Reconsidering the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes in the Anthropocene.

• Author: Kaya, Yasemin
• Position: ARTICLE

Introduction

At the dawn of the 50th anniversary of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on March 18, 2022, a turning point in the development of international environmental policies, unprecedented temperatures were recorded simultaneously in the polar zones of Earth. In the face of the abnormal 40[degrees]C and 30[degrees]C above-average temperatures in Antarctica and the Arctic respectively, calling attention to unpredictable extremes, climatologists highlighted that the temperature expectations in the polar zones should be revised--yet again. (1) Almost every day, extreme weather events, such as heavy rainfall, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, landslides, heat waves, and forest fires, occur in different parts of the world. These catastrophic events reveal that the permanent and far-reaching impact of human activity on the planet is causing serious and unpredictable changes in the biophysical processes of the earth system. The magnitude of these human-driven changes has led many scientists to believe that we are about to enter into (or have entered) a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene: an era in which human activity is the dominant factor influencing the climate and the environment, (2) and the stable and predictable conditions of the Holocene are left behind.

The international community has been working to overcome the difficulties of implementing global environmental governance and generating solutions to environmental problems for over 50 years, particularly through International Environmental Regimes (IERs) and the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that set the basis of these regimes. The International Environmental Agreements Database includes over 1,300 MEAs and over 2,200 bilateral environmental agreements. (3) In spite of these efforts and the huge number of IERs, ongoing, rapid increases in environmental change are a paradoxical phenomenon. Thus, the effectiveness of IERs has always been a matter of controversy.

The present study suggests that the scope of mainstream discussions over the effectiveness of IERs should be expanded to consider the earth system perspective, since the contextual conditions in which IERs function are changing fundamentally in the Anthropocene. The earth system perspective refers to a holistic approach that can deal better with the complexities and inherent uncertainties of the Earth System. A generally accepted final determinant of regime effectiveness is a match between the institutional structure of the regime and the problem it tackles. (4) However, it is difficult to claim that IERs are institutions that can confront the challenges brought about by today's unprecedented earth system conditions since IERs are grounded on the stable and predictable earth system conditions of the Holocene and an international system consisting of sovereign states that are territorially separated from each other. (5)

IERs are organized around the purpose of reducing the pressure on ecosystems and leaving a healthy and balanced environment for future generations. Such a concern not only puts off the problem temporarily but is far from comprehending the interconnectivity between the elements of the ecosystem, the complex socio-ecological processes at work within that system, and the new systemic conditions that are emerging as a result of excessive human intervention. In addition, relations among states are gradually being more affected by changes in the earth system than by political changes. Many problems on the horizon due to the transformation of the earth system, such as the disappearance of small island states from the world stage, massive migrations, the marginalization of vulnerable communities, economic collapse, increased poverty and inequality, are problems that will be caused more and more by changes in the earth system rather than primarily by political change. (6)

Aiming to draw attention to the importance and necessity of the earth system perspective in the effectiveness of IERs, the present study consists of three sections. The first focuses on mainstream discussions over the effectiveness of environmental regimes. The second defines the new trends in organizing the institutional structure of environmental regimes. The final section explains IER features that may prevent them from coping with the challenges of the Anthropocene and presents viable recommendations for the inclusion of the earth system perspective into environmental regimes.

Traditional Discussions over the Effectiveness of IERs

The number of IERs has rapidly increased since the 1972 Stockholm Conference, which strongly highlighted the importance of multilateralism in the environmental field. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of environmental regimes have been noticeable, particularly since the 1990s, and have been conducted mainly within the discipline of International Relations (IR). As a result, the question of effectiveness has been approached from a state-centered understanding in line with the general framework of the IR discipline, which focuses its analysis on the question of how states act/would act under different conditions. As an extension of this understanding, regimes are seen as a set of rules that define how actors behave when faced with certain problems or situations. Krasner's definition of a regime is significant since it reflects this perspective clearly: "Regimes can be defined as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a given area of international relations." (7)

The key fact that stands out in different definitions is that regimes are tools that regulate and coordinate the behavior of state and non-state actors in an established manner. (8) In definitions and studies concerning international regimes, the function of regimes to resolve problems generally remains in the background. This naturally raises the question: What indicator should be measured when evaluating the effectiveness of a regime? A significant dichotomy is obvious in discussions over the evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental regimes in the literature: (9) Should evaluations be based on whether the regime solves the problem it deals with--or whether it makes the desired change in the behavior of the actors concerned (namely states)? There is a tacit consensus in the literature that the final indicator of effectiveness should be the solution to the problem at stake. (10) However, both because it is considered difficult to conduct an effectiveness analysis of this indicator, and because such an analysis is seen as being outside the main focus of the discipline (analysis of the state's behavior), it is nonetheless a common trend to consider behavioral indicators in the evaluation of effectiveness.

The question as to whether environmental indicators or behavioral indicators should be considered in the evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental regimes gives rise to two separate concepts of effectiveness: environmental effectiveness and institutional effectiveness. Environmental effectiveness addresses the contribution of the regime to the solution of the environmental problem it deals with. However, conducting effectiveness analyses of problem-solving is a challenging task for several reasons. (11) First, if the assessment is based on problem-solving, many environmental regimes would be qualified as unsuccessful. This would make both the existence of the regimes and the gains they have achieved in the process of their problem-solving efforts meaningless. At this point, the focus can be placed on relative development or improvement. The contribution made by the regime to the solution of the problem can be determined by using different methodologies to compare the existing conditions with hypothetical conditions in which the regime is not present or to compare the conditions before the regime intervened with the existing conditions, or to measure the gap between the existing conditions and the collective optimum. (12) In this case, however, the lack of environmental data, as a critical obstacle, would restrict a sound evaluation. The second reason is the difficulty of determining the extent to which a change occurring in the environment can be attributed to the regime. Corollary to that, some changes in environmental conditions can be clearly measured, but are in no way related to the actions of the regime. For example, it would be misleading to view the effect of the economic recession during the COVID-19 period on reduced carbon emissions as a success of the climate regime.

Given these difficulties, the focus is generally on the institutional context of effectiveness. Institutional effectiveness suggests that a regime creates a change in an actor's behavior that would not occur without the regime in the context of a well-functioning institutional structure and cooperation. (13) In this regard, the main framework of an effectiveness analysis is formed by such questions as whether the regime provides the development of a cooperative behavioral model between the parties or whether the regime affects a change in the ongoing behaviors of the actors. Here, the focus is placed on the institutional functioning of the regime rather than the solution to the problem in evaluating the effectiveness of the regime.

Regimes institutionally assume many important functions in the international system. These include providing a basis for cooperation, reconciling interests, increasing knowledge concerning the problem, and sharing experiences among parties. However, such outcomes of a regime are not generally sufficient in solving the problem that is the reason for the existence of the regime. IERs cannot be reduced to institutions that are established to steer states' behavior in order to overcome the anarchy intrinsic in the structure of the international system in such an issue area where mutual...