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

The Convention on Biological Diversity's national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) are major mechanisms for mainstreaming biodiversity into national policies. This article examines whether and how the NBSAPs contribute to mainstreaming biodiversity across policy sectors in Finland in order to halt biodiversity loss. We have developed an innovative analytical framework where the concept of responsibility addresses how motivations for mainstreaming can be built, and the concept of social learning outcomes addresses the extent of institutional changes for biodiversity. The Finnish NBSAP processes have been able to build diverse forms of responsibility (liability, accountability, responsiveness and care) in different policy sectors by providing new knowledge, careful process design and developing institutional linkages. Despite pro-biodiversity outcomes in the targeted policy sectors, the responsibilities do not diffuse from the environmental administration to other policy sectors to a sufficient extent. Closing this ‘responsibility gap’ is a key challenge for building effective environmental policies.

[1]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Social Movements' Pressure Strategies during Forest Disputes in Finland , 2010 .

[2]  Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity Prepared by the Government of the United Kingdom in co-operation with UNEP/ROE , 2008 .

[3]  J. Fairbrass,et al.  Multi-level Governance and Environmental Policy , 2004 .

[4]  P. Gazzola.  Reflecting on mainstreaming through environmental appraisal in times of financial crisis — From ‘greening’ to ‘pricing’? , 2013 .

[5]  Ana Deletic,et al.  A diagnostic procedure for transformative change based on transitions, resilience and institutional thinking , 2013 .

[6]  Glenda Verrinder,et al.  Review of: Keen, M., Brown, VA, and Dyball, B. (Eds.), (2005), Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future. London, UK: Earthscan , 2006 .

[7]  S. Hove,et al.  Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces , 2014 .

[8]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes , 2009 .

[9]  Derek R. Armitage,et al.  Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning , 2008 .

[10]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.  Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[11]  K. Bäckstrand.  Accountability of Networked Climate Governance: The Rise of Transnational Climate Partnerships , 2008 .

[12]  EQuiTAblE SHAriNg,et al.  Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity , 2007 .

[13]  Felix Rauschmayer,et al.  Participation in EU Biodiversity Governance: How Far beyond Rhetoric? , 2009 .

[14]  Karin Bckstrand.  Accountability of Networked Climate Governance: The Rise of Transnational Climate Partnerships , 2008, Global Environmental Politics.

[15]  A. Cropper.  Convention on Biological Diversity , 1993, Environmental Conservation.

[16]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  The role of science in decision making: does evidence‐based science drive environmental policy? , 2010 .

[17]  M. Spierenburg.  Getting the message across biodiversity science and policy interfaces: A review , 2012 .

[18]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Adding ‘iterativity’ to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: A novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces , 2015 .

[19]  Biodiversity Planning An Assessment of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) , 2010 .

[20]  J. Glicken.  Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls , 2000 .

[21]  Karin Bckstrand,et al.  Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance , 2003, Global Environmental Politics.

[22]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[23]  M. Suškevičs.  Legitimacy Analysis of Multi‐Level Governance of Biodiversity: Evidence from 11 Case Studies across the EU , 2012 .

[24]  B. Cashore,et al.  Revising Theories of Nonstate Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance: Lessons from the Finnish Forest Certification Experience , 2007, Global Environmental Politics.

[25]  S. Harrop,et al.  A hard instrument goes soft: the implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s current trajectory , 2011 .

[26]  C. Blackmore.  What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview , 2007 .

[27]  E. Lichtenstein.  Social learning. , 1977, NIDA research monograph.

[28]  Ari-Pekka Auvinen,et al.  Fourth national report on the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity of Finland , 2010 .

[29]  Maria Carmen Lemos,et al.  The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments , 2003 .

[30]  B. Rowe,et al.  Getting the message across. , 1999, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[31]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Keep it complex , 2010, Nature.

[32]  G. Lawrence,et al.  Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia , 2008 .

[33]  P. Weingart,et al.  The politics of scientific advice : institutional design for quality assurance , 2011 .

[34]  P. Haas.  When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process , 2004 .

[35]  K. Korhonen,et al.  Evaluation of the Finnish national biodiversity action plan 1997-2005 , 2007 .

[36]  M. Bovens.  Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework , 2007 .

[37]  Robert Dyball,et al.  Social Learning in Environmental Management: Towards a Sustainable Future , 2005 .

[38]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[39]  Karin Bäckstrand,et al.  Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance , 2003 .

[40]  Luigi Pellizzoni,et al.  Responsibility and Environmental Governance , 2004 .

[41]  A. Clark,et al.  Getting the message across: opportunities and obstacles in effective communication in hypertension care. , 2012, Journal of hypertension.

[42]  Ulla Rosenström.  Sustainable development indicators : Much wanted, less used? , 2009 .

[43]  Susan Owens,et al.  Making a difference? Some perspectives on environmental research and policy , 2005 .

[44]  U. Zweifel,et al.  United Nations Environment Programme , 2005, Essential Concepts of Global Environmental Governance.

[45]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[46]  R. Paloniemi,et al.  Changing Ecological and Cultural States and Preferences of Nature Conservation Policy: The Case of Nature Values Trade in South-Western Finland. , 2009 .