法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy:
From the Perspective of Multi-level Governance

OYAMA, Kosuke
I.

Research objectives and questions

II.
III.

The Definition of multi-level governance (MLG)
Typology of MLG

IV.

IPBES?

V.
Typology application to IPBES & biodiversity conservation policy
VI.
Does IPBES connect governmental relations?
VII. Is MLG effective for the conservation of biodiversity?
VIII. Questionnaire survey results to local officials
IX.
Conclusion

I.

Research objectives and questions
Biodiversity as a key environmental policy issue has been a significant topic

of debate among scholars and practitioners alike. Prompted by theestablishment of IPBES (Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services) in 2012 by more than 100 governments, it has attracted

increasing attention in literature. With its approach assessing future biodiversity
scenario mobilizing key natural scientists, the platform is often referred to as the“IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in biodiversity.” The recent
documents addressing this question regard subnational governments andgovernance factors as key (e.g. Velten et al.; 2018; Baynham-Herd et al. 2018; Barletti
et al. 2018). Elsewhere, Carmen et al. (2018) highlight the combination of bottom

up and top down approaches as a significant driver most likely to provide
effective arguments for biodiversity. Elsewhere, if we turn to a specific country
context, what appears is a body of literature demonstrating the usefulness ofdynamic interdependency models in the analysis of Japanʼs local governments(21)554IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

and policy-making (e.g. Itō 2002). This paper draws on this set of previous
literature and undertakes a quantitative research project addressing the impact
of multi-level governance (MLG) on biodiversity policy-making andimplementation in Japanʼs municipalities, referring to the influence of IPBES. In
so doing, the paper reveals the significance of the combination of bottom-up
and top-down approaches and resulting effective MLG within Japanʼs key policy
sector.
The research questions are as follows: First, does IPBES connect each levelof governmental activity and are global IPBES activities and Japanʼs national
and local activities well related? Second, is IPBES same as IPCC? If it isnʼt, how
are they different? Third, is participation or good governance more effective forbiodiversity conservation and does more participation equal more biodiversity?
The exploration will proceed as follows: First, we will define MLG andclassify three types of MLG. Second, we will examine the functions, work
programs, and organizations of IPBES. Third, we will apply the typology to
IPBES and biodiversity conservation policy. Finally, we will answer our threeresearch questions by analysing our questionnaire survey about IPBES and local
biodiversity policy implementation to local government officials. Overall, we willconclude that the ideas of global IPBES biodiversity assessments could not
penetrate to stakeholders at a local level, particularly in the area of local
interest. As the public sense of crisis in biodiversity policy in IPBES is weaker
than that of the climate change policy in IPCC, soft programs for education areimportant at this stage. Bottom-up policy making or public (stakeholder)participation is more important for general wide program performance than for
only environmental conservation program performance.

II. The Definition of multi-level governance (MLG)
Figure 1 shows the analytical conceptual framework of IPBES. The goal isgood quality of human life, which is at the top, and the important factor forhuman wellbeing is nature or biodiversity and ecosystems, which is at thebottom. Nature benefits people through various ecosystem goods and services,such as water and food provision, regulation of mudslides and floods by forests553(22)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

Figure 1. IPBES analytical conceptual framework

4

6

7

1
10
Anthropogenic
assets5Instiutions andgovernance and otherindirect drivers

9
Direct drivers
Natural drivers
Anthropogenic
drivers2
3

NatureBiodiversity and ecosystemes
Mother Earth
Systems of life
Intrinsic values

National
IPBES level of resolution

Nature’s benefits
to peopie
Ecosystem goods
and services
Nature’s gifts

Interacting across spatial scales

8

IPBES Scope

GlobalGood quality of life
Human wellbeing
Living in harmony with nature
Living-well in balance andharmony with Mother Earth

Local

Changing over time
Baseline-Trends-Scenarios(Source) Diaz et al. (2015, 5). The numbers are remained as original.
1）

and other landscapes, and green tourism; these are natureʼs gifts to us. As such,it is important for us to conserve our natural environment through direct naturaland anthropogenic drivers. Institutions and governance are indirect drivers,
which impact nature through direct drivers. The IPBES framework has thecharacteristics of a social-ecological system (SES) from long-term and large
2）

space scales, global, national and local (Oyama 2017: 2).

A key concept explaining the nature of IPBES is MLG. This concept has
been employed in a variety of contexts in response to a broad spread of theconcerns (Marsh & Furlong 2002, 32). After Garry Marks (1993, 392; introduced by
1） Recently, Diaz et al (2018) proposed “Natureʼs Contributions to People” (NCP) in place of
natureʼs benefits or gifts to people for “recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments”.
2） SES literature uses governance as governance system(s) mostly. Governance system represents social system, and resource system represents ecological system (Oyama, 2017: 6).
(23)552

