Advertisement

Regional economic regimes and the environment: stronger institutional design is weakening environmental policy capacity of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

  • Pradip Kumar Sarker
  • Md Saifur Rahman
  • Lukas GiessenEmail author
Original Paper
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

International environmental governance by global and, especially, regional regimes is gaining attention in both political practice and academia. We study the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’s (SAARC) regime for economic integration. Based on qualitative data for 1985–2017 from key regime and policy documents and interviews, we propose the following. Besides issue-related institutional design and the resulting regime structures, the policies and policy capacities developed within a particular regime make the regime an environmental one. We analyze the environmental policy SAARC developed within the formal institutional framework between 1985 and 2017. The results show that institutional design, particularly membership and control issues, is a highly political affair, given China’s ambition to join the agreement as well as the struggle between Pakistan and India for hegemony. In 2010, the SAARC Convention on Cooperation on Environment formally extended the regime’s scope. The preceding environmental policy and its related capacities were fragmented and strongly built on decentralized, issue-specific environmental SAARC centers in different member states. The 2010 Convention on Cooperation on Environment streamlined this environmental policy but reduced the issue-specific policy capacities of the regime. We conclude that the formalization of environmental regimes into stronger institutional designs does not necessarily lead to stronger environmental regime policies and capacities. The proposed conceptual distinction between regime structure and regime policy will enable future regime studies to combine international relations, policy analysis, and comparative government methodologies when examining the policies of regimes and their dynamics.

Keywords

Regional regimes International regime policy Formalization Weakening sectoral regime policies 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Germany (Grant No. DFG PAK 813).

References

  1. Acharya, A. (2008). The emerging regional architecture of world politics. World Politics, 59(4), 629–652.Google Scholar
  2. Acharya, A. (2011). Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aggarwal, V. K., & Koo, M. G. (2008). Asia’s new institutional architecture: Evolving structures for managing trade, financial, and security relations. In V. K. Aggarwal & M. G. Koo (Eds.), Asia’s new institutional architecture (pp. 1–34). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Ahmed, Z. S. (2016). Regionalism and regional security in South Asia: The role of SAARC. Oxon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ahmed, Z. S., & Bhatnagar, S. (2008). SAARC and interstate conflicts in South Asia: Prospects and challenges for regionalism. Pakistan Horizon, 61(3), 69–87.Google Scholar
  6. Ahmed, Z. S., & Bhatnagar, S. (2010). Gulf States and the conflict between India and Pakistan. Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 1(2), 259−291.Google Scholar
  7. Ahmed, Z. S., & Zahoor, M. (2015). Afghanistan in SAARC: A critical assessment of organisational expansion. South Asian Survey, 22(2), 171–188.Google Scholar
  8. Ahsan, A. (1992). SAARC Secretariat: A critique. South Asian journal, 6, 1–8.Google Scholar
  9. Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision (p. 536). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  10. Allison, R. (2004). Regionalism, regional structures and security management in Central Asia. International Affairs, 80(3), 463–483.Google Scholar
  11. Arts, B. (2000). Regimes, non-state actors and the state system: A structurational’ regime model. European Journal of International Relations, 6(4), 513–542.Google Scholar
  12. Arts, B., Appelstrand, M., Kleinschmit, D., Pülzl, H., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Eba’a Atyi, R., et al. (2010). Discourses, actors and instruments in international forest governance. In J. Rayner, A. Buck, & P. Katila (Eds.), Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance (Vol. 28, pp. 57–74)., A global assessment report. Prepared by the Global Forest Panel on the International Forest Regime Vienna: IUFRO World Series.Google Scholar
  13. Arts, B., Giessen, L., & Visseren-Hamakers, I. (2013). International forest policy and Europe: Four pathways of mutual influence. In H. Pülzl, K. Hogl, D. Kleinschmit, D. Wydra, B. Arts, P. Mayer, M. Palahi, G. Winkel, & B. Wolfslehner (Eds.), European Forest Governance: Issues at stake and the way forward (pp. 37–43). Joensuu: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Aucoin, P., & Bakvis, H. (2005). Public service reform and policy capacity: Recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest. In Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 185–204). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bakvis, H. (2000). Rebuilding policy capacity in the era of the fiscal dividend: A report from Canada. Governance, 13(1), 71–103.Google Scholar
