Assessing the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs)

Abstract

It is commonly claimed that assessing the effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) from the environmental problem-solving perspective is challenging because environmental data are not available. However, not much research has been done on the characterization of the nature and causes of such data unavailability. This article analyzes the term "data unavailability" and provides three typologies for data unavailability: (a) "true unavailability," where data collection complexities and resource constraints limit data collection and analysis; (b) "false unavailability," which refers to the existence of relevant data, but failure to report due to various causes; and (c) "external availability," which refers to the existence of relevant data in several organizations and research institutions, but with no established networks for data sharing between such institutions and the IEA institutions. This article discusses the causes for the various types of data unavailability and makes recommendations for promoting data availability.

International Environmental Agreements (IEAs): An Integrated Perspective on the Concept of Effectiveness

“…the costs of policy-making in absence of real evidence of the impact of the policies at the level where it matters most -the environment. With the present impetus for more integration and synergies among IEAs [173], more environmental data will be needed to judge the effectiveness of the systems put in place. However, success of the environmental modification perspective relies on the availability and accessibility of reliable and comparable environmental data worldwide, and the challenges on this count are many [173].…”

“…Resource availability (in terms of time, finance, expertise, technology, etc.) is crucial and often a limiting factor in determining the assessment methodology or the scope of the study [173].…”

“…Starting at the domestic level is key as analysts will best be able to isolate the effects of the IEAs from other domestic measures in the area. These data can thereafter be aggregated at the national, regional and global level -in a bottom-up and lateral consolidation format [173]. Thus, close collaboration with the domestic institutions of party members is crucial for the relevance, reliability and accuracy of the data.…”

Participation in the convention on migratory species: A biogeographic assessment

“…Limitations in species distribution data restrict the efficacy of any conservation assessment (Seelarbokus 2014 ). Distributions of migratory species are particularly difficult to catalog given their complicated and seasonal life histories (Riede 2004 ).…”

“…Unlike CITES, CMS lacks stringent participation requirements for party states. Instead, CMS operates by facilitating the creation of smaller cooperative agreements (Seelarbokus 2014 ), including as many as 106 “action plans” across seven major conservation agreements and 19 nonbinding Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs). These agreements under CMS administration have helped to stabilize populations of migratory species including Wadden Sea seals ( Phoca vitulina vitulina and Helichoerus grypus ) and the Bukhara deer ( Cervus elaphus bactrianus ) despite being nonbinding (Baldwin 2011 ).…”