Proceedings Of The 2001 Berlin Conference: Global Environmental Change .

viiiProceedings of the 2001 Berlin ConferenceRegulating Environmental Action of Non-Governmental Actors: The Impactof Communication Support Programmes in Germanyby Wolfgang Meyer360The Privatisation of International Environmental Governanceby Tanja Brühl371Global Discourse, Local Struggle: The Reconstruction of the Local in LocalAgenda 21 Processesby Angela Oels381Can Decentralisation Save Bolivia’s Forests? Uncovering the InstitutionalIncentives for Municipal Governance of Forest Resourcesby Krister Andersson388Non-Governmental Organisations and Forest Resource Management inCameroonby Pamela A. Agbor and Walters A. Arrey401Transnational Policy Networks and the Role of Advocacy Scientists: FromOzone Layer Protection to Climate Changeby Reiner Grundmann405The Changing Role of Nation States in International EnvironmentalAssessments: The Case of the IPCCby Bernd Siebenhüner415PART VII NATION STATES AND WORLD MARKETS425The Effect of the Private Sector on the Nation-State and its Influence onChile’s Environmental Regulatory Framework since 1990by Dante Figueroa426Multilateral Development Banks and Sustainable Development: The Strategyof Depoliticisationby Morten Bøås434Scale Conflict and Sectoral Crisis: The Fisheries Development Dilemmaby Frank Alcock441Diffusion of Ideas and Policies in a Multi-Level Regulatory Regime: ArcticInstitutions and Global Climate Changeby Jerry McBeath450International Constraints and Transnational Diffusion: The Dynamics of G8Effectiveness in Linking Trade, Environment and Social Cohesionby John Kirton460The State Between Free Trade and Environmentby Hendrik Vos, Jeroen Decock, and Elisabeth De Zutter469List of Participants of the 2001 Berlin Conference479

Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conference1Global Environmental Change and the Nation State: The Scope of theChallengeby Frank Biermann*Breathless and torn rushes the world into the new Millennium,begins the 2000 Report of the German AdvisoryCouncil on Global Change.1 Global reality gives justice to this rather poetic line. Most countries continueto expand production and consumption by an globalaverage of 4% p.a., and national economies, onceseparate, are steadily growing together in one globalmarket place.2 This breathlessness of human activity,however, increasingly leaves its traces on the earthsystem. Modern production, transportation and consumption of goods boost the burning of fossil fuelsand accelerate the natural greenhouse effect of theearth system, with geophysical changes such as sealevel rise, regional climate change and increasedstorms and natural disasters becoming a likely consequence. The loss of biological diversity, the depletionof the stratospheric ozone layer, the spread of persistent organic pollutants and the global degradation ofsoils are further illustrations of an earth system intransformation, if not in crisis.Many writers have pointed to the inherent difficultyof attaining the sustainable development of a globallyinterdependent system by relying on a dividing concept inherited from the 19th century—the nation state(cf. the key note address by German Federal Environment Minister JÜRGEN TRITTIN).3 Several politicalscientists have thus investigated options for buildingstrong and effective international institutions andestablishing new forms of global governance.4 Others,however, remain cautious and point to the continuingrelevance of the nation state system. They argue, forexample, that economic globalisation will not hinderenvironmental improvements, but foster the diffusionof successful policies and more efficient technologiesbetween nation states, without the intervention ofinternational institutions.So far, these strands of research have remained ratherisolated, with scholars largely being engaged in debatewith colleagues from their own communities. The2001 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensionsof Global Environmental Change “Global Environmental Change and the Nation State”, held 7-8 December 2001, was meant to address this situation.The conference brought together researchers from avariety of perspectives to engage in fruitful dialogueand exchange. This volume presents the fifty bestpapers submitted during this two-days deliberation.International institutions: Solution to the globalenvironmental crisis?One group of researchers represented in this volume,trained mainly in the field of international relations(IR), focus on international environmental institutions as agents of environmental governance in theglobal realm. This research programme is closelyembedded into the general IR discourse on states andinstitutions. In many IR theories, the nation state isseen as the pivotal actor that shapes the internationalsystem and the expectations