Assessing the political feasibility of global options to reduce biodiversity loss

References

• Abbott KW, Keohane RO, Moravcsik A, Slaughter AM, Snidal D. 2000. The concept of legalization. Int Organ. 54:401–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Accenture. 2009. Assessment study of on-pack, wild-capture seafood sustainability certification programmes and seafood ecolabels. Dublin: Accenture.
   Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Redford K. 2009. Conservation and displacement: an overview. Conserv Soc. 7:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Alkemade R, van Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, ten Brink B. 2009. GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems. 12:374–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen S. 2002. The International Whaling Commission (IWC): more failure than success? In: Miles EL, Underdal A, Andresen S, Wettestad J, Skjaerseth JB, Carlin EM, editors. Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 379–403.
   Google Scholar
• Andresen ST, Skodvin A, Underdal, Wettestad, J, editors. 2000. Science and politics in international environmental regimes: between integrity and involvement. New York (NY): Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett S. 1999. Montreal versus Kyoto: international cooperation and the global environment. In: Kaul I, Grunberg I, Stern MA, editors. Global public goods: international cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 192–219.
   Google Scholar
• Baumert KA, Herzog T, Pershing J. 2005. Navigating the numbers: greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bernauer T. 1995. The effect of international environmental institutions: how we might learn more. Int Organ. 49:351–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein S, Cashore B. 2004. Non-state global governance: is forest certification a legitimate alternative to a global forest convention? In: Kirton J, Trebilcock M, editors. Hard choices, soft law: combining trade, environment, and social cohesion in global governance. Aldershot: Ashgate Press; p. 33–64.
   Google Scholar
• Biermann F, Siebenhüner B. 2009. The influence of international bureaucracies in world politics: findings from the MANUS research program. In: Biermann F, Siebenhüner B, editors. Managers of global change: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 319–349.
   Google Scholar
• Breitmeier H, Young OR, Zürn M. 2006. Analyzing international environmental regimes: from case study to database. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown Weiss E, Jacobson HK, editors. 1998. Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Balmford A. 2004. Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. BioScience. 54:1119–1126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busch PO. 2009. The climate secretariat: making a living in a straitjacket. In: Biermann F, Siebenhüner B, editors. Managers of global change: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 245–264.
   Google Scholar
• CBD Secretariat. 2007. Ecological gap analysis [Internet]. [cited 2010 Oct 20]. Available from: http://www.cbd.int/protected-old/gap.shtml
   Google Scholar
• CBD Secretariat. 2010. Global biodiversity outlook 3. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity.
   Google Scholar
• Chan S, Pattberg P. 2008. Private rule-making and the politics of accountability: analyzing global forest governance. Global Environ Politics. 8:103–121.
   Google Scholar
• Dellas E, Pattberg P, Berséus J, Frantzi S, Kok M, de Vos M, Janssen P, Biermann F, Petersen A. 2011. Modeling Governance and Institutions for Global Sustainability Politics (ModelGIGS): theoretical foundations and conceptual framework. IVM-Report W11/005. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.
   Google Scholar
• De Vos M, Janssen P, Frantzi S, Pattberg P, Petersen A, Biermann F, Kok M. 2013. Formalizing knowledge on international environmental regimes: a first step towards integrating political science in integrated assessments of global environmental change. Environ Modell Softw. 44:101–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimitrov R. 2003. Knowledge, power, and interests in environmental regime formation. Int Stud Q. 47:123–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimitrov R. 2005. Hostage to norms: states, institutions and global forest politics. Global Environ Politics. 5:1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Dingwerth K. 2008. Private transnational governance and the developing world: a comparative perspective. Int Stud Q. 52:607–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAO. 2008. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2010. Post-harvest losses aggravate hunger: improved technology and training show success in reducing losses. FAO [Internet]. [cited 2010 Oct 30]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/news/story/0/item/36844/icode/en/
   Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen L. 2005. Explaining different approaches to voluntary standards: a study of forest certification choices in Norway and Sweden. J Environ Policy Plann. 7:43–59.
   Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen L. 2008. Accountability arrangements in non-state standards organizations: instrumental design and imitation. Organ. 15:563–583.
   Google Scholar
• Hovi J, Sprinz DF, Underdal A. 2003. The Oslo-Potsdam solution to measuring regime effectiveness: critique, response, and the road ahead. Global Environ Politics. 3:74–96.
   Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.
   Google Scholar
• James A, Gaston K, Balmford A. 2001. Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? BioScience. 51:43–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungcurt S, Tallasch K, Morgera E, Recio E, Schabus N, Tsioumani E. 2010. Summary of the tenth conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: 18–29 October 2010. Earth Negotiations Bull. 9:1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Kalfagianni A, Pattberg P. 2013. Fishing in muddy waters: exploring the conditions for effective governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Mar Policy. 38:124–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenward RE, Whittingham MJ, Arampatzis S, Manos BD, Hahn T, Terry A, Simoncini R, Alcorn J, Bastian O, Donlan M, et al. 2011. Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. PNAS. 108:5308–5312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasner SD. 1983. Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. In: Krasner SD, editor. International regimes. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press; p. 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Le Prestre PG. 2004. Studying the effectiveness of the CBD. In: Le Prestre PG, editor. Governing global biodiversity: the evolution and implementation of the convention on biological diversity. Aldershot: Ashgate; p. 57–90.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw D. 2004. The story of the biodiversity convention: from negotiation to implementation. In: Le Prestre PG, editor. Governing global biodiversity: the evolution and implementation of the convention on biological diversity. Ashgate: Aldershot; p. 7–39.
