EFFECTIVENESS OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTALINSTITUTIONS:How Can We Build Effective Regional Environmental
Institutions? 1

LEE, Alice Park
Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies,
Waseda University
Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

This paper aims to explain the variables that can affect improved resolution ofenvironmental problems by regional environmental institutions. Young’s (1994, 1999) studies ofenvironmental institutions suggest that both exogenous and endogenous variables affect institutional
goal attainment, which implies that variables related to both inside and outside of institutional issues
should be taken into consideration when evaluating effectiveness of environmental institutions. The
authors of Environmental Regime Effectiveness (2002) demonstrate that problem malignancy andproblem-solving capacity are independent variables that should be used to rate the effectiveness ofinstitutions. Likewise, scholars who support pragmatic studies on the topic have been making
discussion about studying environmental institutions from Capacity Development perspective.
Capacity Development studies evaluate the ability of individuals, institutions, and societies to solve
problems by conducting Actor-Function Relationship Analysis (Kanie and Haas, 2004) andActor-Factor Analysis (Matsuoka, 2007). Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), which provides
a composite profile on 21 indicators derived from 76 underlining data set, shows the capacity ofnations for environmental sustainability. On the other hand, the mainstream theory of institutions
study is New Institutionalism Theory. New Institutionalism studies agree that the central actors ininternational decisions are states; however, they emphasize that these states have a collective interest
that can be facilitated into collective actions by cooperation with international institutions. In thisstudy, the effectiveness of Asian regional environmental institutions will be evaluated by using bothcollective interest and collective actions analysis and ESI analysis. The study will tell us why it isimportant to learn the topic from both approaches, and conclude with a strategic proposal forbuilding an effective Asian regional environmental integration model.

1This paper is for presentation at Summer Institute 2009, Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI),
Waseda University, Japan, Tokyo, August 3rd – 8th, 2009

Introduction
Background
States operate far less autonomously than ever before, and environmental issues impinge on thecommon interests of separate states in special ways. To survive environmental crises together, statesneed to abide by rules and norms that are common to all. It became popular to consider the earth as
public goods. There are now international cooperation and networks efforts in place to address
climate change, whaling, fisheries, marine pollution, river and lake management, endangered species,
deforestation, and many other issues. Going back to history, the activities of international
environmental institutions began in the 1970s, with the amount of attention given to them having
increased rapidly over the past three decades (Figure 1) 2. Number of ratifications grows steadily, andmore than 60 per cent of the potential ratifications have been made in 13 multilateral environmental
agreements, according to GEO Data Portal (Table 1). There are more than 500 global, regional orbilateral environmental treaties that together demonstrate international commitment toenvironmental protection (UNEP, 2004). 3

Figure 1. Number of parties to multilateral environmental agreements, 1971–2004

Source: GEO Data Portal (2004), compiled from MEA Secretariats

2 Global Environment Outlook Year Book 2004/5, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2004/117.htm
3 www.unep.org/.../International_environmental_governance_p30-35.pdf

Table 1. Number of parties to multilateral environmental agreements, by GEO region 4
CBD CMS
Africa(53)

CI Heri- Kyo
TES tage

O Ram

to zonesar

PIC POPs

UN

UN

UN

Ba

CCD CLOS FCCC sel

Total

Potential

%

52

29

51

45

26

51

40

22

23

53

38

52

39

521

689

76

45

9

30

40

33

43

24

16

18

44

33

44

33

410

585

70

46

36

44

48

36

46

46

22

23

46

46

47

46

522

637

82

32

8

32

31

27

33

25

9

13

33

27

33

30

333

442

75

1

0

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

18

26

69

10

3

7

11

2

10

4

5

3

10

9

10

10

94

156

60

186

85 166177 125

185

141

72

81 189144

188 159 1898

2535

75

Asia +
Pacfic(45)
Europe(49)
LAC (34)
North
America(2)West Asia(12)
Global(195)

Source: GEO Data Portal (2004), compiled from MEA Secretariats
There is evidence of global and regional level of environmental changes such as, increases in
global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, rising global
average sea level: die prematurely every year due to outdoor and indoor air pollution; ‘hole’ in thestratospheric ozone layer over the Antarctic; the per capita availability of freshwater is declining, andso on. 5 In order to decrease the additional cost of operating the society and to allow the consistence
and effectiveness of solving the environmental problems when it goes serious, institutions areformed. There are many issues which threaten the regional and global level of environment. Asia isfacing very serious environmental problems among other regions of the world, and people’s efforts
to build environmental institutions are actively discussed.
Likewise, growing interest in both globalization and the environment has stimulated efforts tocreate international environmental institutions in multilevel contexts. However, the worldcommunity lacks effective institutional and legal mechanisms to address global-scale environmental
degradation. 6 Multi-disciplinary characteristics of environmental institutional studies became more
obvious than ever. It is necessary to have comprehensive studies that can explain effectiveness ofinstitutions from both globalization aspect and environment aspect at the same time.
The objective of this research is to ascertain potential way to improve effectiveness of Asian
regional environmental institutions. For that reason, this research has focus on both exogenous andendogenous variables of effectiveness, so that this develop into study that solve the crisis of national
commitment and interest versus environmental issue problem. The author would like to answer thefollowing question at the end of this study: Which variables affect improved resolution of environmental problems by Asian regional
environmental institutions?
Cases on Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET) and Convention on
4

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity; CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora; POPs: persistent organic pollutants
5
UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook Year Book (2007) reported evidence of unprecedented environmental change
at global and regional level.
6
Daniel C. Esty and Maria H. Ivanova eds. , 2002, Global Environmental governance: Options&Opportunities, Yale
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
http://www.yale.edu/environment/publications

Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) will be studied for pragmatic explanation on this
topic.
Conceptual Framework
Institutions
Table 2 Definition of Institutions, Regimes, and Organizations 7
Definition (Institutions > Regimes > Organizations)
Institutions“Sets of rules or codes of conduct that serve to define international
practices assign roles and guide the interactions to the participants.”
Regimes“social institutions governing the actions of those involved in
specifiable activities or sets of activities”
Organizations “material entities possessing offices, personnel, budgets, equipment,
and more often than not, legal personality”
Source: Adapted from Young (1989, 1994)
According to Young’s definition on institutions, regimes, and organizations, institutions are thewide concept that covers both regimes and organizations. Institutions include a concept of rules orcodes of conduct and also a concept of regimes. (Table 2) Institutions can consist of both formal
entities like laws, constitutions, written contracts, market exchanges and organizational by-laws andinformal ones like shared values, norms, customs, ethics, and ideology. 8 They have actors who
operate within the institutions, and also players outside who interact with the institutions. 9 States,
business sectors, civil societies, and organizations sometimes participate within the institutions to set
rules, to make agreements, or to sign conventions, while some at other times interact withinstitutions by cooperating (in partnerships), by influencing, or sometimes by ignoring or
opposing. 10(Table 3)
Table 3 Institutions - Actors Relations
Institutions
State Aset rules,
State B
make
State Cagreements,
Businessto sign
Sectors
conventions
Civil Society
Organization A
Organization B

Interact with Institutions
State D
cooperating
State E(in partnerships),
TNCs
influencing,
INGOs
ignoring
Organizations
opposing

Source: Modified from Robert O. Keohane (1998)
Effectiveness
Although regime effectiveness is still an ambiguous concept, it refers mainly to the intended andissue-specific outcomes of the regime.
Institutional effectiveness occurs when the quality of the environment is improved because of an7

1994, Young
1989, Young
8
Justin Yifu Lin and Jeffrey B. Nugent (1995) “Institutions and economic development” P 2307
9International Institutions: Two Approaches Robert O. Keohane International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4(Dec., 1988), pp. 379-396 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association
10
Ibid.
7

institution’s activities. Although regime effectiveness is still an ambiguous concept, it refers mainly
to the intended and issue-specific outcomes of the regime. Institutions affect the behavior of those
whose behavior is regulated, but they may also affect the distribution of capacities, the cognition ofdifferent factors, and even the values and interests of participants and nonparticipants. Moreover,different types of targets can be affected: institutions may influence governments, social groups,
individuals, and even whole issue areas. Environmental Regime Effectiveness determines how far
the model can help us account for the variance actually observed in regime performance. 11 The
model is about effectiveness and problem malignancy, and problem-solving capacity.
Effectiveness can be recognized by the results that institutions deliver. Variables can be
identified by tracing backwards from results, so careful evaluation is very important for establishingthe variables that have an impact on the effectiveness of institutions. The above definition ofeffectiveness suggests that the purpose of international environmental institutions is to solve
problems that include those involving the behavior of actors. Institutions may be said to havecontributed to solving problems when the goals they set have been achieved, when the actors in theprocess have changed any behavior contributing to the problem, or when the resources and ideas
initially contributed could be seen, in the end, to have contributed to the solution of anenvironmental problem.
Table 4 Definition of and Variables Affecting Effectiveness
Name or Paper
Definition of
Variables andEffectiveness
Dimensions
Young
The Effectiveness of A matter of the
Exogenous andInternational
contributions that
endogenous
Regimesinstitutions make tovariables on goal
solve the problems that attainment
motivate actors toinvest the time andenergy needed tocreate thoseinstitutions
Haas,
Institutions for the
What kind ofThree Cs: concern,
Keohane,Earthcontribution
contract, capacity
Levy
international
institutions make toimprovement of theenvironment
Miles,
Environmental
How far the model can Problem malignancy
Underdal, Regime
help to account forand problem-solving
Andresen, Effectivenessvariance incapacity
Wettestad,performance
Skjaerseth,CarlinSource: Adapted from Young (1999), Haas, Keohane, Levy (2001),
Miles, Underda, Andresen, Wettestad, Skjaerseth, Carlin (2002)
Author

Literature Review
International environmental cooperation has become an issue from 1970s, since the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment (also known as Stockholm Conference) was held in
1972. Most international environmental institutions are relatively recent in origin, and academic
research was lagging even further behind. However, the study on international environmental
governance has undergone remarkable growth recent years in their scope and depth.
11

2002, Miles, Underdal, Andresen, Wettestad, Skjaerseth and Carlin, 2002

Wiess and Jacobson (2000) compared three concepts of implementation, compliance, andeffectiveness of international environmental institutions in Engaging Countries: Strengthening
Compliance with International Environmental Accords. He focused which factors make states tocompliant in order to find an answer to strengthen international environmental treaties. Kanie andHass’s (2004) analyzed current environmental governance according to their “actor-function
relationship” analysis in Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance. They suggested
institutions’ reform in a way to enhance partnership between actors effectively. Oberthur andGehring (2006) in Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance, shed light thecausal relationship of institutions and the results from interaction between them.
The studies show that “effectiveness” of institutions is the driving force of international
environmental governance studies. Wiess and Jacobson think partnerships within institutions canmake institutions effective, and Kanie and Hass even though studied “compliance” of nations ininternational environmental institutions, the concept is much overlapping with effectiveness study.
Oberthur and Gehring said their study expands the study of the effectiveness of environmental
institutions to the investigation of institutional interaction. Scholars such as Young (1996, 1999),
Haas, Keohane, Levy (2001), Miles, Underdal, Andersen, Wettestad, Skjaerseth, and Carlin (2002)
have done researches on “effectiveness” by using single or multi case studies.
Variables
Dependent Variable
A clear definition of effectiveness of institutions as a dependent variable has not given yet.
Young (1999) wrote “a regime that channels behavior in such a way as to eliminate or substantiallyameliorate the problem that led to its creation is effective” in The Effectiveness of International
Environmental Regimes. He identified six distinct dimensions of effectiveness that covers broad
scope of studies. They are: effectiveness as problem-solving; effectiveness as goal attainment;
behavioral effectiveness; process effectiveness; constitutive effectiveness; and evaluative
effectiveness. Haas (2001) defined the effectiveness of environmental institutions is about what kindof contribution that international institutions make to improve the environment. Miles wrote about
the contribution that institutions target for, which is behavioral changes and technical optimum.
These definitions of effectiveness are not useful to be an analytical tool for further research, andconceptual groundwork is needed to clarify what precisely the dependent variable is. (Miles, 2002)
To get clear dependent variable of the research, evaluation study approach seems to be used.
Independent Variables
Young (1996) in Global Environmental Change and International Governance usedendogenous and exogenous variables. Endogenous variables are limited to properties of theenvironmental regimes themselves, such as objectives of the institutions. On the other hand,exogenous variables range across the full spectrum of driving social forces, such as power factor,
interest factors, and knowledge factors. Young (1999) focused on causal relationship of endogenousand exogenous factors that lead to success or failure of institutions in The Effectiveness ofInternational Environment Regimes.
OILPOL was established in 1954 in order to prevent intentional discharges of oil by tankers
cleaning their cargo tanks or using empty tanks to hold sea water. It restructured to MARPOL in aneffort led by the United States. Though there was some delaying to put into action because of otherinstitutions such as International Marine Organizations, the oil pollution control has been effective
because MARPOL restructured the tanker fleet so that it is far less likely to discharge oil
intentionally. It is considered that the regime was most effective by targeting the actions of non-state
actors. Because oil pollution involves private international trade, the opportunities for inducing
behavioral change were greater than they are in other issue areas that concerns with government
directly.
Throughout the case study, he knew in causal mechanism, regimes can alter the alternative

available to actors (endogenous), and regime often influence behavior through a complex of causal
mechanisms rather than a single one (exogenous).
Haas, Keohane, and Levy (2000) analyzed cases by using 3Cs: concern, contract, andcapacity. International environmental regimes increase governmental concern through normative
pronouncements, they enhance the contractual environment by reducing transaction costs andproviding monitoring and verification mechanisms, and they heighten national capacity throughtechnical assistance and aid. They observed 3Cs in each period of agenda setting, international
policy formulation, and national policy development.
In the case of protecting ozone layer, institutions built multi level contract in order to lessen
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Vienna Convention did not come out earlier because severaldelegations continued to push for their preferred form of controls. The Montreal Protocol that camenext to Vienna widely praised as a model for future environmental agreements. In 1970s and 80s
when the concern to environment raise highly, the Protocol was provided strong leadership byUnited States. It was bargaining that countries to adopt Montreal Protocol. There are found that theconvention boosted concern, building capacity, and facilitating agreements.
Miles (2004) sees regime effectiveness as a function of two main set of independent
variables – the malignancy of the problem and problem solving capacity.
Previous studies were focusing on answering “why some institutions are effective while others
are not.” Empirical evidence and theoretical consideration has been analyzed in many actors, such as
non-state, private governance, and multilevel governance, etc. Young (1999), Haas (2000), and Miles(2004) could explain the independent variables with comprehensive case studies. They explained
effectiveness of institutions with endogenous factors and exogenous factors; concern and capacity;
problem malignancy and problem solving capacity.

Theoretical Framework
In literature review, both Haas and Miles used the term ‘capacity.’ In Haas’s work, he focusedon domestic perspective of capacity that can be increased by technical assistant and aid. Miles
understanding on effectiveness considers institutions’ capacity to solve problems and implement
regulations to each country. Young’s explanation about endogenous and exogenous variables also
takes consideration of capacity. Endogenous variables concern how the institutions can influence
within the institutions, such as legal, social, economical, and political behavior changes ofmembership countries. Exogenous variables are about how institutions deal with issues that outsideof institutions as collective actions. Both concepts concerns capacity as each nation state and as
institutions.
Capacity Development is the process by which individuals groups, organizations, institutions
and societies increase their abilities: to perform functions solve problems and achieve objectives; tounderstand and deal with their development need in a broader context and in a sustainable.
Capacity is the ability of social actors to monitor, analyze and evaluate taking problems into
consideration, and implement sustainable policy. 12 State’s capacity is an important factor to let themabide by rules and norms that are common to all. UNDP in 1997 noted capacity development “Theprocess by which individuals groups, organizations, institutions and societies increase their abilities:
to perform functions solve problems and achieve objectives; to understand and deal with theirdevelopment need in a broader context and in a sustainable.” 13 If participants of international
environmental institutions develop their capacity, then the institutions will have better effectiveness,because those participants can better accomplish the task which given to them. Capacity
development is focused on each actor’s ability for issue solution, that does not address much ofinterconnection between actors or other nonissue related factors likewise that we studied in New
Institutionalism study.
Capacity is important to strengthen enforcement for implementation of convention andagreement. There are two different types of capacity in international environmental institutions; one
12132006, Matsuoka and Komatsu
UNDP. (1997). Capacity Development . New York: Management Development and Governance Division, UNDP.

is capacity as institutions in collective group and the other is capacity as member countries
independently. In this paper, two concepts of Collective Action and Collective Interest Theory andEnvironmental Sustainability Index are used in order to explain the two perspectives.
Collective Action and Collective Interest
Collective action is concerned with the provision of public goods through the collaboration of
two or more individuals, and the impact of externalities on group behavior.
Collective interest is expected value of participation that is bigger than expected value of notparticipating.
Lin in 1995 defined Institutions as a set of humanly devised behavioral rules that govern andshape the interactions of human beings, in part by helping them to form expectations of what otherpeople will do. 14 Institutions also defined as sets of international regulations and organizations thatwere intentionally established by preexisting actors (states) through explicit, legally or politicallybinding, international agreements in order to regulate anthropogenic sources of negative
externalities affecting the natural environment. 15
Both definitions address the objective of institutions to regulate human behavior. In
international institutions, group that has characteristics of common value and advantage counted as
an each actors. Groups of individuals with common interests are expected to act on behalf of theircommon interests much as single individuals are often expected to act on behalf of their personal
interests. 16 This called collective action. Collective action is concerned with the provision of public
goods through the collaboration of two or more individuals, and the impact of externalities on group
behavior. It is more commonly referred to as Public Choice. 17
International politics contains much of problems about collective action. The state often facedomestic problem by groups of people to identify with the common good, but the problem also
caused in international relations where each state reserves the right and the force. The Collective
Interest model posits that people will participate in a collective endeavor when the expected value ofparticipation is greater than the expected value of not participation is greater than the expected valueof not participating. 18 People judge the expected value by assessing the total value of the public
good, the probability their participation will affect collective outcomes, and the selective benefits
and costs of participation. 19
Olson (1982) and R. Hardin (1982) argued that collective action is likely to be more feasible inthe circumstances like: 20
1. the smaller the group,
2. the more homogeneous the origin of the group,
3. the longer the members of the group have been associated with one another or the group
14

Lin, Junstin YiFu and Nugent, Jefferey B. 1995, Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 3, Edited by J.
Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan Elsevier Science B.V., 1995, p2037
It refers formal institutions such as laws, constitutions, written contracts, market exchanges, and organizational
by-laws; informal ones like shared values, norms, customs, ethics, and ideology.
15
Bernauer, Thomas. 1995. “The effect of international environmental institutions: how we might learn more,”in International Organization 49, 2, Spring 1995, pp.354
16
the logic of collective action, Mancur Olson p.1
17
Ibid.
18
Lubell, Mark, Collective Action, Environmental Activism, and Air Quality Policy, Political Research Quarterly,Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 2006): pp. 149-160
19
Ibid.
20
Olson, Jr., M (1982) The rise and decline of nations: The political economy of economic growth, stagflation andsocial rigidities, Yale University Press, Hardin R. (1982) Collective action, Resources for the futurea) It can be measured by membership size, b) by commonality of place or class of birth of group members, c) by thelength of time the group has been in existence, d)by geographic or sectored concentration, e) by differences in statedobjectives among group members, and g_ by inequality in the distribution of wealth among group members.

has been in existence,
4. the closer the social and physical proximity among group members,
5. the more differentiated (in a complementary way) the goals of different members (orsubgroups) of the group,
6. the greater the sensitivity of the group to a threatened loss arising from inaction,
7. the more unequal the distribution of wealth or power among group members.
The corporate identity of the state generates four basic interests or appetites: 21
1. Physical security, including its differentiation from other actors
2. Ontological security or predictability in relationships to the world, which creates a desire
for stable social identities
3. Recognition as an actor by others, above and beyond survival through brute force
4. Development, in the sense of meeting the human aspiration for a better life, for whichstates are repositories at the collective level.

Environmental Sustainability Index 22
Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) is completed by Center for environmental Law and
Policy in Yale University, Center for International Earth Science Information Network in Columbia
University, in collaboration with World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Joint Research Center ofEuropean Commission in Italy. ESI provides a composite profile of national environmental
stewardship. They reviewed based on a compilation of 21 indicators that derive from 76 underlying
data sets. ESI can explain capacity development. It measures the ability or capacity of nations toprotect the environment. The capacity of each country can be observed by underlying indicators andvariables of ESI. The 21indicators are categorized to 5 groups:• Environmental Systems• Reducing Environmental Stresses• Reducing Human Vulnerability to Environmental Stresses• Societal and Institutional Capacity to Respond to Environmental Challenges• Global Stewardship
Table 6 and Table 7 explained in detailed about 21 indicators and 76 data sets.
Table 6
2005 Environmental Sustainability Index Building Blocks – Components
Component
logic
Environmental Systems
A country is more likely to be environmentally
sustainable to the extent that its vitalenvironmental systems are maintained at healthy
levels, and to the extent to which levels are
improving rather than deteriorating.
Reducing Environmental Stresses
A country is more likely to be environmentally
sustainable if the levels of anthropogenic stressare low enough to engender no demonstrable
harm to its environmental systems.
Reducing Human Vulnerability
A country is more likely to be environmentally
sustainable to the extent that people and social
systems are not vulnerable to environmental
disturbances that affect basic human wellbeing;
becoming less vulnerable is a sign that a society
21Collective Identity Formation and the International State, Alexander Wendt, 1994, The American Political Science
Review, Vol. 88, No.2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 384-396
22
2005 Environmental Sustainability Index, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, Center
for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University. In collaboration with: World Economic
Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy.

Social and Institutional Capacity

Global Stewardshipis on a track to greater sustainability.
A country is more likely to be environmentally
sustainable to the extent that it has in place
institutions and underlying social patterns ofskills, attitudes, and networks that foster
effective responses to environmental challenges.
A country is more likely to be environmentally
sustainable if it cooperates with other countries
to manage common environmental problems,and if it reduces.
negative transboundary environmental impacts
on other countries to levels thatcause no serious harm.
Source: 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index

The higher a country’s ESI score, the better positioned it is to maintain favorable environmental
conditions into the future. 23 Finland, Norway, Uruguay, Sweden, and Iceland are the top five ESI
ranking countries. On the other hand, North Korea, Iraq, Taiwan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
are the lowest ranking countries are. These countries face numerous issues, both natural andmanmade, and have not managed their policy choices well. 24

23
24

2005 Environmental Sustainability Index
Ibid.

Table 7 (Continue) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index - Indicators and Variables

Source: 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index

Table 7 is the ESI index that show the ESI scores, OECD, non OECD and ESI rank by nations
in alphabetical order.
Table 82005 Environmental Sustainability Index – Scores and Rankings

