing straddling stocks: The interplay of global and regional regimes. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43, 205–234.
Stokke, O. S. (Ed.). (2001a). Governing high seas fisheries: The interplay of global and regional regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stokke, O. S. (2001b). The interplay of international regimes. Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute. (FNI Report 14/2001).
Stokke, O. S. (2009). Interplay management, niches, and arctic governance. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interplay and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes.
Tarasofsky, R. G. (1997). Ensuring compatibility between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and GATT/WTO. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 7, 52–74.
van Asselt, H. (2009). Legal and political approaches in interplay management: Dealing with the fragmentation of global climate governance. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interplay and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes.
van Asselt, H., Sindico, F., & Mehling, M. A. (2008). Global climate change and the fragmentation of international law. Law and Policy, 30, 423–449.
Victor, D. G., Raustiala, K., & Skolnikoff, E. B. (Eds.). (1998). The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments. Theory and practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
von Homeyer, I. (2006). EPIGOV common framework. EPIGOV paper 1. Berlin: Ecologic.
von Moltke, K. (2005). Clustering international environmental agreements as an alternative to a World Environment Organization. In F. Biermann & S. Bauer (Eds.), A World Environment Organization. Solution or threat for effective International Environmental Governance? (pp. 175–204). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Werksman, J. (2005). The negotiation of a Kyoto compliance system. In J. Hovi, G. Ulfstein, & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Compliance with climate commitments. Conditions and mechanisms (pp. 17–38). London: Earthscan.
Wolfrum, R., & Matz, N. (2003). Conflicts in international environmental law. Berlin: Springer.
Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2, 1–24.
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change. Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Young, O. R., Agrawal, A., King, L. A., Sand, P. H., Underdal, A., & Wasson, M. (1999/2005). Institutional dimensions of global environmental change (IDGEC) science plan. Bonn: IHDP. (Report Nos. 9, 16).
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the European Union’s 6th Research Framework Programme, under Grant No. 02866, EPIGOV (“Environmental Policy Integration and Multi-Level Governance”). The article has benefitted from discussions of earlier versions at the 2008 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (22–23 February 2008), the third EPIGOV Conference held in Stockholm from 12 to 13 June 2008, and the Second Global International Studies Conference (WISC) held in Ljubljana from 23 to 26 July 2008. I am furthermore indebted to Claire Roche Kelly for her assistance and to Olav Schram Stokke, Måns Nilsson, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The article also constitutes a contribution to the research project “Governance through Regulatory Complexes” funded by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oberthür, S. Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. Int Environ Agreements 9, 371–391 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9109-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9109-7