Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

International Environmental Agreements Database Project

Lists of treaties, conventions and other international environmental agreements containing links to the text, composition, performance data, secretariat and summary statistics. More than 1300 multilateral, 2200 bilateral and 250 "other". Grouped by date, purpose and "ancestry" of legal agreements (e.B those relating to the Montreal Protocol). "Other" includes environmental agreements between governments and international organizations or non-state actors and not 2 or more governments. NEW: Membership links in lists of agreements now provide annual status reports and the same information in Stata format for data analysis. In order to monitor other contemporary trends and assess whether the Basel Convention or the ban have altered shipments of waste beyond what would have happened anyway, we use a variant of the gravity model of international trade in Kellenberg and Levinson (2014). This is where our clear identification strategy comes in, as the ban restricts one category of waste trade – shipments from Annex 7 to non-Annex 7 countries. When we monitor other country characteristics, we interact with indicators for the ratification of the ban with indicators for emissions from Annex 7 to Annex 7. We note that, although Annex 7 countries that ratify the ban appear to export less waste to non-Annex 7 countries, this effect disappears once we include fixed effects for country-years or fixed effects for country pairs, which supports the proposal in Figure 2 that the ban has left unchanged existing trends in waste exports by countries. ratifying Annex 7. Other scientists have used IEADB membership data to study state behavior. Andonova et al.

(2017), for example, note that government ratifications of the IEA provide a broad indicator of environmental cooperation that helps explain the form of transnational climate governance. Scientists included the number of IEA members in a vulnerability resilience index (Kolcava et al. 2019), which will be used to declare cooperation on shared resources (Kalbhenn 2011) and environmental resilience (Angeon and Bates 2015). Prakash and Potoski (2014) use IEA memberships as a measure of the rigour of states` environmental policy, noting that ISO 14000 rules only affect policy in states that are not very member of the IEA. States, especially low-income states, tend to adopt new environmental regulations at certain times when they join many EIAs (Brandi et al., 2019), and a state`s annual environmental credibility score (the proportion of MEAs it has joined) predicts better than its economic power if its trade agreements include environmental provisions (Morin et al. 2019). The BIDAI allows for a more accurate, complete and detailed description of the evolution of the IEA landscape than was previously possible. We document the growth of MEAs and BEAs over time, the emergence of environmental issues on the international agenda, and the variation in the number of EIA members and the number of EIAs that countries join.

EBDA also promotes the N-big analysis of the IEA`s efficiency issues. It promotes the study of differences between BAIs, not just between states and time, and highlights questions about how the IEA`s objectives, commitments, and monitoring and response systems influence whether states change their behaviour (e.B. Ringquist and Kostadinova 2005; Siegfried and Bernauer, 2007). Kim compared members and non-members in MEAs and documented better performance of legally binding EIAs that promoted flexible decision-making (Kim 2014; Kim et al., 2017). Future research could assess the effects rather than the determinants of variation in IEA characteristics mentioned in the previous paragraph (Böhmelt and Pilster 2010; Cirone and Urpelainen 2013). Analyses of hundreds of IAEs could unravel the interaction and endogeneity between the structure of the problem, the design of the IEA, the characteristics of the state, the international context, and the effects of the IEA (Mitchell 2009; von Stein 2005). These findings, in turn, could open up research on the "relative effectiveness" of BAIs to other BAIs, private business-to-business schemes and NGO campaigns, and how this effectiveness depends on context. While we expect that the empirical benefits of our approach could help us overcome barriers from previous research and achieve results consistent with improved IEA environmental outcomes, we find no evidence that Annex 7 countries that have ratified the ban have slowed down their exports to non-Annex 7 countries, as required by the agreement. Finally, scientists used BIDEA to uncover the structure of international environmental law. BAIs have helped reshape the content and processes of global environmental policy, promote the participation of transnational and subnational environmental actors, and integrate environmental issues into trade agreements, development banks and other non-environmental institutions (Andonova and Mitchell, 2010).

Bigagli (2016, 155, 57) noted that the fragmentation of the IEA is likely hindering the emergence of a "complex adaptive and systemic approach" to ocean governance. More optimistically, others have shown that IEA fragmentation has diminished over time in a way that promotes polycentric governance and adaptability (Kim 2013a, 988; see also Kim, forthcoming) and that, despite the shortcomings, the IEA network could support a strong global policy on emerging nitrogen and phosphorus pollution issues (Ahlström and Cornell 2018). Representatives of countries can accept and sign the terms of an international agreement on behalf of their government, making their country a signatory. The European Union (EU) also has the power to sign international treaties and is often a party to environmental agreements alongside its constituent countries. States` efforts to manage common environmental resources, conserve natural habitats and reduce environmental damage have created a complex ecosystem of international environmental law. Since 2003, the Database on International Environmental Agreements (BIDEA) has become a comprehensive and up-to-date census of International Environmental Agreements (IAAs) that promotes access to their texts and data on their design characteristics and memberships.1 Although other datasets contain many BAIs, the IDB provides a more comprehensive research base, up-to-date, consistent and transparent in terms of content. Since 2002, the lead author and colleagues have developed and applied systematic research and inclusion criteria to capture all EIAs, defined as an "intergovernmental document intended to be legally binding, whose primary objective is to prevent or manage human impacts on natural resources" (Mitchell 2003, 432). The BIDE contains agreements, protocols or amendments that States have successfully negotiated, even if they have not entered into force.

EBDA contains searchable texts; the deadlines for signature, ratification and entry into force; topics; "Ancestry" categorizations (see below); performance counters; and encoding design features. It contains multilateral (MEAs, open to three or more States) and bilateral (EBA, limited to two States) EEA. Going forward, the IEADB will seek to make IEA coverage more comprehensive and up-to-date, while building a repository of reliable IEA data that meets the research interests of scientists, practitioners and students. One of the main objectives is a systematic and multilingual search in the ministries of environment and foreign affairs of the States in order to increase the coverage of BEAs by THE BIDEA. Another is to keep the IDB up to date by making it easier and more efficient to identify and enter new EIAs and member data in EBID. We develop procedures that allow scientists to share relevant data (by providing hosting services on THE GABA or links to externally hosted websites), including encodings of IEA design features, independent datasets such as the international regime database, or datasets that combine EBEA and other data (Breitmeier et al. 2011).10 In order to promote Studying the effectiveness of the IEA, the IDB is developing strategies to link the state`s year-of-year behavioral and environmental data to relevant BAIs, such as. B catch data for fishing BAIs, crop and population data for species BAIs and emissions data for pollution BAIs. BIDA will increasingly rely on crowdsourcing in these efforts to improve the quality and depth of BIDA`s content while promoting the engagement of the research community with EBID. The IDB`s current 3,600 BAIs form the ecosystem of international environmental law and reflect significant differences in the issues they address, as well as in the ambition, design and effectiveness with which they address them. .