of other state actors.Such statism stands at the centre, for example, of therealist research programme,5 which denies any significant independent role for intergovernmental institutions and organisations, or for non-state actors.Likewise, many game theoretical or economic approaches share the statism of the realist paradigm.6Realist statism has been challenged for many decades:7 Institutionalists have asserted new forms ofcomplex interdependence relationships betweenindustrialised countries8 and have argued that intergovernmental co-operation is both theoretically possible and empirically undeniable;9 global structuralistsand neo-Marxists have posited global (class) structures as core concepts to understand the capitalistworld system,10 and constructivists have challengedstatism by pointing to the context-dependency of thedefinition of states, which are seen as far from unitaryand rational.11Since the mid-1980s, international environmental56*1234Global Governance Project, Potsdam Institute for ClimateImpact Research, Germany and Free University of Berlin,Germany (www.glogov.org). Contact: biermann@glogov.org.German Advisory Council on Global Change 2001, p. 13.Jakobeit 2001.See for example Schellnhuber 1998 and 1999; Schellnhuberand Biermann 2000; Streeten 1989.See for example Young 1990 and 1997.7891011Waltz 1959 and 1979; Grieco 1988 and 1990.See for example Helm 1998 and 2000.See for example Keohane 1986.Keohane and Nye 1977 and 1987.See for example, Axelrod 1984; Oye 1986; Keohane 1984.See for example on the 1970s-debate Caporaso 1978, andSenghaas 1977. See also Cox 1989, and on recent Germanwriting Altvater 1993 and 1994; Altvater and Mahnkopf 1997.See for example Albert 1994; Diez 1996; Liftin 1994; Ulbert1997; Wendt 1992.

2Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conferencepolicy too has became a mainstream topic for IRscholars, within the analysis of international regimesas the central meeting ground for different schools inthe IR community.12 Theoretical discourse on international environmental policy has followed the cycleof political developments: Research focused first onthe emergence of international environmental regimes13 and of the norm-setting process within regimes.14 Then, following the enormous growth in thenumber of international regimes in the 1980s and1990s, scholars turned their attention to the actualinfluence these regimes had on policies pursued bynation states—a debate about “regime effectiveness”that has produced an impressive amount of literaturein recent years.15The key premise of this literature is that the globalenvironmental crisis requires intergovernmental institutions to constrain the behaviour of nation states. Itis argued, often rather implicitly, that in a world withno intergovernmental institutions and with only nation states acting independently, the state of theglobal environment would be significantly worse. Thepolitical motive driving this stream of IR researchthen is the question of how to design institutions in away that makes them more effective. The rationalefor this premise is often some version of Hardin’sparable of “the tragedy of the commons”.16 Withoutany constraints, nation states—like other selfinterested actors—would seek maximum benefits forthemselves while neglecting the potential damage oftheir action for the greater good, such as the atmosphere. In a world where only individual state rationality has its reign, collective outcomes would inevitablybe sub-optimal.IR research on environmental regimes has provided anumber of useful insights into the factors that couldmake regimes more influential on state action (cf. thecontribution by RONALD B. MITCHELL). Some research points to the relevance of regime design.17 Inthe case of oil pollution, for example, it has beenshown that different international norms and verifica121314151617See on regimes, Haggard and Simmons 1987; Hasenclever,Mayer and Rittberger 1997; Kohler-Koch 1989; Krasner 1983;Rittberger 1995; Wolf 1991.See for example List and Rittberger 1992, and Young 1989and 1991; also the work on epistemic communities as influential factors in regime creation, Haas 1990a and 1990b, 1992, orthe interest-based approach of Sprinz and Vaahtoranta 1994.See for example Gehring 1994; Oberthür 1997.On regime effectiveness, see for example the contributions tothe edited volumes Haas, Keohane, and Levy 1993; Keohaneand Levy 1996; Miles et al. 2002; Victor, Raustiala and Skolnikoff 1998; Weiss and Jacobsen 1998; as well as Bernauer1995; Helm and Sprinz 2000; Jakobeit 1998; Sprinz and Helm1999; Young 2001; Zürn 1998.Hardin 1968.For an overview about research on institutional arrangementssee Prittwitz 2000.tion procedures have entirely different outcomes onthe overall effect of the regime.18 Different modes ofregime allocation are also likely