Source: 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index

Case Study
Environment is the issue that has a strong linkage among neighbors (close and far), so that it isimportant to have a multi-level approaches. Many international environmental institutions show
improvement and some of regional institution even influence to policy implementation. However,most of Asian regional environmental institutions are not functioning significantly according toreports published. In order to discover the variables that can affect improved resolution ofenvironmental problems by Asian regional environmental institutions, two cases will be examined inthis chapter. One is the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET) and the other isthe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP). Each of the case is basedon Asia and Europe. This is not to compare Asian case and European case, rather, it is to compare an
ineffective case with effective case on almost the same topics of environment.
Overview of EANET and LRTAPEANET 25
EANET is a regional cooperative mechanism that aims to promote efforts to prevent
atmospheric pollution, and thus to contribute to the protection of the ecosystem and human health. It

was established in 1998 under the initiative of the Japanese government, which held
serious concerns on the effects of acid rain deposition from trans-boundary air
pollutants. 26 In Europe, it was successfully achieved through the activities under the Convention

on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. 27 EANET was modeled after LRTAP. There are 13
countries joining EANET: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lao P.D.R., Malaysia, Mongolia,
Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russia, Thailand, Viet Nam.
There are three objectives that has been stated by EANET. 1) To create a common understandingof the state of the acid deposition problems in East Asia. 2) To provide useful inputs for decision
making at local, national and regional levels aimed at preventing or reducing adverse impacts on theenvironment caused by acid deposition. 3) To contribute to cooperation on the issues related to aciddeposition among the participating countries. 28
The World Bank estimated in 1995 that by 2020, if present energy and environment policies
remain unchanged, sulfur dioxide emissions in the region will almost triple the 1990 level. Thus,
adverse impacts of acid deposition in East Asia will become a critical problem in the near future.
Scientist see that a comprehensive approach was most appropriate for assessing the impacts becauseof the multiple factors involved, including deposition acidity, chemical components and soil
sensitivity. The first session of the Intergovernmental Meeting was in 1998 at Yokohama, Japan. The
same year, April, at the second session of the Intergovernmental Meeting, ten countries participatedin the preparatory phase activities: China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines,
Republic of Korea, Russia, Thailand and Viet Nam. The Environmental Agency of Japan functioned
as the interim secretariat for the Network, the Acid Deposition and Oxidant Research Centre ofJapan was designated as the interim network center, and an interim scientific advisory group wasestablished to advice on the scientific aspects of the preparatory phase activities.
During this period, the technical manuals and guidelines for monitoring of wet deposition, soil
and vegetation and inland aquatic environment were developed and adopted at the Second Interim
Scientific Advisory Group Meeting of EANET in March 2000.
The IG2 held in October 2000 in Niigata, Japan concluded that the preparatory activities of
EANET had been successful and decided to start EANET activities on a regular basis from January
25

This introduction is mainly the summery of information in EANET homepage
http://www.eanet.cc/eanet.html (2009-7-19)26
http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/2253/attach/nea_report_final.pdf
27
http://www.eanet.cc/eanet/outline.html
28
http://www.eanet.cc/eanet/backg.html

2001 based on the Joint Announcement on the Implementation of EANET and the Tentative Designof EANET.
Under the Regular Phase Activities, the ten countries agreed to establish an institutionalframework comprising of the Intergovernmental Meeting, the Scientific Advisory Committee, theSecretariat and Network Center to support the network and promote its activities in close
communication, coordination and collaboration with the participating countries.
Cambodia and Lao PDR joined in 2001 and 2002 respectively and Myanmar joined in 2005. The
member countries are: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia,
Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russia, Thailand and Viet Nam.
The major activity and achievement that EANET achieved since 1998 is: acid deposition
monitoring; compilation, evaluation, storage and provision of data :promotion of quality assurance
and quality control (QA/QC) activities: implementation of technical support and capacity building
activities :promotion of research and studies related to acid deposition problems: promotion of
public awareness activities
LRTAP 29
LRTAP started from scientists and ministerial level concerns on sulphur emissionin continental Europe and the acidification of Scandinavia lakes. After United Nations
Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm ends, they implied that cooperation
at the international level was necessary to solve problems such as acidification.
Ministerial level of discussion on the issue in 1979 resulted the signature of theConvention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution by 34 governments andEuropean Community. This convention entered into force in 1983 and can legally bindparticipants. 30 The Convention has been extended by eight protocols that identify
specific measures to be taken by Parties to cut their emissions of air pollutants. The
Convention, which now has 51 Parties identifies the Executive Secretary of UNECE as
its secretariat.
Table 9Protocols to the Convention

The 1999 Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone; 25
Parties. Entered into force on 17 May 2005. (Guidance documents to Protocol adopted bydecision 1999/1, Revised guidance document on ammonia).

29
30



The 1998 Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); 29 Parties. Entered into force
on 23 October 2003.



The 1998 Protocol on Heavy Metals; 29 Parties. Entered into force on 29 December 2003.



The 1994 Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions; 28 Parties. Entered into
force 5 August 1998.



The 1991 Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds ortheir Transboundary Fluxes; 23 Parties. Entered into force 29 September 1997.



The 1988 Protocol concerning the Control of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary
Fluxes; 32 Parties. Entered into force 14 February 1991.



The 1985 Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or their Transboundary Fluxes
by at least 30 per cent; 23 Parties. Entered into force 2 September 1987.