  17. Balsiger, J., & Prys, M. (2016). Regional agreements in international environmental politics. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(2), 239–260.Google Scholar
  18. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2012). Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. International Affairs, 88(3), 585–604.Google Scholar
  19. Betz, J. (2015). Südasiatische Vereinigung für regionale Kooperation (SAARC). In A. Grimmel & C. Jakobeit (Eds.), Regionale Integration: Erklärungsansätze und Analysen zu den wichtigsten Integrationszusammenschlüssen in der Welt (pp. 165–205). Glashütte: Nomos.Google Scholar
  20. Bezerra, J. C., Sindt, J., & Giessen, L. (2018). Correction to: The rational design of regional regimes: Contrasting Amazonian, Central African and Pan-European Forest Governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(5), 657.Google Scholar
  21. Bhandary, R. R. (2017). Coalition strategies in the climate negotiations: An analysis of mountain-related coalitions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(2), 173–190.Google Scholar
  22. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. H. (Eds.). (2012). Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Blake, R. O. (2010). Statement by the United States of America at the 16th SAARC Summit. Thimpu, Bhutan, April 28, 2010. https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rmks/2010/141386.htm. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  24. Börzel, T. A. (2005). Mind the gap! European integration between level and scope. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 217–236.Google Scholar
  25. Breitmeier, H., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (2006). Analyzing international environmental regimes. Cambridge: From Case Study to Database.Google Scholar
  26. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cherian, J. (2005). A summit of promise: In a hassle-free meeting, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation decides to take in Afghanistan as a member and grant China observer status (Vol. 22, Issue 25), Dec. 03–16, 2005. India’s National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU. http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2225/stories/20051216001206300.htm. Accessed 23 March 2017.
  28. Christensen, R. K., & Gazley, B. (2008). Capacity for public administration: Analysis of meaning and measurement. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 28(4), 265–279.Google Scholar
  29. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Subsystem structures, shifting mandates and policy capacity: Assessing Canada’s ability to adapt to climate change. Canadian Political Science Review, 6(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  30. D’Ambrogio, E. (2015). At a glance: The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/551313/EPRS_ATA(2015)551313_EN.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017.
  31. Dash, K. C. (2008). Regionalism in South Asia: Negotiating cooperation, institutional structures. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Dimitrov, R. (2006). Science and international environmental policy: Regimes and non-regimes in global governance. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  33. Dubey, M. (2007). SAARC and South Asian economic integration. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(14), 1238–1240.Google Scholar
  34. Edwards, L. (2009). Testing the discourse of declining policy capacity: Rail policy and the Department of Transport. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(3), 288–302.Google Scholar
  35. Falkner, G., & Müller, P. (2013). EU policies in a global perspective: Shaping or taking international regimes?. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Fawcett, L. (2005). Regionalism from an historical perspective. In M. Farrell, B. Hettne, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Global politics of regionalism: Theory and practice. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  37. Fischer, M. (2014). Coalition structures and policy change in a consensus democracy. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 344–366.Google Scholar
  38. Friedrichs, J. (1990). Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Giessen, L. (2013). Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime complex and partial explanations for its fragmentation. International Forestry Review, 15(1), 60–70.Google Scholar
  40. Giessen, L. (2019). Forests and the two faces of international governance: Customizing international regimes through domestic politics. Edward Elgar, Series on New Horizons in Environmental Politics (accepted).Google Scholar
  41. Giessen, L., Krott, M., & Möllmann, T. (2014). Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest policy negotiations. Forest Policy and Economics, 38, 97–104.Google Scholar
  42. Giessen, L., & Sahide, M. A. K. (2017). Blocking, attracting, imposing, and aligning: The utility of ASEAN forest and environmental regime policies for strong member states. Land Use Policy, 67, 13–26.Google Scholar
  43. Giessen, L., Sarker, P. K., & Rahman, M. S. (2016). International and domestic sustainable forest management policies: Distributive effects on power among state agencies in Bangladesh. Sustainability, 8(4), 335.Google Scholar
  44. Gonsalves, E. (2006). Regional Cooperation in South Asia. South Asian Survey, 13(2), 203–209.Google Scholar
  45. Grundig, F. (2012). Dealing with the temporal domain of regime effectiveness: A further conceptual development of the Oslo–Potsdam solution. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 12(2), 111–127.Google Scholar
  46. Harrow, J. (2001). ‘Capacity building’ as a Public Management Goal-Myth, Magic or the Main Chance? Public Management Review, 3(2), 209–230.Google Scholar
  47. Hassan, M. K. (2001). Is SAARC a viable economic block? Evidence from gravity model. Journal of Asian Economics, 12(2), 263–290.Google Scholar
  48. Helm, C., & Sprinz, D. (2000). Measuring the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 630–652.Google Scholar
  49. Honadle, B. W. (1981). A capacity-building framework: A search for concept and purpose. Public Administration Review, 41(5), 575–580.Google Scholar
  50. Howlett, M. (2010). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2005). Policy divergence as a response to weak international regimes: The formulation and implementation of natural resource new governance arrangements in Europe and Canada. Policy and Society, 24(2), 16–45.Google Scholar
  53. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2010). Overcoming the challenges to integration. In J. Rayner, A. Buck, & P. Katila (Eds.), Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of International Forest Governance (pp. 93–110)., A global assessment report Vienna: IUFRO World Series.Google Scholar
  54. Humphreys, D. (1999). The evolving forests regime. Global Environmental Change, 9(3), 251–254.Google Scholar
  55. Humphreys, D. (2012). Logjam: Deforestation and the crisis of global governance. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Jain, R., & Singh, J. B. (2009). Trade pattern in SAARC countries: Emerging trends and issues. Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, 30(3), 73–117.Google Scholar
  57. Jetschke, A., & Lenz, T. (2013). Does regionalism diffuse? A new research agenda for the study of regional organizations. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(4), 626–637.Google Scholar
  58. Joyner, C. C. (2004). Rethinking international environmental regimes: What role for partnership coalitions. Journal of International Law & International Relations, 1(1–2), 89.Google Scholar
  59. Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Regionalism in comparative perspective. Cooperation and Conflict, 31(2), 123–159.Google Scholar
  60. Katzenstein, P. J. (2000). Regionalism and Asia. New Political Economy, 5(3), 353–368.Google Scholar
  61. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony. Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (1989). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition (pp. 3–37). Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  63. Kersbergen, K. V., & Waarden, F. V. (2004). ‘Governance’ as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 143–171.Google Scholar
  64. Kleinschmit, D., Böcher, M., & Giessen, L. (2016). Forest policy analysis: Advancing the analytical approach. Forest Policy and Economics, 68(C), 1–6.Google Scholar
  65. Kleinschmit, D., & Krott, M. (2008). The media in forestry: Government, governance and social visibility. In T. Sikor (Ed.), Public and private in natural resource governance: A false dichotomy (pp. 127–141). UK & USA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  66. Kluvánková-Oravská, T., & Chobotová, V. (2012). Regional governance arrangements. In H. Philipp, P. H. Pattberg & F. Biermann (Eds.), Global Environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 216–236). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(04), 761–799.Google Scholar
  68. Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185–205.Google Scholar
  69. Krott, M. (2005). Forest policy analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Krott, M., Bader, A., Schusser, C., Devkota, R., Maryudi, A., Giessen, L., et al. (2014). Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 34–42.Google Scholar
  71. Krott, M., & Giessen, L. (2014). Learning from practices—Implications of the “practice based approach” for forest and environmental policy research. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 12–16.Google Scholar
  72. Kydd, A. (2001). Trust building, trust breaking: The dilemma of NATO enlargement. International Organisation, 55(4), 801–828.Google Scholar
  73. Levi-Faur, D. (1999). The governance of international telecommunications competition: Cross international study of international policy regimes. Competition & Change, 4(1), 93–120.Google Scholar