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

Bache & Flinders, 2015, Vol.1, p. xv) sets it out as “a system of continuous

negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers ―supranational, national, regional and local―as the result of a broad process ofinstitutional creation and decisional reallocation that has pulled some previously
centralized functions of the state up to the supranational level and some down
to the local/regional level” prompted by the reform of the Structural Funds in1988 and the emergence of European Union and the single market, the concept
has seen significant development, with extended definition and usage(Stephenson, 2013 ; see Table 1). For example, Hunt (1999) broadens its scope bydefining it as the policy processes involving: “the interaction between a
constellation of public and private actors located at the supranational, nationaland sub-national level.” (Hunt, 1999 in Marsh & Furlong, 2002, 36). Indeed, thescope of MLG has covered a variety of issues (Stephenson, 2013), and literaturestarted employing the concept to analyze the examples beyond Europe (e.g.
Rabe, 2007 on North America; Inoue & Shivakoti, 2015 on Asia; Daniell & Kay, 2017
on Australia). In this set of growing dissemination, the field of environmental

policy can be highlighted as a key area where MLG has extensively been
embraced as a key framework (e.g. Fairbrass and Jordan 2004; Knill & Tosun 2008;see also Bache & Flinders, 2015, Vol. 2, 317―492). To examine this sector where theinvolvement of private sector actors has been crucial (UN Environment 2019), thefollowing definition by Ueta (2008, 33) is worth referring to: “the governance
where the structure of environmental problems, policy, and institution at eachlevel, local, regional, national, and global is interacting or interdepending.” Thisdefinition offers benefits of explicitly covering horizontal societal networks,
heeding interdependencies at each level. This paper further develops Uetaʼs(2008) approach by setting out the following definition of MLG, referring to

Benz (2006, 95, translated by Newig) and Newig and Fritsch (2009, 199):
Political structures and processes that transgress the borders ofadministrative jurisdictions, aiming to cope with interdependencies insocietal development and political decision-making which exist among
territorial units.
551(24)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

Table 1. The growing usage of MLG in literature
Usage

IssuesOriginal uses
(1993―)-

Legal jurisdiction of authority and efficiency
Europeanization and regionalization

Functional uses
(1997―)-

Policy/country studies and implementation studies
Problem-solving, co-ordination, learning

Combined uses
(2001―)-New modes of governance
New institutionalism / principal-agent theory

Normative uses
(2003―)- Legitimacy, democracy, accountability- Identity politics (community, collective identities, political parties,
public sphere)

Comparative uses
(2007―)-

Global governance and international institutions
EU & regionalism
Administrative processes, tasks and interactions(Source) Figure 1 in Stephenson (2013, 832) is revised. Author appreciate Masahiro Mogaki for his
suggestion.

This definition enables MLG to include vertical governmental and horizontal
societal relations, but focuses on political institutions or systems connecting
each level through a nested structure or adaptive (co)management (Oyama, 2017,12, 23). Drawing on the above, the following section further elaborates MLG

within this paper through formulating its typology.

III.

3）

Typology of MLG
Table 2 shows that there are three types of MLG: governmental relations,

temporary organization, and mandated participation planning (MPP). Type 1
seems to be top-down and with federal governmental relations or elitism; thecharacteristics of this type are general purpose, non-intersecting and nested
membership, limited levels, very low flexibility by system-wide architecture, non3） Adaptive (co)management is often used in ecology. It is contrary to scientific management,
which is believed to be one of the best types of management and was powerful in early 20th
century US public administration. Adaptive management is similar to the human relations
school of thought, which considers more social and psychological factors, criticizing scientific management through the Hawthorne Experiment.
(25)550

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

Table 2. Typology of MLG
governmental
relations (type1)

temporaryorganization (type2)

mandated
participatory
planning (type3)

PurposeGeneral purpose

Task specific

Task specific

Membership

Non-intersectig, nested

Intersecting

Typically nonintersecting, nested

Number of levels

LimitedUnlimited

Not strictly limited,but key levels areemphasized

Flexibility

Very Low (sytemwide architecture)

Flexible design

Sytem-widearchitecture withcertain flexibility

CompetitivenessNon-competitive

Competitive

Non-competitive

Initiation

Preexisting

Typically ʻbottom-upʼʻTop-downʼ(Source) Newig & Koontz (2014, 255) was partly revised by author.

competitive, and pre-existing initiation. A typical example is the EUʼs Structural
Fund.
Although an effective supra-national power connected with each nationʼslocal government by a Structural Fund consisting mainly of agricultural subsidy
beyond each national government, it has proven problematic from theperspectives of accountability and democracy in the nation state system.
In contrast, type 2 temporary organization is bottom-up and is similar topluralism. The characteristics of this type are task specific purpose, intersecting
membership, unlimited levels, flexible design, competitive, and bottom-up
initiation. Newig and Koontz (2014, 254) explain type 2 as the temporary
institution named as ʻFunctional, Overlapping and Competing Jurisdictionsʼ(FOCJ) by renowned economists Bruno Frey and Eichenberger (1996). Types 1

and 2 contrast with one another, with characteristics of top-down vs. bottomup, government vs. civil society, and elitism vs. pluralism, but both seem to beideal types.
Newig and Koonz (2014, 255) introduced type 3 of MLG named the
mandated participatory planning (MPP) by the EU. The characteristics of thistype are task specific purpose, similar to type 2, but typically non-intersecting
549(26)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

and with nested membership, both of which are similar to type 1. Type 3 has
system-wide architecture like type 1 but has certain flexibilities that make itsimilar to type 2. However, type 3 is non-competitive and of top-down initiation,
which is similar to type 1; in this way, it seems similar to sectoral corporatism.
Type 3 is a compromise between types 1 and 2, but it also includes civic
participation in planning that is not voluntary (bottom-up) but mandatory (topdown). Typical examples of this are the Water Framework Directive (WFD), theFloods Directive (FD), and the Air Quality Directives (AQD) introduced by
Newig and Koonz (2014).
Following this, we shall apply these types to IPBES.

IV. IPBES?
Before applying the typology to IPBES, we will generally examine thefunctions, objectives, and organizations of IPBES. Since it was founded in April
2012, IPBES has published several scientific assessment reports for improving
4）

policy-making in biodiversity and ecosystem services. The IPBES websites canbe found through the following link: (https://www.ipbes.net/). Figures 2 through 4
are based on information from the sites.
Figure 2 shows four functions of IPBES: assessments, knowledge
generation catalysis, policy support, and capacity building. In IPBES, many
natural scientists participate in scientific assessments of the future state ofbiodiversity and ecosystem services with member statesʼ officials. They generatescientific knowledge and influence their community. Their arguments needexpertise, so capacity building is important for IPBES, especially for developing
countries. Scientific assessments sometimes include policy support tools andmethodologies for managing biodiversity and ecosystem services. However,whether policy makers or stakeholders in each state decide on a biodiversity
policy involving assessment reports depends on their values, ideas, and politicalprocesses.
Figure 3 shows the work program structure from 2014 to 2018. It is similar
4） For the history of IPBES and the Convention of Biological Diversity, See Kosaka (2012).
(27)548

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

Figure 2. Four functions of IPBESPolicy makers,
stakeholders

Policy support

Requests for information
to the Plenary

3

Capacitybuilding

1
Assessments
gaps
knowledge generation
catalysis

2

Scientific & funding
communities

Figure 3. Structure of the work program
Objective 1: strengthen the capacity and knowledge foundations of
the science-policy interface to implement key IPBES functions

Objective 2: Strengthen thescience-policy interface on
biodiversity and ecosystemservices at and across the
sub-regional, regional andglobal levels

Objective 3: Strengthen
the knowledge-policy
interface with regard tothematic andmethodolgical issues

Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate
IPBES activities, deliverables and findings
547(28)4

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

to the previous four functions of IPBES. There are four objectives which areparallel to four functions: to strengthen the capacity and knowledge
foundations; to strengthen the science-policy interface across local, national,
and global levels; to strengthen the knowledge-policy interface in thematic andmethodological issues; and to communicate and evaluate IPBES activities.
Figure 4 shows how IPBES is structured. Each organization is explained on
5）

the IPBES website. Plenary consisting of each state representative decides each
assessment which experts prepare in multidisciplinary expert panel (MEP) and/or Expert Groups & Taskforces. Bureau is a substantial deciding body consistingof executive members. Secretariat supports each organization using TechnicalSupport Units (TSU). Then IPBES can be seen as a coalition between eachgovernment and experts. The problem from multi-level governance is thatwhether the coalition of each government and experts penetrate to national and/or local government and stakeholders such as fishermen or farmers.
International environmental NGOs participate in IPBES meetings, but national
and/or local stakeholders seldom participate in the meetings.

5） “Plenary: The governing body of IPBES – consists of the representatives of IPBES member States – typically meets once per year. Stakeholders: All contributors to and end-users of
the IPBES outputs. Observers: Any State that is not yet a member of IPBES, the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) or other biodiversity-related conventions, related UN bodies,or any other relevant organization or agency.” “Bureau: Comprising the IPBES Chair, Sir
Robert Watson (Ana Maria Hernandez Salgar has been appointed as the new Chair of IPBES in the seventh Plenary in Paris, France in 2019 (https://www.ipbes.net/news/new-ipbeschair-announced, 190723 accessed), four Vice-Chairs, and five additional officers who oversee the administrative functions of IPBES. Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP): Fiveexpert participants from each of the five UN regions, overseeing all IPBES scientific andtechnical functions.”“Expert Groups & Taskforces: Selected scientists and knowledge holders carrying out the
IPBES assessments and other deliverables. Secretariat (Includes Technical Support Units):
Ensures the efficient functioning of IPBES through support to the Plenary, Bureau and
MEP, as well as implementing the Platformʼs work and administrative functions, led by the
Executive Secretary of IPBES, Dr. Anne Larigauderie. The headquarters of the secretariat isin Bonn, hosted by the Federal Government of Germany.”(29)546

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

Figure 4. How is IPBES structured?

RS
DE
L
O
EH
K
A

AU
RE
U
B

OB
SE
RV
ER

oups & Taskfor
t Gr
ces
per
x
E

RY P)
E
M

MUL
TI
EXPER DISCT P IP
AN LI
EL NA
(

S

ST

PLENARYRETARIAT
SEC

V. Typology application to IPBES & biodiversity conservation policy
IPBES assessed global and regional biodiversity future scenarios made byexperts, and each assessment is expected to connect to each national or local
biodiversity program. How do the global and regional scenarios made by IPBES
connect to national and local biodiversity conservation policies? In other words,
how does the coalition of governments and experts in IPBES involve eachnational or local stakeholder in implementing global and regional scenarios?
This is the problem with MLG in natural capital or ecosystem services.
Figure 5 attempts to show the MLG of natural capital, though it has room
for improvement. Considering previous MLG definitions, we will define MLG
in natural capital as the political coordination system or institution where theinterdependent situation of natural capital goes beyond each administrative
jurisdiction. The coalitions of each government and environmental experts act
across each level, taking the actual situation of the local site and trying to545(30)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

Figure 5. Multi-level Governance of Natural CapitalInternational
Organization

Country

Researcher

Global-level
NGO

AnotherCountry

Multinational
Company

Global-level

Researcher

CabinetofficeMinistry of Agriculture.
Forestry and Fisheries National-level
NGO

Politician
Ministry of Economy,
Trade and lndustry

Big
Enterprise

National-level

NPO

CitizenResearcher
ForesterFisherman
FarmerLocal-level
NGO
Local-level

Prefectural
Government

TouristCompany
Local
Politician
Small andMedium-sizedEnterprise
Municipal
Govermment(Source) Made by 4(2) team, especially Yuki Oda, in PANCES (S15) project.

penetrate the biodiversity policy based on scientific assessment such as Global
Biodiversity Outlook, GBO.
The coalitions between experts and governments have a nested structure ateach level, global, national and local. With its Secretariat within the UN
Environmental Program (UNEP), the IPBES can be characterized as problemoriented, with its experts engaging in multiple responsibilities and stakeholders
covering key private sector actors such as international environmental NGO.
This suggests that the Platform can be strongly associated with type 3.
Environmental NGOs are participating in IPBES, but local producers such as
fishermen and farmers are typically not participating in the implementation of
biodiversity conservation policy. As such, each national and local government
seeks incentives and contribution, in other words, carrots and sticks for(31)544IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

involving local producers in policy implementation. The coalitions want to get
consent from stakeholders, respecting Indigenous Local Knowledge, ILK, andto implement local programs based on assessments. For example, coalitions havea problem when attempting to get consent from fishermen and farmers to
implement no-fishing zones based on IPBES assessments. Additionally, IPBES
does not have any coercion over each local government to force participating
stakeholders to implement biodiversity policies. IPBES is in type 3 MLG but isdifferent from the EU in this area of mandatory coercion for civic participation.
IPBES is weak in coercion to regulate each state and local governments,
then we could call it an international organization, but it is not easy to call it aninternational regime

6）

which includes the negotiation of both informal andformal norms and rules to govern particular issue area (Mark f. Imber, 2007, 479).
Its budget is not so huge.

VI. Does IPBES connect governmental relations?
We shall consider whether IPBES connects governmental relations. At
global level, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted in 1992
and came into effect in 1993. At national level, the Japanese government set the
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in Cabinet in 1997,
which has since been revised in 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2012. The Government
enacted the Basic Act on Biodiversity on June 6, 2008 and after this, NBSAP
has been based on the law. Meanwhile, Japanʼs prefectural and municipal
governments have been setting Local Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans(LBSAPs) at the local level. But the setting rates are not high in all local

governments; in total, only 110 (5.9%) in 1,864 local governments have set
LBSAPs. However, these figures depend upon population size in the local
government: 39 prefectures (83%) in 47 all, 15 ordinance designated (big) cities(75%) in 20 all big cities, and 56 municipalities (3.1%) in 1,817 all (as of December
31, 2016).

Setting rates show that the CBD and IPBES could connect national,
6） Author appreciate Prof. Guy Peters who pointed this problem in ICPP4 meeting.
543(32)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

Table 3. The Comparison between IPBES and IPCC
Characteristics and/or
Climate change
implications for
Climate change(physical science basis
science-policy(adaptation)and mitigation)interface

Biodiversity andecosystem services

Science-policy
interface

IPCC (http://www.
ipcc.ch)IPBES (http://www.
ipbes.net)

Global policy
framework

UNFCCC (http://
www.unfccc.int)

CBD (http://www.
cbd.int)

Scale of the issue

GlobalMulti-scalar

Global assessment isessential

Assessment should be Assessment should be
subglobal as well as
subglobal as well as
globalglobalModerate

Large

Extent of knowledge
gaps

Multi-scalar

Fundamental

Knowledge
Support toSupport togeneration is less of a knowledge generation knowledge generation
focus
is a priority
is a priority
Alignment of existingGood
response

Poor

Poor

capacity

Capacity-buidilng isless of a focus

Capacity-building is a Capacity-building is apriority forpriority fordeveloping countries developing countries

Intergovernmental
policyNo agreed targets

No agreed targets

Agreed targets

environment

Less scope fordelivering policy
supportLess scope fordelivering policy
supportSupport to delivery
of existing policy
targets is a priority(Source) Brooks, et al. (2014, 544).

prefectural and big city governments, but have not yet been able to connect
medium and small municipalities. Small cities, especially rural municipalities, do
not have sufficient staff nor budget and need support from experts (Oda andOyama, 2019). As previously mentioned, one of the most important objectives of

IPBES is to strengthen knowledge generation and capacity building. This isimportant for small rural municipalities at local level as well as for developing
countries at global level.
(33)542IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

Table 4. Chronological difference for IPBES and IPCC
The development of UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), IPBES, and domestic respenses
year

UNCBD

IPBES

Japan's domestic responses

1988
1989

Three main goals of UNCBD: the conservation of biodiversity; the sustainable use of its components; and the fair and equitable sharingof benefits arising from genetic resources (ABS).

1990
1991
UNCBD was opened up for signature.

1993

UNCBD entered into force

Japan concluded UNCBD

▲

1992

1994
▲

The National Biodiversity Strategy & Action plan
(NBSAP) was decided in Cabinet.

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was
adopted. (Regulation of new biotechnology)

2001

Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO)1

Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA)Establishment of the Ministry of Environment
New NBSAP/
Enactment of the Promotion of Nature Restoration
Act/Amendment of the National Parks Law

2002

Enactment of the Act on the Conservation andSustainable Use of Biologlcal Diversity throughRegulations on the Use of Living Modified Organisms/
Amendment of the National Parks Law

▲

2003

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was
enforced.

2004
International Mechanism of
Scientific Expertise on
Biodiversity (IMoSEB)

2005
2006

GBO2/2010 Targets

2007

Economics of Ecosystem andBiodiversity (TEEB)

the 3rd NBSAP/the MOAFF BSAP

2008

UNEP multi-stakeholder
meeting

Enactment of the Biodiversity Basic Law (legal basis of
NBSAP)(WAVES)

2010NBSAP/the Act on Biodiversity Regional
Partnership Promotion/Japan Biodiversity Outlook(JBO) 1

2011

UNEP Intergovernmental
Meeting

Marine Biodiversity Conservation Strategy of Japan/
Environmental conservation type agriculture direct
support measures

2012

IPBES establishment

2009
2010

GBO3/Aichi Targets/Nagoya Protocol(Japan did not ratify it.)