This introduction is mainly the summery of information in UNECE homepage.
http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/lrtap_h1.htm



The 1984 Protocol on Long-term Financing of the Cooperative Programme for Monitoringand Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP); 42
Parties. Entered into force 28 January 1988.
Source: UNECE homepage

LRTAP’s objectives are: 1) Implementation and further development of the cooperative
program 2) Research and Monitoring 3) Information exchange. 31 The convention on LRTAP is oneof the main international efforts to combat acidification and other damages to ecosystems, buildings,
and human health in Europe and North America. Since 1979, eight protocols on different pollutants
and procedural matters of the convention have been signed under the auspices on the UNECE. The
convention has set up a multi-layer organization to include scientific assessments on the numerous
technical and scientific questions of air-pollution.
One of the main success factors for the LRTAP convention and its assessments certainly was thecontinuity of a large percentage of its personnel especially in the first decade of its existence. In
comparison to the others, the heterogeneity of participants in the LRTAP process was significantly
lower as there were no developing countries participating. LRTAP assessments only deal with
Northern industrialized countries. The three main subsidiary bodies - the Working Group on Effects,
the Steering Body to EMEP and the Working Group on Strategies and Review - as well as theConvention's Implementation Committee, report to the Executive Body each year. 32
Table 10The Convention in 1991
The 1991 Geneva Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes
In November 1991, the Protocol to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on theControl of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs, i.e. hydrocarbons) or Their Transboundary
Fluxes, the second major air pollutant responsible for the formation of ground level ozone, was adopted. It hasentered into force on 29 September 1997.
This Protocol specifies three options for emission reduction targets that have to be chosen upon signature orupon ratification:(i) 30% reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 1999 using a year between 1984
and 1990 as a basis. (This option has been chosen by Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom with 1988 as base year, by Denmark with
1985, by Liechtenstein, Switzerland and the United States with 1984, and by Czech Republic, Italy,
Luxembourg, Monaco and Slovakia with 1990 as base year);(ii) The same reduction as for (i) within a Tropospheric Ozone Management Area (TOMA) specified in annex
I to the Protocol and ensuring that by 1999 total national emissions do not exceed 1988 levels. (Annex I
specifies TOMAs in Norway (base year 1989) and Canada (base year 1988));(iii) Finally, where emissions in 1988 did not exceed certain specified levels, Parties may opt for astabilization at that level of emission by 1999. (This has been chosen by Bulgaria, Greece, and Hungary).

Source: UNECE homepage
Table 11

The Convention in 1988

The 1988 Sofia Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary
FluxesIn 1988 the Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary Fluxes
was adopted in Sofia (Bulgaria). This Protocol requires as a first step, to freeze emissions of nitrogen oxides ortheir transboundary fluxes. The general reference year is 1987 (with the exception of the United States thatchose to relate its emission target to 1978).
Taking the sum of emissions of Parties to the NOx Protocol in 1994, or a previous year, where no recent data are
available, also a reduction of 9% compared to 1987 can be noted. Nineteen of the 25 Parties to the 1988 NOx
Protocol have reached the target and stabilized emissions at 1987 (or in the case of the United States 1978)3132

http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/full%20text/1979.CLRTAP.e.pdf
http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/

levels or reduced emissions below that level according to the latest emission data reported.
The second step to the NOx Protocol requires the application of an effects-based approach. Applying themulti-pollutant, multi-effect critical load approach, a new instrument being prepared at present should provide
for further reduction of emissions of nitrogen compounds, including ammonia, and volatile organic compounds,in view of their contribution to photochemical pollution, acidification and eutrophication, and their effects onhuman health, the environment and materials, by addressing all significant emission sources.
The collection of scientific and technical information as a basis for a further reduction in nitrogen oxides andammonia, considering their acidifying as well as nitrifying effects, is under way.

Source: UNECE homepage
EANET and LRTAP
Table 12Started Year
Participant

Motivation

Activities

Objective

Achieveme
nts

33
34

Comparison of EANET and LRTAP
EANET
LRTAP
1993
1979
13 Countries: China, Indonesia,
51 parties 33
Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia,
Philippines, R. of Korea, Russia,
Thailand, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lao
PDR, Myanmar
Established as a regional cooperative In 1960s, scientists demonstrated theinitiative to promote efforts forinterrelationship between sulphur emissions
environmental sustainability andin continental Europe and the acidification ofprotection of human health in the
Scandinavian lakes.
East Asian region.
Monitoring : Wet deposition 46, dry
General commitments on politicies anddeposition 37, inland aquatic 13, soil strategies to combat the discharge ofand vegetation 19
pollutants
Dissemination of Information
Exchange of relevant information
Cooperation on investigation andReview of policies
Research
Collaboration on developing
Scientific activities
emission inventory and numericalmodeling
Assessment of Environmental Data
Technical measures
Public awareness and general
Co-operation in research
information
Create common understanding of the Implementation and furtheracid deposition problems
development of the cooperative
program
Provide useful inputs for
Research and Monitoring
decision-making
Contribute to cooperation among
Information exchange
countries
Network development
8 conventions 34
Development of a high quality
datasetEnhancement of technical capacity inparticipating countries
Raising public awareness

Appendix 1
Refer to table 8 and appendix

Enhancing knowledge andunderstanding through research
Promotion of cooperation between
countries and with otherregional/international programs
Source: Adapted from UNECE and EANET homepages
Case Analysis
Variables

Collective Actions and Collective Interest Variables
Comparing EANET and LRTAP in collective action and collective interest, LRTAP show strong
collective actions, by requiring countries to sign or ratify to conventions that has judicial impact. In
case of EANET, simple network setting is not linkage to institutions’ heavy impact other than
voluntary cooperation of monitoring. The motivations for both of institutions are about concerning
acidification issue. However, the different show that when LRTAP was form to solve an emergent
problem of Scandinavia lake, while EANET without having an emergent accident that Japanproposed to build network for preventing and monitoring acidification.
Table 13
EANET

LRTAP

Collective Actions and the Motivations
Collective Actions
Motivations
Join the network
Concerning on the effects of acid rain,
and realize the necessity to cooperate in
the issue
Sign or ratify toProtecting Scandinavia lakes acidification
conventions
issues