to influence regimeeffectiveness, for example in climate policy.19 Crucial,too, is whether a given regime includes systems forreciprocity and sanctions or rewards, which wouldrequire as a first step a credible verification systemthat assures all actors that their, and others’, behaviour is known.20 Some scholars—especially those whobase their arguments on game theory21—have arguedin favour of strict sanction systems to punish freeriding nation states. Others see less confrontationalapproaches as more likely to be effective, since mostnation states do not willingly breach agreements, butrather do so for lack of the necessary resources.22 Theco-operative approach taken by the parties to theMontreal Protocol23 vis-à-vis the default of the Russian Federation might serve as an example.24Apart from the design of regimes—which could intheory be altered by states in subsequent negotiations—IR research points to a number of additional,external factors that might explain variation of success among regimes. Crucial variables are the structure of problems and issue areas: controlling thephase-out of chemicals for which substitutes arewidely available is quite different from halting soildegradation in arid countries through internationallaw. In the case of regional regimes, the characteristics of their members are key factors in explainingcross-regional variation in regime effectiveness. Finally, the overall context matters, such as the generaleconomic situation or non-environmental politicalconcerns that might explain, for example, Sovietpolicies in the regime on long-range transboundaryair pollution in Europe.25Notwithstanding the vast amount of literature on theinfluence that intergovernmental regimes have onnational environmental policies, the IR communitystill lacks a generally accepted definition of effectiveness,26 which has given rise to a number of conceptual181920212223242526Mitchell 1994a and 1994b.Tóth 1999.Mitchell 1998.See German Advisory Council on Global Change 2000 for adiscussion on game theory, including policy recommendationsin favour of regimes with strict sanctions.Chayes and Chayes 1993, 1995. For a legal perspective see forexample Wolfrum 1998.Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 1987.See here Benedick 1998.Victor 1996.Levy 1993.See for example Young 2001 (p. 107), who observes that“[t]here can be no doubt that the tendency to conduct indepth case studies using somewhat different definitions of keyconcepts or even altogether different concepts is a real problem in this field of study”.

Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conferencepapers on this elusive dependent variable.27 Conceptsof regime effectiveness or success range from assessing the output of the regime in terms of legal promulgations or policies enacted (an approach typical formuch legal writing) and behavioural change amongstpolitical actors (outcome) to an appraisal of the eventual environmental impact, that is, whether changes instate behaviour have actually improved the state ofthe ecosphere.28 While most researchers work withqualitative indicators of effectiveness—such as thewidely quoted three “c’s” put forward by Keohane,Haas and Levy29—others have sought to developquantitative indicators, including a recent attempt tomap the effectiveness of intergovernmental agreements on a scale of 0 to 1.30The 2001 Berlin Conference focussed less on generalassessments of regime effectiveness but rather ondetailed case studies, that is, close examinations ofindividual countries, or groups of countries, and theirrelationship with international institutions. The influence of international institutions on individual countries generally depends on a number of specific characteristics of the countries involved, including—arguably the most important—the level of economicdevelopment. Any international institution is likely tohave different effects in countries such as Tanzania,Russia, Samoa, or the United States.This volume thus includes studies of various countries of different levels of development. This encompasses, first, case studies of developing countries,where one expects special conditions for internationalinstitutions to influence national environmental policy, including country studies on India (PHILIPPECULLET; SHOBAN K. PATTANAIK/LENIN K. BABU)and Taiwan (in comparison with Canada, cf. TSEKANG LENG). Central and eastern European countries are faced with a transition to a market economy,which creates special conditions for the developmentof national environmental policies and external influences. This is exemplified by case studies on the roleof multilateral environmental agreements for implementing cleaner production programmes in the countries in the Danube area (TAMILLA GAYNUTDINOVA)and a case study on environmental crime and theadequacy and effectiveness of strict environmentalstandards in Russia (MARIA IVANOVA).27282930See for example Bernauer 1995; Helm and Sprinz 2000;Keohane 1996; Underdal 2002; Young 2001.Cioppa and Bruyninckx 2000.See Keohane, Haas and Levy 1993. They argued that essentially three different forms of effects can be distinguished, theso-called three “c”: improving the contractual environment,increasing capacity on the national level, and raising concernamong decision-makers on different levels.Sprinz and Helm 1999; Helm and Sprinz 2000; reviewed inYoung 2001, pp. 108–17.3This Proceedings volume also presents country analyses on the influence of international institutions onindustrialised countries, such as Sweden (GLENN S.HODES/FRANCIS X. JOHNSON) and the United Statesof America (GLEN SUSSMAN).Other contributions analyse variations between countries, including comparisons of the United States,China and East Asia (PAUL G. HARRIS), intergovernmental regimes and transnational networks to protectrivers in Europe and East Asia (TUN MYINT), as wellas studies that investigate the relationship of international environmental institutions and public involvement in a critique of the discourse of ‘administrative rationalism’ (ELIN KELSEY) and the roleof transnational research communities as examples ofsocial networks (ELIZABETH L. MALONE/SYLVIAEDGERTON), and the question of conflict resolutionin environmental negotiations (MARY JO LARSON).Globalising environmental policies throughnation states: The horizontal diffusion of policiesand technologiesMany writings of IR scholars underutilise findingsfrom experts on (comparative) national environmental policy. Surely domestic factors are accountedfor in IR research: much recent writing on international relations focuses on two or three level gamesthat attempt to integrate negotiations between stategovernments with domestic negotiations withinstates, for example between environmentalists andindustry or between different levels of bureaucracies.31 However, first and foremost the literatureon international environmental co-operation relatesto general IR theories and debates. It is IR theoriesthat are being applied to the study of internationalenvironmental co-operation, and it is these IR theories that many students of international environmental co-operation strive to contribute to. Often,studies on international environmental politics drawpredominantly on authors of the IR community, butnot on those colleagues who are working on the samepolitical problems—for example, climate change—from an entirely different angle: comparative politicsand policy analysis.This disjuncture is the more interesting since manyresearchers from comparative law and politics, innovation studies, and environmental policy have asserted that the role of the nation state remains central, and that international institutions in many cases31See on two-level games Putnam 1988; see for general IRresearch on the national-international nexus for exampleRisse-Kappen 1991, 1995. For environmental work bridgingthe divide, see contributions to Hanf and Underdal 2000.

4Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conferenceare epiphenomenal (MARTIN JÄNICKE). This claim isthat the globalisation of national environmental policies, rather than international institutions, has beenresponsible for the many environmental successes ofthe last decades.32 Contrary to critics of globalisationand proponents of the “free-rider” hypotheses, anumber of empirical studies offer evidence for anenvironmental “race to the top” rather than a “race tothe bottom”. According to this literature, there is noemigration of industries to “pollution havens” thatothers fear will be the outcome of a globalised economy based on competitive nation states.33 Some researchers have claimed that the globalisation of environmental policy observable in recent years is to bedescribed “in very large measure” as the outcome ofhorizontal policy diffusion instead of the influence ofinternational regimes (even though regimes are seenas important agents of diffusion of policies and technologies).34 According to many participants in thesedebates, environmental research thus needs to focuson the processes by which nation states cause orinfluence the diffusion of innovative environmentalpolicies around the world35—a variant of global environmental governance that has been, it is claimed,“almost completely ignored”.36Contributions to this volume hence include studieson the role of pioneering countrie

choose the theme "Global Environmental Change and the Nation State" for its 2001 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, held 7-8 December 2001 in Berlin. The two-day meeting brought together 166 research-ers from 28 countries with many different perspec-tives on global change and the nation state, including