Innovations in International Environmental Policy: A study of international organisations and policy change

该项目关注国际组织内环境政策创新的过程。尽管实施了二十多年的可持续发展政策，但大多数环境质量指标继续下降。在这种背景下，一些政府和国际组织最近采用了新的概念和战略，以协调经济发展和环境可持续性。“绿色经济”和“绿色增长”正成为越来越突出的概念，但对环境-经济关系的理解存在许多相互矛盾的理解，例如包容性财富（例如联合国人类发展计划署和联合国环境规划署2012年）、去增长（例如研发和开发）、稳态经济（例如CASSE和d）和幸福生活（例如Heinrich Böll Foundation 2011年）。国际组织经常在推动新的可持续发展概念和战略方面发挥领导作用；因此，这些组织是本研究的重点。该项目的目标有三个方面。首先是识别和绘制关于民间社会和政策团体内部环境经济关系的不同当代话语。辨别这些话语提供了一幅关于如何理解这种联系的完整图景，使我们能够超越国际机构、政府机构和民间社会中行动者自己使用的修辞标签，并识别出共识和分歧。第二个目标是确定国际组织在制定新的可持续发展战略的过程中如何处理内部和外部的多种立场和对环境-经济关系的理解。从三十年的环境多边主义中可以明显看出，多种立场和解释会使谈判复杂化，并使制定共同战略和协议变得困难。然而，确保讨论和决策的异质性是有重要原因的。有充分的证据表明，由志同道合的人组成的制度飞地和决策往往会阻碍理性，并产生缺乏理性的决策。除非反对的立场得到口头表达，否则存在这样一种危险，即个人会加强对现有信念的承诺，而不是考虑这些信念与其他信念的优缺点。因此，重要的是，讨论和决策要暴露在相互矛盾的观点之下。通过分析国际组织在制定新的可持续发展战略方面普遍存在的同质性和异质性，我将能够对这些过程的质量进行评估，并提出改进过程的建议。这将建立在PI和John S. Dryzek关于在气候变化公共审议和多边气候变化谈判中加强话语代表性策略的现有研究的基础上（Stevenson和Dryzek 2012a， 2012b）。第三个目标是确定国际组织推进新的可持续发展概念和战略的努力是否反映了制度学习、制度适应和/或修辞创新。学习需要通过重新定义目标和手段来改变行为；适应需要通过重新定义实现现有目标的手段来改变行为；修辞创新指的是用新的语言来指称已有的或新的目的和手段。四个国际组织被提议作为案例研究，以实现该项目的制度目标：全球绿色增长研究所；联合国环境规划署；联合国亚洲及太平洋经济社会委员会；以及经济合作与发展组织。在方法上，这是一项解释主义研究，采用三种研究方法：Q方法、文献分析和半结构化访谈。

This project is concerned with processes of environmental policy innovation within international organisations. Despite more than two decades of sustainable development policy, most indicators of environmental quality continue to decline. Against this background, some governments and international organisations have recently adopted new concepts and strategies to reconcile economic development and environmental sustainability. 'Green economy' and 'green growth' are becoming increasingly salient ideas, but there are numerous competing understandings of the environment-economy nexus captured in such terms as inclusive wealth (e.g. UNU-IHDP and UNEP 2012), de-growth (e.g. R&D n.d.), steady-state economy (e.g. CASSE n.d.), and buen vivir (e.g. Heinrich Böll Foundation 2011). International organisations frequently take a leadership role in advancing new sustainability concepts and strategies; therefore, these organisations are the focus of this study. The aims of the project are three-fold. The first is to identify and map the different contemporary discourses about the environment-economy nexus within civil society and the policy community. Discerning these discourses provides a complete picture of how the nexus is understood which enables us to move beyond the rhetorical labels used by actors themselves within international institutions, government agencies, and civil society and to identify points of agreement and disagreement. The second aim is to determine how international organisations deal with the internal and external plurality of positions and understandings of the environment-economy nexus in the process of developing new sustainability strategies. It is evident from three decades of environmental multilateralism that a plurality of positions and interpretations can complicate negotiations and make it difficult to devise mutual strategies and agreements. Nevertheless, there are important reasons for ensuring heterogeneity in discussion and decision-making. There is ample evidence to suggest that institutional enclaves and decision-making among like-minded individuals tend to impede rationality and produce weakly-reasoned decisions. Unless opposing positions are vocally represented, there is a danger that individuals will reinforce their commitment to existing convictions rather than consider the merits and weaknesses of those convictions in relation to others. It is important, then, that discussion and decision-making are exposed to competing perspectives. By analysing the prevalence of homogeneity and heterogeneity in international organisations' efforts to develop new sustainability strategies, I will be able to make assessments of the quality of these processes, and recommendations for improved processes. This will build on existing research carried out by the PI and John S. Dryzek on strategies for enhancing discursive representation in public deliberation on climate change and in multilateral climate change negotiations (Stevenson and Dryzek 2012a, 2012b). The third aim is to determine whether international organisations' efforts to advance new sustainability concepts and strategies reflect institutional learning, institutional adaptation, and/or rhetorical innovation. Learning entails behavioural change brought about by redefined goals and means; adaptation entails behavioural change brought about by redefined means to achieve existing goals; and rhetorical innovation signifies the use of new language to refer to existing or new goals and means. Four international organisations are proposed as cases studies for pursuing the institutional aims of the project: the Global Green Growth Institute; United Nations Environment Programme; United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Methodologically, this is an interpretivist study informed by three research methods: Q methodology, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews.