Reassessing Effectiveness: A Critical Examination of Evaluation Strategies in International Environmental Agreements

Sihap; Bambang Wahyu Nugroho; Rangga Andika Putra

doi:10.55681/seikat.v5i4.3243

Authors

Sihap Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
Bambang Wahyu Nugroho
Rangga Andika Putra

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/seikat.v5i4.3243

Keywords:

International Environmental Agreements;, the effectiveness of the regime;, Global Environmental Governance;, Reflexive Evaluation Framework;, Politics of Evaluation.

Abstract

The increasing number of International Environmental Agreements (PLIs) has prompted the development of various efforts to assess the effectiveness of global environmental governance. Most research focuses on measuring agreement success through indicators of performance, compliance, and observable environmental achievements. However, academic attention to evaluation strategies used to define and measure effectiveness is still relatively limited. As a result, the epistemological assumptions and political implications inherent in evaluation practice often go unnoticed. This article aims to critically analyze the various strategies for assessing the effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements and examine how different evaluation paradigms result in different understandings of effectiveness. The research uses a qualitative approach with a meta-methodological analysis design supported by document analysis of evaluation reports, policy documents, and academic publications, with the Montreal Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) used as illustrative cases. The results of the study identified three main paradigms in effectiveness evaluation, namely rationalist-positivistic, constructivist-processual, and critical-reflective. Each paradigm prioritizes different forms of evidence, indicators of success, and governance priorities, resulting in an effectiveness narrative that is not always in line. These findings suggest that effectiveness cannot be understood as a fully objective and neutral condition, but rather as a construct formed through methodological choices, epistemological assumptions, and power relations inherent in evaluation practice. As a conceptual contribution, this article offers a Reflexive Evaluation Framework that integrates the dimensions of environmental outcomes, institutional learning, and justice and transformation to produce an evaluation approach that is more reflective, multidimensional, and sensitive to the complexities of global environmental governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andersen, S. O., & Sarma, K. M. (2002). Protecting the Ozone Layer: The United Nations History. Earthscan.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books.

Bernstein, S. (2005). Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1(1–2), 139–166.

Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock, Moving Forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.050707.085733

Breitmeier, H., Underdal, A., & Young, O. R. (2011). The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Comparing and Contrasting Findings from Quantitative Research. International Studies Review, 13(4), 579–605.

Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Pantheon Books.

Fukuda-Parr, S., & McNeill, D. (2019). Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring the SDGs. Global Policy, 10(S1), 5–15.

Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press.

Gonzalez, M., Taddonio, K., & Sherman, N. (2015). The Montreal Protocol: How Today’s Successes Offer a Pathway to the Future. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(2), 122–129.

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press.

Helm, C., & Sprinz, D. F. (2000). Measuring the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 630–652.

Merry, S. E. (2011). Measuring the World: Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance. Current Anthropology, 52(S3), S83–S95.

Newell, P. (2008). The Political Economy of Global Environmental Governance. Review of International Studies, 34(3), 507–529.

Okereke, C. (2008). Equity Norms in Global Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 25–50.

Pyle, J. A., Keeble, J., Abraham, N. L., Chipperfield, M. P., & Griffiths, P. T. (2022). Integrated Ozone Depletion as a Metric for Ozone Recovery. Nature, 608, 719–723.

Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (2013). The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements and Political Theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517–540.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. CBD Secretariat. https://www.cbd.int/gbo5

Sihap, S., Fahrudin, A. F., & Djajasukanta, R. N. (2026). Dilema Otonomi dalam Tata Kelola Iklim Global pada Desentralisasi Subnasional Indonesia. Jurnal Ragam Pengabdian, 3(2), 1713–1723. https://doi.org/10.62710/g2am4x91

Ward, H. (2006). International Linkages and Environmental Sustainability: The Effectiveness of the Regime Network. Journal of Peace Research, 43(2), 149–166.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2014). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Young, O. R. (2001). Inferences and Indices: Evaluating the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. Global Environmental Politics, 1(1), 99–121.

Young, O. R. (2011). Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies.

Young, O. R. (2018). Research Strategies to Assess the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. Nature Sustainability, 1(9), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0132-y

Zurba, M., & Papadopoulos, A. (2021). Indigenous Participation and the Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in Global Environmental Governance Forums: A Systematic Review. Environmental Management, 72(1), 84–99.