  74. Levy, M. A., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (1995). The study of international regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 1(3), 267–330.Google Scholar
  75. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990). The design of instruments for public policy. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Policy theory and policy evaluation: Concepts, knowledge, causes, and norms (pp. 103–119). USA: Green wood press.Google Scholar
  76. Mahoney, C. (2007). Networking vs. allying: The decision of interest groups to join coalitions in the US and the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 366–383.Google Scholar
  77. Martin, L. L., & Simmons, B. A. (1998). Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization, 52(04), 729–757.Google Scholar
  78. Mattli, W. (2001). Private justice in a global economy: From litigation to arbitration. International Organisation, 55(4), 919–947.Google Scholar
  79. McDermott, C. L., Cashore, B., & Kanowski, P. (2010a). Global environmental forest policies: An international comparison. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  80. McDermott, C. L., Humphreys, D., Wildburger, C., & Wood, P. (2010b). Mapping the core actors and issues defining international forest governance. In J. Rayner, A. Buck, & P. Katila (Eds.), Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of International Forest Governance—A global assessment report prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel in the International Forest Regime (Vol. 28, pp. 19–36). Vienna: IUFRO World Series.Google Scholar
  81. McMullan, B. (2010). Statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance of Australia at the 16th SAARC Summit. Thimpu, Bhutan, April 28, 2010. https://www.raonline.ch/pages/bt/pol/bt_saarc1001.html. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  82. Mitchell, R., & Keilbach, P. (2001). Situation structure and institutional design: Reciprocity, coercion, and exchange. International Organization, 55(4), 891–917.Google Scholar
  83. Muni, S. D. (1996). Regionalism beyond the regions: South Asia outside SAARC. South Asian Survey, 3(1–2), 327–338.Google Scholar
  84. Muni, S. D. (2003). Problem areas in India’s neighborhood policy. South Asian Survey, 10(2), 185–196.Google Scholar
  85. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approach (Six ed.). USA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  86. Nilsson, M., Pallemaerts, M., & Von Homeyer, I. (2009). International regimes and environmental policy integration: Introducing the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(4), 337–350.Google Scholar
  87. Nishimura, C. (2010). Statement by Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan at the 16th SAARC Summit. Thimpu, Bhutan, April 28, 2010. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/saarc/speech1004.html. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  88. Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  89. North, D. C. (1991a). Institutions, ideology, and economic performance. Cato Journal, 11, 477–488.Google Scholar
  90. North, D. C. (1991b). Institutions STÖR. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.Google Scholar
  91. Oatley, T. H. (2001). Multilateralizing trade and payments in postwar Europe. International Organization, 55(4), 949–969.Google Scholar
  92. Oberthür, S., & Tanzler, D. (2006). The influence of international regimes in policy diffusion: The Kyoto protocol and climate policies in the European Union. Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 29(3), 283.Google Scholar
  93. O’Connor, A., Roos, G., & Vickers-Willis, T. (2007). Evaluating an Australian public policy organization’s innovation capacity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(4), 532–558.Google Scholar
  94. O’Neill, K., Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2004). Actors, norms, and impact: Recent international cooperation theory and the influence of the agent-structure debate. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 149–175.Google Scholar
  95. Ostrom, E. (1992). Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. San Francisco: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  96. Ostrom, E. (1995). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Pahre, R. (2001). Most-Favored-Nation clauses and clustered negotiations. International Organization, 55(4), 859–890.Google Scholar
  98. Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2005). Unpacking policy capacity: Issues and Themes. In Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 73–91). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  99. Parsons, W. (2004). Not just steering but weaving: Relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 43–57.Google Scholar
  100. Pattberg, P. (2005). What role for private rule-making in global environmental governance? Analysing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5(2), 175–189.Google Scholar