2013
2014

GBO4/Nagoya Protocol entered into force.

IPBES first phase work plan

Enactment of Promoting the multidimensional
function of Agriculture

2015
▲

2016

JBO2

(Source) Revising a little of the material from Professor Shizuka Hashimoto.
541(34)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

The Development of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) & Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and Domestic Resposes
year

UNFCCC

IPCC

Japanʼs domestic responses

Establishment of IPCC

1988
1989

Global warming prevention action plan (Ministerial Cabinet
decision)▲

IPCC the 1st Assessment

1990
1991
1992

Adoption of UNFCCC▲

Japan concluded UNFCCC. The revised Rationalization in
Energy Use Law.

1994
1995

UNFCCC coming into effet

▲

1993

IPCC the 2nd Assessment

1996
Installation of Global Warming Prevention Headquarters(Cabinet decision) Guideline for Measures to Prevent Global
Warming (Headquarters decision)

▲

1997

Adoption of Kyoto Protocol

1998

Law Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to cope with
Global Warming The revised Energy Saving Law

1999

the Basic Policy on Global Waming Prevention (Cabinet
decision)

2000
2001

IPCC the 3rd Assessment▲▲

Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
The revised Law concerning the Promotion of the Measures to
Cope with Global Warming (Kyoto Protocol Goal AttainmentPlan, Local Action Plan)

2002

2003
2004

▲

Kyoto Protocol coming into
effect2006

Biomass Nippon General Strategy

2008

The 1st commitment period
prescribed by the Kyoto
Protocol started

The MOAFF Global Warming Prevention General Strategy
The revided Kyoto Protocol Goal Attainment Plan, The revided
Energy Saving Law
The revided MOAFF Global Warming Prevention General
Strategy
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Biofuel Law▲

IPCC the 4th Assessment

▲

2007

2009

▲

2005

The revised Law concerning the Promotion of the Measures to
Cope with Global Warming (Calculation, Report and Publicationof Greenhouse Gas)
Changing Guideline to Kyouto Goal Attainment Plan
The revised Enegy Saving Law, The revised Law conceming thePromotion of the Measues to Cope with Global Warming

Biomass utilization promotion fundamental law

2010
2011

Environmental conservation type agriculture direct support
measures

2012

The Act on Promotion low carbon in urban area

(Source) Revising a little of the material from Professor Shizuka Hashimoto.

(35)540

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

Next we shall compare IPBES and IPCC. Table 3 shows that IPCC and
IPBES are generally similar because IPBES was originally designed as a model
to imitate IPCC. However, as mentioned previously, IPBES has problems ofknowledge generation and capacity building. Table 4 compares the developmentof CBD, IPBES and related domestic responses and the Framework Convention
on Climate Change (FCCC), and IPCC and domestic responses. The problem
with this is that IPBES cannot become mainstream. IPCC is more popular than
IPBES because people have more of a sense of crisis in climate change andglobal warming, and the target of reducing CO2 is relatively simple. In contrast,
biodiversity is more difficult for the general public to understand, because
targets are plural and more complex than reducing CO 2 in each local
government, for example setting a no fishing zone or resource preservation area.
Thus, education programs and activities are more important at this stage.

VII.

Is MLG effective for the conservation of biodiversity?
Newig et al (2009) meta-analysed 47 case studies in North America andWestern Europe. They adopted a case survey method in which multiple
evaluators evaluated each case; therefore, their study seems subjective rather
than objective. However, they found some important hypotheses; for example,
the environmental preference of stakeholders deciding environmental outputs
and outcomes. This hypothesis indicates that if stakeholders have the same idea,
value, or direction for the environment, the output and outcomes for theenvironment increases beyond their interests. Though this situation is hard to
explain, Newig et al (2009) found many cases of interactive but also face-to-facecommunication having positive effects at biological level.
Their study results were as follows: the influence of actors is not related tothe scale of the problem or governance. The scales of problem or (authoritative
or participatory) governance are not related in their outcomes. At 5%, the results

suggesting that the higher the participation the more ineffective the outcomesare statistically significant. Environmental output is higher in polycentric
governance than in single governance, but environmental outcome is related toneither. This means that the problem is a so-called collective action problem or a539(36)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

social dilemma problem. The conflict is between the expert-government
coalition vs. the local stakeholder (or producer) interest for farmers or fishermen,
in other words, long-term global common ideas and interest vs. short-term local
interest.

VIII.

Questionnaire survey results to local officials

In contrast to the case survey method by Newig et al (2009), we have carriedout a questionnaire survey regarding the consciousness of Japanʼs municipalitiesʼ
officials earlier this year. We also conducted multiple regression analysis of theirsubjective performance as a dependent variable, and of some independent
variables such as the having some plan or guideline of conserving naturalenvironment, the monitoring natural environmental situations, scientific or
adaptive management methods, the perception of IPBES as MLG and the sizeof population in municipality. Perfect analysis has not yet been completed, but
we are able to share interim analytical results. The survey was distributed by
mail and the web to all 1,741 municipalities in Japan from January to February
in 2019. The response rate was 64.9% (1,130 cases, as of April 15) overall, 741 by
mail and 389 by web survey. This interim report is based on both surveys. We
used 769 cases after cleaning outliers.
The following are the questions asked. Q11 and Q12 are dependent
variables, and Q13 through Q17s3 are independent variables. Q11 and Q12 areboth about subjective performance evaluations but are different in perspective:
one from an environmental protection perspective (Q11) and the other from amore general wider perspective (Q12). Q11 and Q12 are ordinal valuables in a7）

5-point scale, with 5 being the highest performance and 1 being the lowest.

There are six independent variables. In the following we will introduce themand our hypotheses. Q8 is whether the municipality has some plan or guidelineof conserving natural environment. Be careful of that this plan is not limited toa narrow biodiversity conservation plan, but considered as a general wider7） We might should use logit analysis or path analysis, but actually used multiple regression
analysis, treating ordinal variables as serial ones.
(37)538

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

environmental plan. If the municipality has some natural environmental plan, it
could get more budget for the plan, so it could implement programs more
effectively. Q8 is a dummy variable. Q13 is the measurement or monitoring of
natural environmental conditions. If a municipality measures or monitors
natural environmental conditions regularly, then it will achieve highperformance in program implementation. Q13 is also a dummy variable. Q14
through Q16 are about management methods, scientific management (A) or
adaptive management (B). These are ordinal variables on a 5-point scale; 1 is thenearest to (A) and 5 is the nearest to (B). Q14 is about the flexibility of program
management: (A) is rigid or no longer changes, but (B) is more flexible tosituational change. If the program management is more flexible, the program
performance is supposed to increase. Q15 is about the simplicity of program
purpose, (A) is simpler, indicating only natural environmental conservation, and(B) is more complex and includes other purposes. If the program purpose issimpler, the program performance is supposed to increase. Q16 is about thedecision-making system, top-down or expert oriented (A), or bottom-up,
stakeholder or civic participation (B). Inference is difficult here, because bothare important for biodiversity program performance, expert assessment andcivic participation. We deduce that the decision-making system is unrelated toprogram performance. Q17s3 is about MLG. If the local official knows IPBES,
meaning that (s)he understands the mechanism of biodiversity programs better8）and can implement them better, then the program performance increases. V5 isa control variable and is the population size of each local government.

9）We

assume that if the local government has more residents, it could have morebudget, more expertise and more officials, then it would perform better.
The analytical results are shown in the following Table 5 through Table 7.

10）8） There are 3 answers; 0: I have not heard of IPBES. 1: I have heard of it. 2: I understandthe contents of it.
9） We coded that 1: 1 ≤, 2: 500 ≤, 3: 5,000 ≤, 4: 50,000 ≤, 5: 500,000 ≤. This is based on theway of logarithm, but other coding may be better as we will consider later.
10） We divided all samples to two samples, environmental conservation samples and wild animal damage prevention and alien species management samples. However, the analytical results were almost same. See note 11.
537(38)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

Table 5. Descriptive Statisticsn

Minimum

Maximum

Average

S.D.

Q11

775

1

5

3.6

0.679

Q12

773

1

5

3.59

0.634

Q8

770

0

1

0.61

0.488

Q13

772

0

1

0.36

0.48

Q14

775

1

5

3.48

1.142

Q15

775

1

5

3.4

1.487

Q16

775

1

5

2.84

1.329

Q17s3

769

0

2

0.24

0.517

V5

772

1

5

3.33

0.75

Both two models (Table 6 and Table 7) did not provide strong explanatory power(R2 are almost under 10%). However, as a preliminary set of results, these tables

show interesting findings.
First, Q8, the having some plan or guideline of conserving naturalenvironment is the most important factor for subjective performance evaluation.
If the municipality has some natural environmental plan, it could get morebudget and implement effectively. But we do not have any budget data, so this is
only our hypothesis. We should also treat this variable carefully, because
respondents having some plan or guideline of conserving natural environment inmunicipalities have some biases to want to respond positively to theirimplementation performances. The coefficients for Q11, which evaluates only
environmental conservation, are bigger than for those of Q12, which evaluatesfrom more general wider perspective in both models. Second, Q13, themonitoring of natural environmental conditions is the second important factor
for subjective performance evaluation. Third, regarding management methodsof Q14 to Q16, only bottom-up decision-making is significant to general wide
subjective performance evaluation.

11）

This means that civic participation isrelevant to environmental outcomes in contrary to Newig et al (2009). Fourth,the MLG factor (Q17s3) is not significant even in 10%, but seems more
important in general wide perspective. If a local official knows IPBES, then thesubjective performance would increase. We can suppose that a good MLG needs(39)536

IPBES and Biodiversity PolicyaTable 6. Coefficients（Q11）

R2=.084

B

S.E.

(constant)

3.448

0.155

Q8

0.313

0.052

Q13

0.209

0.05

Q14

－0.0050.021

Q15－0.0220.017－0.048aTable 7. Coefficients（Q12）

Beta

Significance

R2=.045

B

S.E.

Beta

Significance0***(constant)

3.333

0.148

0.225

0***

Q8

0.194

0.05

0.15

0***

0.149

0***

Q13

0.15

0.048

0.114

0.002**－0.0090.793

Q14－0.0130.02－0.023

0.523

0.192

Q15

0.008

0.016

0.019

0.604

0***

Q16

0.016

0.018

0.031

0.391

Q16

0.035

0.018

0.074

0.045*

Q17s3

0.044

0.047

0.034

0.355

Q17s3

0.07

0.045

0.057

0.122

V5

－0.0230.034－0.0250.507

V5－0.0030.033－0.0040.921

a. dependent variable Q11 ***<.001, **<.01, *<.05,‡<.10

a. dependent variable Q12 ***<.001, **<.01,*<.05, ‡<.10

a wider perspective, and that municipalities that have officials who have goodknowledge of IPBES can better implement biodiversity programs. Fifth, thepopulation size of each municipality as a control variable is not related tosubjective performance in contrary to our expectation. We are not sure of thereason. R2 did not so change even if we included this control variable.
As previously mentioned, more sophisticated analysis is needed as well aswork on the theory and verification of effectiveness.

IX.

Conclusion
MLG can be defined as the political coordination system or institution

where the interdependent situation of problems goes beyond each administrative
jurisdiction. If we classify MLG into 3 types: top-down governmental relations(type 1), bottom-up participation (type 2), and top-down mandated participatory

planning (type 3), IPBES and biodiversity policy could be classified as type 3.
However, IPBES does not have any coercion over nation states and11） In previous only web survey analysis, we found that Q14 regarding management flexibility was significant at the 5% level when analysed from a more general wider perspective andwas also significant when analysed environmental conservation samples. Adaptive management was better than scientific management only in this area. However, in all (adding mail)survey, the effect was not founded.
535(40)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

municipalities, unlike the EU that has structural funds. Global biodiversity
assessment in IPBES does not affect the LBSAPs in small municipalities inJapan, although it does affect the NBSAP and LBSAPs in prefectures and big
cities. IPBES is not popular when compared to IPCC; as such, education
programs are now being widely implemented. Our survey analysis shows thatthe significant factors for subjective performance evaluation are having naturalenvironmental plan, monitoring, bottom-up decision-making and awareness of
IPBES. Our paper suggests that Japanʼs national government should make someinstitutions for connecting global IPBES assessments and small local
municipalities LBSAPs.

This article is based on the paper presented to the every two years meeting of ICPP4
held in Montreal, Canada in June 28, 2019. I appreciate Professor Guy Peters andProfessor Naomi Aoki as discussants for useful comments and suggestions. I am also
grateful to Yuki Oda and Masahiro Mogaki for helping our Theme 4(2) research as
project researchers and to Asato Kuroda and Yoichi Ishida for their comments. This
research was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development
Fund (S-15 Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services(PANCES)) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (http://pances.net/eng/). We
would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Questionnaire List (underline is added by author for highlighting)Q11. Do you think that the programs that your municipality is implementing are goingwell from the perspective of natural environmental conservation?
Q12. Do you think that the programs that your municipality is implementing are goingwell from a general perspective, including the relationships to local stakeholders?
Q8. Does your municipality have some plan or guideline of conserving naturalenvironment?
Q13. Does your municipality measure or monitor the natural environment conditions(bio number or living situation etc.) for evaluating the performance of program
implementation?
Q14. If you find that the program performances are different from the primary
expectation as a result of the measurement or monitoring:(41)534

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

A. We keep the primary numerical goals and continue implementing the programs
through the planned period.
B. We consider the review of programs and implementation system in response to
the results of the measurement or monitoring.
Q15. The purpose of the programs is supposed to be:
A. Only natural environmental conservation activities.
B. Various activities including local developments.
Q16. The decision-making of the program implementation or change is based on:
A. The administrative agencies and environmental expertsʼ knowledge.
B. The consultation of local stakeholders or civic people.
Q17s3. Do you know IPBES?
(underline for exaggeration by author)

References
Bache, Ian & Matthew Flinders (2015) “Introduction,” in Multi-level Governance:
Essential Readings Vol.I & II, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, US:
Edward Elgar.
Barletti, Juan Pablo Sarmiento and Anne M. Larson, with Antoine Libert Amico,
Kristen Evans, Natalia Cisneros, Joanna Durbin and Laura Kowler (2018) “Doesthe Monitoring of Local Governance Improve Transparency? Lessons from Three
Approaches in Subnational Jurisdictions,” Infobrief, 234: 1―6, DOI: 10.17528/
cifor/007048, accessed on 23 May 2019.
Baynham-Herd, Zachary, Tatsuya Amano, William J. Sutherland and Paul F. Donald(2018) “Governance Explains Variation in National Responses to the Biodiversity
Crisis,” Environmental Conservation, 45(4): 407―418, https://www.cambridge.
org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2528FDE60EADD3DB9BD5
A713B2EDD4B1/S037689291700056Xa.pdf/governance_explains_variation_in_
national_responses_to_the_biodiversity_crisis.pdf, accessed on 23 May 2019.
Brooks, Thomas M., John F. Lamoreux and Jorge Soberon (2014) “IPBES≠IPCC,”
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(10): 543―545, https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0169534714001785 /, accessed on 15 November 2018.
Carmen, Esther, Allan Watt and Juliette Young (2018) “Arguing for Biodiversity in
Practice: A Case Study form the UK,” Biodiversity Conservation, 27: 1599―1617,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1264-x, accessed on 23 May 2019.
Daniell, K. A. and Kay, A. (2017) Multi-level Governance: Conceptual Challenges
533(42)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

and Case Studies from Australia, Canberra: Australian National University
Press.
Diaz, Sandra et al. (2018) “Assessing Natureʼs Contributions to People: Recognizing
Culture, and Diverse Sources of Knowledge, can Improve Assessments,” Science,359(6373): 270―272. Also Supplementary Material, http://www.wciencemag.org/
content/359/6373/270/suppl/DC1, accessed on 5 March 2019.
Diaz, Sandra et al. (2015) “The IPBES Conceptual Framework - Connecting Natureand People,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14: 1 ―16,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187734351400116X/, accessedon 12 June 2018.
Fairbrass, J. and Jordan, A. (2004) “Multi-level governance and environmental policy,”in I. Bache and M. Flinders eds., Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 147―64.
Frey, B. S. and Eichenberger, R. (1996) “FOCJ: Competitive Governments for Europe,”
International Review of Law and Economics, 16: 315―27.
Hashimoto, Shizuka and Saito Osamu (2014) Rural Planning and Ecosystem
Services, (in Japanese), Tokyo: Noson Tokei Shuppan.
Hunt, J. (1999) “Interdisciplinary Approaches to EU Decision-Making: Law, Politics
and the Multi-Levelled Governance Regime,” Working Paper 4/99 (Centre for the
Study of Law in Europe, University of Leeds).
Imber, Mark F. (2007) « International Organization, » in Mark Bevir ed.,Encyclopedia of Governance, Vol.1, Sage, 478―482.
Inoue, M. and Shivakoti, G. P. (2015) Multi-level Forest Governance in Asia:
Concepts, Challenges and the Way Forward, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ito, Shuichiro (2002) The Dynamics of Policy Process in Local Governments:
Policy Innovation and Diffusion, (in Japanese), Tokyo: Keio University Press.
Knill C. and Tosun, J. (2008) “Emerging Patterns of Multi-level Governance in EU
Environmental Policy,” in T. Conzelmann and R. Smith (eds), Multi-level
Governance in the European Union: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead, Baden
Baden: Nomos, 145―62.
Kohsaka, Ryo (2012) “What is the Convention of Biological Diversity?: Between
Science and Politics,” in Norio Yamamura ed., How Do We Take Advantage of
Biodiversity: Consideration of its Conservation, Use and Distribution, (inJapanese), Tokyo: Showado.
Marsh, D. and Furlong. P. (2002) “Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science” in
D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science (Second(43)532

IPBES and Biodiversity Policy

Edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 32―41.
Newig, Jens and Tomas M. Koontz (2014) “Multi-level Governance, Policy
Implementation and Participation: The EUʼs Mandated Participatory Planning
Approach to Implementing Environmental Policy,” Journal of European Public
Policy, 21(2): 248―67, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13501763.201
3.834070?needAccess=true, accessed on 4 April 2019.
Newig, Jens and Okiver Fritsch (2009) “Environmental Governance: Participatory,
Multi-Level – and Effective?” Environmental Policy and Governance, 19: 197―
214, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.509, accessed on 4 April
2019.
Oda, Yuki and Kosuke Oyama (2019) “The Analysis on the Factors to Set Local
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans: The Validation of Policy Diffusion Modelin Municipalities,” (in Japanese), Kokyo Seisaku Kenkyu (Journal of Public
Policy Studies), 18: 90―102.
Oyama, Kosuke (2017a) “The Concept of Governance in Social-Ecological System
Theory: IPBES, Ostrom, and Public Governance,” (in Japanese), Hogaku Kenkyu(Journal of Law, Politics and Sociology), 90(3): 1―31.
Oyama, Kosuke (2017b) “IPBES: The Multilevel Governance for Conserving
Biodiversity: The Review of Some Previous Studies,” (in Japanese), Nogyou
Keikaku Gakkai-shi (Journal of Rural Planning), 36(1): 38―41, https://www.
jstage.jst.go.jp/article/arp/36/1/36_38/_pdf/-char/ja, accessed on 4 April 2019.
Rabe, B. G. (2007) “Beyond Kyoto: Climate Change Policy in Multilevel Governance
Systems,” Governance, 20(3), 423―44.
Saunier, Richard E. and Richard A. Meganck eds. (2009) Dictionary and Introduction
to Global Environmental Governance, 2nd., (Earthscan).
Stephenson, P. (2013) “Twenty Years of Multi-level Governance: ʻWhere Does It Come
From? What Is It? Where Is It Going?ʼ,” Journal of European Public Policy,
20(6), 817―37.
UN Environment (2019) “Major Groups & Stakeholders,” in UN Environment[online]. United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: https://www.
unenvironment.org/civil-society-engagement/why-civil-society-matters/majorgroups-stakeholders, accessed on 14 May 2019.
Uchiyama, Yuta and Ryo Kohsaka (2019) “Application of the City Biodiversity Index
to Populated Cities in Japan: Influence of the Social and Ecological
Characteristics on Indicator-based Management,” Ecological Indicators, 106,
105420, https://authors.elsevier.com/c/1ZAjE,XRNLcru6, accessed on 6 June
531(44)

法学研究 93 巻 1 号（2020：1）

2019.
Ueta, Kazuhiro (2008) “Multi-level Environmental Governance in Sustainable
Development,” (in Japanese), Shakaigaku Nenpo (Annual Reports of the
Tohoku Sociological Soceity), 37: 31―41, https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/
tss/37/0/37_31/_pdf/-char/ja, accessed on 4 April 2019.
Velten, Sarah, Tamara Shaal, Julia Leventon, Jan Hanspach, Joern Fischer and Jens
Newig (2018) “Rethinking Biodiversity Governance in European AgriculturalLandscapes: Acceptability of Alternative Governance Scenarios,” Land Use
Policy, 77: 84 ―93, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0264837717312942, accessed on 23 May 2019.
Waelti, Sonja (2004) “How Multilevel Structures Affect Environmental Policy inIndustrialized Countries,” Euoropean Journal of Political Research, 43: 599―
634, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00167.x,
accessed on 4 April 2019.
Yamamoto, Yuji, Mamoru Taniguchi and Ryoji Matsunaka (2007) “The Issues andActual Condition of Policies Concerning Conservation of Biodiversity: Intended
for Prefectural Governments,” (in Japanese), Kankyou Sisutemu Kenkyu
Ronbunshu (Environmental Systems Research), 35: 73―80.

(45)530