According to the discussion on Collective Action and Collective Interest in previous pages, theanalytical comparison of the two environmental institutions is possible based on criteria set byprevious studies about collective action and collective interest.
Table 14Comparison between EANET and LRTAP
Collective Action’s Feasibility (Olson, 1982; Hardin, 1982)
Criteria
EANET
LRTAP
the smaller the group
13 countries (however
51 parties (only deal with Northern
geographically wider)industrialized countries)
the more homogeneous Diversified economic background Similar economic backgroundthe origin of the group
Main environment problem is Sharecommonenvironmental
different with East and South-East problem
Asia
the longer the members Not yet
European Communityof the group have been
associated with one
another or the grouphas been in existence
the closer the social and Culture and political system is Some differences in culture andphysical
proximity various according to countries.
political systems, but mainly haveamong group members
more proximity relatively.
the more differentiated Have no commitment
Highly committed core group of(in a complementarynegotiators and scientistway) the goals of

different members (orsubgroups) of the groupthegreaterthe Mainly dealing with monitoring
Have responsibility to perform based
sensitivity of the groupon the convention that theto a threatened loss
participants signed or ratified.
arising from inaction,
the more unequal the
distribution of wealthor power among groupmembers.
Collective Interests or Appetites (Wendt, 1994)
Criteria
EANET
LRTAP
Development, in the
Since most of the participants are The first motivation of establishment
sense of meeting thedeveloping countries,
was to solve specific problems inenvironmental protection is not
human aspiration for a
Scandinavia lakes acidification
always the choice between
better life, for whichissues, they show very clear interestin meeting the human aspiration forstates are repositories at development and environment.
the collective level.
a better life.
Among the 4 basic interests or appetites (1994,Wendt) this paper already discusses in previous
pages, neither EANET nor LRTAP shows significant interests in physical or ontological security.
‘Meeting the human aspiration for a better life’ shows the nearest meaning with the motivations ofestablishing the two institutions.
Source: Olson (1982), Hardin (1982), Wendt (1994),
and modified from UNECE and EANET homepages
Environmental Sustainability
Environmental Sustainability Index shows the capacity of each participant to build
environmental sustainability. By studying ESI of EANET and LRTAP, this study will shed light therelations of participants’ capacity and the institutions’ effectiveness. (Table 15) Among EANET
participants, Japan marks the highest EIS with 57.3 and China marks the lowest with 38.6. Finlandachieved 75.1 as the world highest record in LRTAP while Belgium 44.4 marked the lowest. In abrief scope, LRTAP participants generally have higher ESI score than participants of EANET. (figure
6)
Table 15
EANET
Cambodia
China

ESI
50.1
38.6

Indonesia
Japan

48.8
57.3

Austria

Laos
Malaysia
Mongolia

52.4
54.0
50.0

Belarus

Myanmar52.8
Philippines 42.3
Republic
43.0
of Korea

ESI Index of EANET and LRTAP Participating Countries
LRTAP
ESI
LRTAP
ESI
LRTAP
Albania58.8
Georgia
51.5
Portugal
Armenia
53.2
Germany
56.9
Republic ofAzerbaijan

Belgium
Bosnia andHerzegovina
Bulgaria
CanadaCroatia61.0
45.4

Greece

52.8
44.4
51.0

Iceland
Italy

70.8
59.2
50.1

50.0
64.4
59.5

Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia

48.6
48.4
60.4

Hungary

Ireland50.1
52.0

Moldova
Romania
RussianFederation
SerbiaSlovakia
Slovenia
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland

ESI
54.2
51.2
46.2
56.1
47.3
52.8
57.5
48.8

71.7
63.7

Russia

56.1

Czech Republic

46.6

Liechtenstein

Thailand
Viet Nam

49.7
42.3

Denmark

Lithuania

Estonia

58.2
58.2

Netherlands

58.9
53.7

Finland75.1

Norway73.4

France55.2

Poland45.0

The Former
Yugoslav
Republic ofMacedonia
TurkeyUkraineUnitedKingdom
United States

47.2

46.6
44.7
50.2
52.9

Source: Adapted from 2005 Environmental Sustainability
Countries joining LRTAP has higher ESI score than EANET’s countries, which average scoreof 54.6. Some of the countries like Finland and Norway scored over 70, which shows the better
positioned it is to maintain favorable environmental conditions into the future. Countries in EANET
averagely scored low, especially a country like China (38.6) shows facing numerous issues, bothnatural and manmade, and have not managed their policy choices well. Moreover, in case of EANET,
countries that have high enough schedule to support other country with technical assistance andODA are few.

Conclusion
EANET has its purpose of establishment in building network within East Asian countries toconcern about the effects of acid rain. For that reason, their activities and plans are voluntarily
practiced by membership countries. On the other hand, LRTAP has its purpose of establishment tomake conventions to protect Scandinavia lakes from acidification issue. They have set up several
extra conventions on the acid rain problem, and have official obligation in international world topractice according to the convention they signed or ratified.
In other words, members of EANET found collective interest as building transnational network
for acid rain when they first established it, while members of LRTAP found collective interest in
signing conventions for a feasible problem at the Scandinavia Lake. Different collective interest
caused different actions and the characteristics of institutions. However, it is difficult to make simple
comparison of the effectiveness of institutions when they have different motivation at the first spotof establishing. It is more accurate to see whether the institutions could make members to makechanges in their behavior, no matter in voluntary or conventional agreement.
Capacity of members’ country influences to the effectiveness of institutions. The higher EIS,
the members have more ability to make the convention or voluntary agreement into action, because
publics, NGOs, firms, local governments have strong awareness of international environmental
standards. As participants’ capacity is similar, the collective interest they can get throughout thecooperation become common.
This study showed the importance of building capacity of each participant to build effectivenessof environmental institutions, while the common understanding and direction of collective interest
and action is crucial for effectiveness. Member states’ capacity can influence institutions, while
institutions can accelerate technology transmission and finance circulation to support capacity
growing. Institutions can motivate the member states to join environmental agreement by embracing
collective interest among them, while the idea of collective interest is formed by representatives ofeach membership countries. It is important for further study to know how states and institutions
interact to build collective interest and capacity. Supporting the interaction among states andinstitutions in a sustainable way will help institutions to be effective.

Reference
Global Environment Outlook Year Book 2004/5, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2004/117.htm
www.unep.org/.../International_environmental_governance_p30-35.pdf
Daniel C. Esty and Maria H. Ivanova eds. , 2002, Global Environmental governance: Options &Opportunities, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
http://www.yale.edu/environment/publications
http://www.eanet.cc/eanet.html (2009-7-19)
http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/2253/attach/nea_report_final.pdf
http://www.eanet.cc/eanet/outline.html
http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/lrtap_h1.htm
Olson, Jr., M (1982) The rise and decline of nations: The political economy of economic growth,
stagflation and social rigidities, Yale University Press, Hardin R. (1982) Collective action,
Resources for the future
Robert O. Keohane (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches International Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4 Dec., 1988, pp. 379-396 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of
The International Studies Association
1989, Young, International cooperation: building regimes for natural resources and the environment,
Cornell University Press
Peter Haas, Robert O.Keohane, and Marc A. Levy, eds. (1993) Institutions for the Earth: Sources ofEffective International Environmental Protection. Cambridge: MIT Press
1994, Young, International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society, Cornell
University Press
Alexander Wendt, Collective Identity Formation and the International State, 1994, The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No.2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 384-396
Justin Yifu Lin and Jeffrey B. Nugent (1995) “Institutions and economic development” P 2307
Lin, Junstin YiFu and Nugent, Jefferey B. 1995, Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 3,
Edited by J. Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan Elsevier Science B.V., 1995, p2037
Bernauer, Thomas. 1995. “The effect of international environmental institutions: how we might learn
more,”
International Organization 49, 2, Spring 1995, pp.354
Young, Demkok, Ramakrishna, eds. (1996) Global Environmental Change and International
Governance Darmouth College
UNDP. (1997). Capacity Development . New York: Management Development and Governance
Division, UNDP.
2005 Environmental Sustainability Index, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale
University, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University. In
collaboration with: World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, Joint Research Centre, European
Commission, Ispra, Italy. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index
Oran R. Young, eds, The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes, MIT Press 1999
Edith Brown Weiss and Harold K. Jacobson ed. (2000) Engaging Countries: Strengthening
Compliance with International Environmental Accords, MIT Press
Edward L. Miles, Arild Underdal, Steinal Andresen, Jorgen Wettestad, Jon Birger Skjaerseth, Elaine
M. Carlin, Environmental Regime Effectiveness, MIT Press, 2002
Norichika Kanie and Peter M. Haas ed. (2004) Emerging Forces in Environmental governance,
United Nations University
Sebastian Oberthur and Thomas Gehring ed (2006) Institutional interaction in Global Environmental
Governance, MIT Press
Matsuoka and Komatsu (2006) Effective Environmental Management in Developing Countries,
IDE-JETRO
Lubell, Mark, Collective Action, Environmental Activism, and Air Quality Policy, Political Research
Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 2006): pp. 149-160

Appendix 1
Participants of LRTAP
http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/status/lrtap_st.htm (2009-07-24)
Status of ratification of
The 1979 Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
as of 17 December 2008

Party

Albania
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
BelarusBelgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
CanadaCroatia
CyprusCzech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
FinlandFranceGeorgia
Germany
GreeceHoly See
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
LatviaLiechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
MonacoMontenegro
Netherlands
NorwayPolandPortugal
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
SerbiaSignature

13.11.1979
14.11.1979
13.11.1979
14.11.1979
13.11.1979

14.11.1979
13.11.1979
13.11.1979
13.11.1979
14.11.1979
14.11.1979
13.11.1979
13.11.1979
13.11.1979
14.11.1979

Ratification
02.12.2005 (Ac)21.02.1997 (Ac)
16.12.1982 (R)03.07.2002 (Ac)13.06.1980 (R)
15.07.1982 (R)
06.03.1992 (Sc)09.06.1981 (R)
15.12.1981 (R)
08.10.1992 (Sc)20.11.1991 (Ac)
01.01.1993 (Sc)18.06.1982 (R)07.03.2000 (Ac)15.04.1981 (R)
03.11.1981 (Ap)11.02.1999 (Ac)15.07.1982 (R)(2)
30.08.1983 (R)22.09.1980 (R)05.05.1983 (R)15.07.1982 (R)
15.07.1982 (R)
11.01.2001 (Ac)25.05.2000 (Ac)15.07.1994 (Ac)
14.11.1979
22.11.1983 (R)
25.01.1994 (Ac)
13.11.1979
15.07.1982 (R)
14.03.1997 (Ac)27.08.1999 (At)23.10.2006 (Sc)13.11.1979
15.07.1982 (At)(3)13.11.1979
13.02.1981 (R)
13.11.1979
19.07.1985 (R)(2)
14.11.1979
29.09.1980 (R)
09.06.1995 (Ac)
14.11.1979 (1)27.02.1991 (R)
13.11.1979
22.05.1980 (R)
14.11.1979
12.03.2001 (Sc)

Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
TurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom
United States
European Community
Total:

14.11.1979
13.11.1979
13.11.1979
13.11.1979
14.11.1979
13.11.1979
13.11.1979
14.11.1979
32

28.05.1993 (Sc)06.07.1992 (Sc)15.06.1982 (R)
12.02.1981 (R)06.05.1983 (R)30.12.1997 (Sc)18.04.1983 (R)05.06.1980 (R)
15.07.1982 (R)(4)
30.11.1981 (At)15.07.1982 (Ap)51