  101. Pattberg, P. (2012). Transnational environmental regimes. In B. Frank & P. H. Pattberg (Eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 97–121). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  102. Pattberg, P., & Stripple, J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: Remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 367–388.Google Scholar
  103. Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of policy instruments. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), Handbook of policy instruments. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Peters, B. G. (2005). Policy instruments and policy capacity. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 73–91). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  105. Peters, G. P. (2010). Policy Update: Managing carbon leakage. Carbon Management, 1(1), 35–37.  https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.1.Google Scholar
  106. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2005). Swings and roundabouts? Multilevel governance as a source of and constraint on policy capacity. In Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 38–51). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  107. Popper, K. (2005). Logik der Forschung (11th ed.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  108. Prys, M. (2010). Hegemony, domination, detachment: Differences in regional power-hood. International Studies Review, 12(4), 479–504.Google Scholar
  109. Rahman, M. S., & Giessen, L. (2014). Mapping international forest-related issues and main actors’ positions in Bangladesh 1. International Forestry Review, 16(6), 586–601.Google Scholar
  110. Rahman, M. S., & Giessen, L. (2016). The power of public bureaucracies: Forest-related climate change policies in Bangladesh (1992–2014). Climate Policy, 17(1), 915–935.Google Scholar
  111. Rahman, M. S., Sarker, P. K., & Giessen, L. (2016). Power players in biodiversity policy: Insights from international and domestic forest biodiversity initiatives in Bangladesh from 1992 to 2013. Land Use Policy, 59, 386–401.Google Scholar
  112. Rayner, J., Buck, A., & Katila, P. (Eds.). (2010). Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A global assessment report. Prepared by the Global Forest Panel on the International Forest Regime (Vol. 28, p. 172). Vienna: IUFRO World Series.Google Scholar
  113. Rayner, J., & Howlett, M. (2009). Conclusion: Governance arrangements and policy capacity for policy integration. Policy and Society, 28(2), 165–172.Google Scholar
  114. Riddell, N. (2007). Policy research capacity in the federal government. Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative.Google Scholar
  115. Risse-Kappen, T. (1996). Exploring the nature of the beast: International relations theory and comparative policy analysis meet the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), 53–80.Google Scholar
  116. Rittberger, V. (Ed.). (1993). Regime theory and international relations. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Rosendorff, B. P., & Milner, H. V. (2001). The optimal design of international trade institutions: Uncertainty and escape. International Organization, 55(4), 829–857.Google Scholar
  118. Saez, L. (2011). The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC): An emerging collaboration architecture. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  119. Salamon, L. M. (2001). Handbook of policy instruments. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Sarker, P. K., Rahman, M. S., & Giessen, L. (2017). Empowering state agencies through national and international community forestry policies in Bangladesh. International Forestry Review, 19(1), 79–101.Google Scholar
  121. Sarker, P. K., Rahman, M. S., & Giessen, L. (2018). Regional governance by the South Asia Cooperative Environment Program (SACEP)? Institutional design and customizable regime policy offering flexible political options. Land Use Policy, 77, 454–470.Google Scholar
  122. Schusser, C., Krott, M., Devkota, R., Maryudi, A., Salla, M., & Yufanyi Movuh, M. C. (2012). Sequence design of quantitative and qualitative surveys for increasing efficiency in forest policy research. Allgemeine Forest und Jagdzeitung (AFJZ), 183(3/4), 75–83.Google Scholar
  123. Schusser, C., Krott, M., Movuh, M. C. Y., Logmani, J., Devkota, R. R., Maryudi, A., et al. (2015). Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry—Results of an international study. Forest Policy Economics, 58, 92–101.Google Scholar
  124. Singer, B., & Giessen, L. (2017). Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene. Forest Policy and Economics, 79, 69–79.Google Scholar
  125. Stokke, O. S. (2000). Managing straddling stocks: The interplay of global and regional regimes. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43(2), 205–234.Google Scholar
  126. Stokke, O. S. (2013). Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: Explaining regional niche selection. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(1), 65–85.Google Scholar
  127. Subedi, R. R. (2017). Can China revitalize SAARC? http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-02/01/content_40183757.htm. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.
  128. Taneja, N. (2001). Informal trade in SAARC region. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(11), 959–964.Google Scholar
  129. Underdal, A. (2013). Meeting common environmental challenges: The co-evolution of policies and practices. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  130. VanDeveer, S. D. (2005). Effectiveness, capacity development and international environmental cooperation. In P. Dauvergne (Ed.), Handbook of global environmental politics (pp. 95–110). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publication.Google Scholar
  131. VanDeveer, S. D., & Dabelko, G. D. (2001). It's capacity, stupid: International assistance and national implementation. Global Environmental Politics, 1(2), 18–29.Google Scholar
  132. Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instrument: Typologies and theories. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. RIST, & E. O. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  133. Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349.Google Scholar
  134. White, S. (2015). A critical disconnect: The role of SAARC in building the DRM capacities of South Asian countries. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  135. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171.Google Scholar
  136. Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  137. Yong-joon, L. (2010). Statement by the South Korea at the 16th SAARC Summit. Thimpu, Bhutan, April 28, 2010. https://sixteenthsaarcsummit.bt/statements/statements-by-observer-delegations.htm. Accessed 9 Aug 2011.
  138. Young, O. R. (2011). Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 19853–19860.Google Scholar
  139. Young, O. R. (2003). Environmental governance: The role of institutions in causing and confronting environmental problems. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3(4), 377–393.Google Scholar

Empirical materials

  1. ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). (2017). ASEAN cooperation on environment: At a glance. The ASEAN Secretariat Community Relations Division (CRD). Jakarta, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  2. Delhi Statement. (2009). SAARC Ministerial Statement on Cooperation on Delhi Statement. Adopted by the 8th meeting of the SAARC environment ministers. New Delhi, 20–21 October 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Disaster Management. (2006). Disaster management in South Asia: A comprehensive regional framework for action (2006–2015). Recommended by an Expert Group Meeting (Dhaka, 7–9 February 2006) and endorsed by the 7th meeting of the SAARC environment ministers (Dhaka, 24 May 2006).Google Scholar
  4. FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization). (2017). SAARC Coastal Zone Management Centre. FAO Forestry, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/forestry/11261-0350e9b7d21b6cdf1faf9cdfce7e07d3f.pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2017.
  5. FMPRC (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China). (2008). Hu Jintao meets with foreign leaders to the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games, dated on 8 August 2008. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/yzs_663350/gjlb_663354/2706_663416/2708_663420/t483123.shtml. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.
  6. ICSW (International Council on Social Welfare). (2003). South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). http://www.icsw.org/images/docs/Regions/sasia/pub/book.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
  7. Kathmandupost. (2014). SAARC to trim regional centres. http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2014-11-23/saarc-to-trim-regional-centres.html. Accessed 20 July 2017.
  8. MALÉ Declaration. (2005). Adopted by a special session of the SAARC environment ministers. Malé, 25 June 2005.Google Scholar
  9. MoFA (Minister of Foreign Affairs). (2016). 37th session of the SAARC council of ministers on 14–17 March 2016, Pokhara, Nepal. Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Government of Bhutan. http://www.mfa.gov.bt/press-releases/press-release-170.html. Accessed 5 June 2017.
  10. Nepali Economy. (2014). Russia, Turkey seek observer status in SAARC. Nepali economy: The digital economic newspaper. http://nepanomy.com/russia-turkey-seek-observer-status-in-saarc/. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.
  11. Preventionweb. (2017). Organization: SAARC Disaster Management Centre (SDMC). http://www.preventionweb.net/organizations/3329/view. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  12. SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). (2016). Area of cooperation: Environment. http://saarc-sec.org/areaofcooperation/cat-detail.php?cat_id=54. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  13. SAARC Climate Change Action Plan. (2008). SAARC action plan on climate change. Adopted by the SAARC ministerial meeting on climate change. Dhaka, 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
  14. SAARC Compilation. (2016). Compilation of SAARC Charter/Conventions/Agreements (1985–2016). SAARC Secretariat, Nepal.Google Scholar
  15. SDMC (SAARC Disaster Management Center). (2018). About SAARC Disaster Management Center. http://www.saarc-sdmc.org/. Accessed 24 Apr 2018.
  16. SAARC Environment Action Plan. (1997). Adopted by the 3rd meeting of the SAARC environment ministers. Malé, 15–16 October 1997.Google Scholar
  17. SAARC Environmental Convention. (2010). SAARC Convention on cooperation on environment. Signed during the 16th SAARC Summit. Thimphu, 28–29 April 2010.Google Scholar
  18. SAARC MoUs. (2016). Compilation of Memoranda of Understanding/Cooperation agreements. SAARC Secretariat, Nepal.Google Scholar
  19. SAARC Summit. (1985). First SAARC Summit. Dhaka declaration, 7–8 December 1975.Google Scholar
  20. SAARC Summit. (1987). Third SAARC Summit. Kathmandu declaration, 2–4 November 1987.Google Scholar
  21. SAARC Summit. (1988). Fourth SAARC Summit. Islamabad Declaration, 31 December 1988.Google Scholar
  22. SAARC Summit. (1991). Fifth SAARC Summit. Malé Declaration, 21–23 November 1991.Google Scholar
  23. SAARC. (2017a). Cooperation with observers. http://saarc-sec.org/Cooperation-with-Observers/13/. Accessed 22 Jan 2017.
  24. SAARC. (2017b). External relations. http://saarc-sec.org/external_relations. Accessed 4 April 2017.
  25. SAARC. (2017c). Programming Committee. http://saarc-sec.org/programming-committee. Accessed 10 Apr 2017.
  26. SAARC. (2017d). SAARC Summits. http://saarc-sec.org/saarc-summits. Accessed 4 Apr 2017.
  27. SAARC. (2018a). SAARC regional centers. http://saarc-sec.org/saarc-regional-centres. Accessed 20 March 2018.
  28. SAARC. (2018b). Environment natural disasters and biotechnology. http://saarc-sec.org/areas_of_cooperation/area_detail/environment-natural-disasters-and-biotechnology/click-for-details_6. Acccessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  29. SAEO (South Asia Environment Outlook). (2014). United Nations Environment Program and Development Alternatives (2014), South Asia Environment Outlook 2014: UNEP, SAARC and DA. Resource documents. http://www.saarc-sec.org/The-South-Asia-Environment-Outlook-2014/126/. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  30. SAM (South Asian Monitor). (2014). India, Pakistan vie to host merged SAARC centre. http://southasiamonitor.org/news/india-pakistan-vie-to-host-merged-saarc-centre/vign/9680. Accessed 20 April 2017.
  31. SDF (SAARC Development Fund). (2017). About SAARC development fund. http://www.sdfsec.org/about-sdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2017.
  32. SFC (SAARC Forestry Center). (2016). History of SAARC Forestry Centre (SFC): Bhutan. http://www.sfc.org.bt/about_us.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2016.
  33. SFC Newsletter. (2008). SAARC Forestry Center. Biannual newsletter (Vol. 1), Thimpu, Bhutan.Google Scholar
  34. The Daily Star. (2016). Pakistan to host 19th SAARC summit on Nov 8–10. http://www.thedailystar.net/country/pakistan-host-19th-saarc-summit-nov-8-10-1043299. Accessed 20 Apr 2017.
  35. The Economic Times. (2014). SAARC panel decides to dissolve 3 regional centres. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/saarc-panel-decides-to-dissolve-3-regional-centres/articleshow/45243581.cms. Accessed 20 July 2017.
  36. Thimphu Statement. (2010). Thimphu statement on climate change. Adopted by Heads of State or Government in 16th SAARC Summit. Thimphu, 28–29 April 2010.Google Scholar
  37. WB (World Bank). (2016). South Asia regional integration. Resource documents. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/south-asia-regional-integration#1. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  38. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). (2017). Fourth technical conference on management of meteorological and hydrological services in RA II (ASIA) 5–9 February 2007 in Islamabad, Pakistan. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/dra/rap/documents/6-4-SMRC-Karmakar.pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pradip Kumar Sarker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Md Saifur Rahman
    • 3
  • Lukas Giessen
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Chair Group of Forest and Nature Conservation PolicyGeorg-August UniversityGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.European Forest InstituteBonnGermany
  3. 3.Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate ChangeGovernment of the People’s Republic of BangladeshDhakaBangladesh

Personalised recommendations