   Google Scholar
• Miles EL. 2002. Sea dumping of low-level radioactive waste, 1964 to 1982. In: Miles EL, Underdal A, Andresen S, Wettestad J, Skjaerseth JB, Carlin EM, editors. Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 87–116.
   Google Scholar
• Miles EL, Underdal A, Andresen S, Wettestad J, Skjaerseth JB, Carlin EM, editors. 2002. Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell RB. 2008. Evaluating the performance of environmental institutions: what to evaluate and how to evaluate it? In: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H, editors. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research Frontiers. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 79–114.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash D, Dickson NM, editors. 2006. Global environmental assessments: information and influence. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mora C, Sale PF. 2011. Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea. Marine Ecol Prog Ser. 434:251–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MSC. 2012. Integrated strategic plan summary document. London: MSC.
   Google Scholar
• Noss RF. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biol. 4:355–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberthür S. 2006. The climate change regime: interactions with ICAO, IMO, and the EU burden-sharing agreement. In: Oberthür S, Gehring T, editors. Institutional interaction in global environmental governance. Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2008. OECD environmental outlook to 2030. Paris: OECD Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Pattberg P. 2006. Private governance and the south: lessons from global forest politics. Third World Q. 27:579–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PBL. 2009. Meeting the 2°C target: from climate objective to emission reduction measures. Bilthoven: PBL.
   Google Scholar
• PBL. 2010. Rethinking global biodiversity strategies: exploring structural changes in production and consumption to reduce biodiversity loss. Bilthoven: PBL.
   Google Scholar
• Pistorius T, Schmitt CB, Benick D, Entenmann S. 2010. Greening REDD +: challenges and opportunities for forest biodiversity conservation. Policy Paper; University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Prip C, Gross T, Johnston S, Vierros M. 2010. Biodiversity planning: an assessment of national biodiversity strategies and action plans. Yokohama: United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Rametsteiner E, Simula M. 2003. Forest certification: an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J Environ Manag. 67:87–98.
   Google Scholar
• Sainsbury K. 2010. Review of ecolabelling schemes for fish and fishery products from capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 553. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Siebenhüner B. 2009. The biodiversity Secretariat: Lean Shark in troubled waters. In: Biermann F, Siebenhüner B, editors. Managers of global change: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 265–291.
   Google Scholar
• Skjærseth JB. 2002. Towards the end of dumping in the North Sea: the case of the Oslo Commission. In: Miles EL, Underdal A, Andresen S, Wettestad J, Skjaerseth JB, Carlin EM, editors. Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 65–85.
   Google Scholar
• Skjærseth JB. 2006. Protecting the Northeast Atlantic: one problem, three institutions. In: Oberthür S, Gehring T, editors. Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 103–125.
   Google Scholar
• Smith RJ, Muir RDJ, Walpole MJ, Balmford A, Leader-Williams N. 2003. Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature. 426:67–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprinz D, Helm C. 1999. The effect of global environmental regimes: a measurement concept. Int Political Sci Rev. 20:359–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern N. 2007. Stern review: the economics of climate change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson TM. 1995. The international regulation of biodiversity decline: optimal policy and evolutionary product. In: Perrings C, Maler K-G, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson B-O, editors. Biodiversity loss: economic and ecological issues. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 225–259.
   Google Scholar
• TEEB. 2009. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. Cambridge (UK): UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Meyer WB, Dow KM, Golding D, Kasperon JX, Mitchell RC, Ratick SJ. 1990. Two types of global environmental change: definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human dimensions. Global Environ Change. 1:14–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underdal A. 2002. One question, two answers. In: Miles EL, Underdal A, Andresen S, Wettestad J, Skjaerseth JB, Carlin EM, editors. Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 3–45.
   Google Scholar
• [UNEP] United Nations Environment Programme. 2007. Global environment outlook 4. Nairobi: UNEP.
   Google Scholar
• [UNEP] United Nations Environment Programme. 2008. Kick the habit: a UN guide to climate neutrality. Nairobi: UNEP.
   Google Scholar
• [UNFCCC] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2010. An introduction to the Kyoto Protocol compliance mechanism. UNFCCC. [Internet]. [cited 2010 Nov 22]. Available from: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/items/3024.php
   Google Scholar
• van Bueren E. 2010. Forest-related standards and certification schemes. In: Sheil D, Putz FE, Zagt RJ, editors. Biodiversity conservation in certified forests. Wageningen: Tropenbos International; p. 11–19.
   Google Scholar
• van Kuijk M, Zagt RJ, Putz FE. 2009. Effects of certification on forest biodiversity. Report commissioned by Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). Wageningen: Tropenbos International.
   Google Scholar
• Victor DG, Raustiala K, Skolnikoff EB, editors. 1998. The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: theory and practice. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Visseren-Hamakers I, Glasbergen P. 2007. Partnerships in forest governance. Global Environ Change. 17:408–419.
   Google Scholar
• Yamin F, Depledge J. 2004. The international climate change regime: a guide to rules, institutions and procedures. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young OR. 1999. Governance in world affairs. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young OR. 2008. Building regimes for socioecological systems: institutional diagnostics. In: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H, editors. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 115–144.
   Google Scholar
• Zagt RJ, Sheil D, Putz F. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in certified forests: an overview. In: Sheil D, Putz FE, Zagt RJ, editors. Biodiversity conservation in certified forests. Wageningen: Tropenbos International; p. v–xix.
   Google Scholar
• Zelli F, van Asselt H. 2010. The overlap between the UN climate regime and the World Trade Organization: lessons for climate governance beyond 2012. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P, Zelli F, editors. Global climate governance beyond 2012: architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 79–96.
   Google Scholar