Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T09:33:35.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International environmental cooperation in northwest Russia: an assessment of performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2007

Monica Tennberg
Monica Tennberg*
Affiliation:
Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Box 122, 96101 Rovaniemi, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effectiveness of international environmental cooperation is a theoretical and methodological challenge that has captured the interest of scholars and students of international relations in the recent years. This article is an evaluation of international environmental cooperation in northwest Russia by applying an approach developed in the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) research programme of the International Human Dimension Programme (IHDP). The IDGEC approach emphasises the importance of complex diagnostics of institutional environmental arrangements in terms of performance. The approach relates to the effects of international environmental cooperation in terms of sustainability, efficiency, fairness, and robustness. The article focuses on Russian and Nordic experiences of international environmental cooperation, and the assessment of performance has been done by the participants themselves. According to the results of interviews and questionnaires, the cooperation is considered institutionally effective and robust in general. However, views about the environmental effects vary. Some problems exist that are related to sustainability and fairness, but the most critical issue is the lack of domestic environmental capacity in Russia.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 231 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagguley, P. 2003. Reflexivity contra structuration. Canadian Journal of Sociology 28 (2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakkisrud, H., and Hønneland, G. (editors). 2005. Tackling space: federal politics and Russian north. Lanham, MD: University of America.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T. 1995. The effect of international environmental institutions: how we might learn more. International Organization 49 (2): 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, J.M., and Doyle, J.. 2002. Complexity and robustness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99 (Supplement 1): 2538–2545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Checkel, J.T. 1999. Why comply? Constructivism, social norms and the study of international institutions. Arena Working Papers 24 (URL: http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp99_24.htm. Accessed 26 April 2005).Google Scholar
Cioppa, T., and Bryuninckx, H.. 2000. The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: what about the environment. Los Angeles: ISA Conference 2000. (URL: http://www.ciaonet.org/ida/cit02/).Google Scholar
Cortell, A.P., and Davis, J.W.. 1996. How do international institutions matter? The domestic impact of international rules and norms. International Studies Quarterly 40: 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crotty, J. 2003. The re-organization of Russia's environmental bureaucracy. Regional response to federal changes. Eurasian geography and economics 44 (6): 462–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darst, R.G. 2001. Smokestack diplomacy. Cooperation and conflict in east-west environmental politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M. 1996. Defining national interests in international society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florini, A. 1996. The evolution of international norms. International Studies Quarterly 40 (3): 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, U., and Roos, U.. 2005. From collective actor to structure of collective acting. The meaning of human beings for the study of international relations. Paper prepared for presentation at the first World International Studies Conference in Istanbul, 24–27 August 2005 and the third Conference for the European Consortium for Political Research in Budapest, 8–10 September 2005.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London and Basingstoke: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Hurd, I. 1999. Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization 53 (2): 379–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hønneland, G. 2003. Russia and the west: environmental co-operation and conflict. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jen, E. 2003. Stable or robust? What's the difference? Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute (Working paper).Google Scholar
Keohane, R., Haas, P.M., and Levy, M.. 1993. The effectiveness of international environmental institutions. In: Haas, P., Keohane, R., and Levy, M. (editors). Institutions for the earth: sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 397–426.Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, S. 2000. Financing of environmental protection in Russia: the role of charges. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 41 (1): 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kütting, G. 2000. Distinguishing between institutional and environmental effectiveness in international environmental agreements: the case of the Mediterranean action plan. International Journal of Peace Studies 5 (1): 15–33.Google Scholar
Levy, M., Keohane, R., and Haas, P.. 1993. Improving the effectiveness of international environmental institutions. In: Haas, P., Keohane, R., and Levy, M. (editors). Institutions for the earth: sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 3–26.Google Scholar
Linklater, A. (editor). 2000. International relations: critical concepts in political science. Vol. 2. Florence, KY: Routledge.Google Scholar
NDEP. 2004. Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership. URL: http://www.ndep.org/home.aspGoogle Scholar
Norway. 2003. Opportunities and challenges in the north. Oslo; Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Report No. 30).Google Scholar
OECD. 1999. OECD Environmental Performance Review: Russian Federation. Paris:OECD.Google Scholar
Oldfield, J. 2005. Russian nature: exploring the environmental consequences of societal change. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Peterson, D.J., and Bielke, E.K.. 2001. The reorganization of Russia's environmental bureaucracy: implications and prospects. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 42 (1): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjaerseth, J.B., and Wettestad, J.. 2002. Understanding the effectiveness of EU environmental policy: how can regime analysis contribute? Environmental Politics 11 (3): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeveer, S.D., and Dabelko, G.D.. 2001. It's capacity, stupid: international assistance and national implementation. Global Environmental Politics 1 (2): 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidner, H., and Jänicke, M. (editors). 2002. Capacity building in national environmental policies. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernstedt, K. 2002. Environmental protection in the Russian Federation: lessons and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 (4): 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O.R. 2002. Institutional dimensions of global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar