Are national biodiversity strategies and action plans appropriate for building responsibilities for mainstreaming biodiversity across policy sectors? The case of Finland

Mainstreaming across political sectors: Assessing biodiversity policy integration in Peru

“…Secondly, I support the finding that collaboration and cooperation on the policy level are essential, but not sufficient for mainstreaming implementation outcomes (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al, 2017;Nunan et al, 2012). As ineffective collaboration can create a responsibility gap across sectors (Sarkki et al, 2016), I show that favorable actor constellations can be fostered by integrative processes and facilitated by the leadership of a responsible government agent (potentially the Ministry for Environment, MINAM), providing a policy mix of incentives and regulations ("carrots and sticks").…”

“…Decentralizing environmental competencies to sector ministries and regional and local government may create an institutional void, in which no actor assumes responsibility for implementing biodiversity objectives (Nunan, Campbell, & Foster, 2012;Sarkki et al, 2016). The example of Peru confirms the importance of linking budgets to environmental criteria and hosting external reviews to audit ecological performance (Jordan & Lenschow, 2010;Kivimaa & Mickwitz, 2006).…”

“…Plans (NBSAPs) as central instruments for orienting biodiversity policy, scientific approaches analyze progress on mainstreaming and shed light on conditions for their effective implementation (e.g., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Kok, Visseren-Hamakers, & Termeer, 2017;Kok et al, 2014;Sarkki et al, 2016). Environmental policy integration (EPI) has been used synonymously for mainstreaming (Runhaar, 2016) and analyzing the integration of environmental objectives into related political sectors (Hogl, Kleinschmit, & Rayner, 2016;Lafferty & Hovden, 2003).…”

“…The absence of references to targets defined by national environmental strategies (e.g., NationalEnvironmental Plan AA, National Biodiversity Strategy) or by the central planning organization CEPLAN indicates weak institutional and political links between intra-and intersectoral planning processes.Hence, (most) political sectors in Peru articulate the general objective of environmental protection, but fail to relate them to their economic practices by operationalizing this objective and developing or adjusting policy processes for its implementation.Defining sector-specific objectives and formal and informal biodiversity targets guides what stakeholders perceive as good practices and acceptable outcomes(Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al, 2017;Sarkki et al, 2016). Some of the sectors, such as Agriculture and Fishery, specify environmental targets as they aim for reduced deforestation or fish extraction while being vague on specifying an implementation strategy.…”

Antarctica and the strategic plan for biodiversity

“…Moreover, compared with the kinds of reports provided by State Parties to international biodiversity-related agreements, its conclusions are also likely to be more critical. The government ministries responsible for State Party plans and reports have to balance a wide range of domestic and international concerns [21,22]. They may thus be inclined to provide positive reports that focus more on ambition and achievement than on implementation and policy challenges.…”