Explaining Variations in the Subnational Implementation of Global Agreements: The Case of Ecuador and the Convention on Biological Diversity

• Published date: 01 June 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/1070496514525404
• Date: 01 June 2014
• Author: Ariane Gagnon-Légaré,Philippe Le Prestre
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Explaining Variations in

the Subnational

Implementation of Global

Agreements: The Case of

Ecuador and the

Convention on Biological

Diversity

Ariane Gagnon-Le

´gare

´

1

and Philippe Le Prestre

2

Abstract

We conducted case studies in Ecuador to assess subnational governments’ implemen-

tation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and to identify factors linked

with successful implementation. Weanticipated resources to be the main limiting factor,

yet the record of implementation is not as closely tied to the availability of financial and

human resources as might be expected in a developing country. Governments, in

diverse sociopolitical and economic contexts, do havealternatives to implement multi-

lateral environmental agreements. The type of development leaders promote and the

priority they grant to environmental issues determine the use of available resources.

We also observed the significant role played by local, national, and international non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) and funding agencies in circulating biodiversity

messages and spurring the elaboration of policies as well as on the ground projects.

This picture would suggest to enhance awareness-raising trainings and to explore fur-

ther the role of collaboration between governments and NGOs at local scales.

Keywords

environment, biodiversity, governance, Ecuador, implementation, MEA, Convention

on Biological Diversity, CBD, subnational government, multilateral environmental

agreement

Journal of Environment &

Development

2014, Vol. 23(2) 220–246

!The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1070496514525404

jed.sagepub.com

1

Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

2

De

´partement de science politique, Universite

´Laval, QC, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Ariane Gagnon-Le

´gare

´, I EDS, Pavillon des services, Universite

´Laval, Que

´bec, QC, Canada G1V 0A6.

Email: ariane.gagnon-legare.1@ulaval.ca

Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), such as the Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD), are one of the instruments of the governance of

global environmental problems (Jacobson & Brown Weiss, 2000). MEAs’

local ef‌fects have been a growing research concern of current global environ-

mental politics, given that key decisions determining the fate of environmental

goods are often made at the local level (Aall, Groven, & Lindseth, 2007; Bennett

& Ligthart, 2001; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006; Checkel, 1997; Jakobsen, 1999).

MEAs may inf‌luence local circumstances through various paths, following

of‌f‌icial governmental structures or fuzzier channels where nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs), concerned business people or of‌f‌icers, or other sim-

ple citizens initiate projects or policy change. Local administrations are also

increasingly present in the international arena (Andonova & Mitchell, 2010;

Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006; CBD, 2007; Connery, 2009; Puppim de Oliveira

et al., 2011).

Numerous factors have been mentioned to explain variations in implementa-

tion among countries, notably a lack of f‌inancial and human resources. The

relative importance of these factors remains understudied, however, particularly

at the subnational level (Lindseth, 2006; Perkins & Neumayer, 2007; Schreurs,

2010). Yet, this level of analysis has the advantage of neutralizing some vari-

ables, such as historical, economic, and political characteristics, and can be

instructive in ascertaining the dimensions, nature, and impact of the global–

local relationships that drive the translation of international norms and rules

into behavioral change.

To what extent do MEAs actually ripple through the governmental structure

and down to the local administration? Is there a signif‌icant variation in imple-

mentation at the subnational level? If so, can it be largely explained by the

availability of f‌inancial resources, as common sense, numerous stakeholders,

and many reports suggest? These questions are addressed through case studies

of the implementation of the CBD by subnational governments in Ecuador.

Biodiversity management exemplif‌ies the interdependence existing between the

international and local levels of governance, as land use is the result of complex

processes involving multiple scales of governance as well as a diversity of

stakeholders.

We f‌ind that local governments implement the CBD at varying levels regard-

less of their respective resources. An array of other factors, such as leaders’

interest, environmental awareness, or political prioritization and coordination,

also af‌fect levels of implementation. In other words, a lack of f‌inancial and

human resources does not preclude progress.

The Received Wisdom

The comparative study of subnational implementation of MEAs has attracted

relatively little attention. Most studies pertain to a single subnational level (Aall

Gagnon-Le

´gare

´and Le Prestre 221