Political dynamics and governance of World Heritage ecosystems

An Author Correction to this article was published on 03 August 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Political dynamics across scales are often overlooked in the design, implementation and evaluation of environmental governance. We provide new evidence to explain how interactions between international organizations and national governments shape environmental governance and outcomes for 238 World Heritage ecosystems, on the basis of a new intervention–response–outcome typology. We analyse interactions between the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and 102 national governments responsible for implementing ecosystem protection under the World Heritage Convention between 1972 and 2019. We combine data on the reporting, deliberation and certification of individual ecosystem-level threats, with data on national governance quality, economic complexity and key stakeholder perspectives. We find that the extent of threatened ecosystems is seriously underestimated and that efforts to formally certify threatened ecosystems are often resisted by national governments. A range of responses to international intervention, including both productive and counterproductive responses, generates material impacts at the ecosystem level. Counterproductive responses occur in nations dependent on limited high-value natural resource industries, irrespective of overall level of economic development. We identify new political approaches to improve environmental governance, including how to overcome the problem of regulatory capture. Our findings inform how we can better anticipate and account for political dynamics in environmental governance.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Evolution of WH in Danger listings over time for natural WH sites.
Fig. 2: Unrecognized extent of threats for natural WH sites.
Fig. 3: Governance of WH-listed ecosystems is a function of UNESCO intervention and national response.
Fig. 4: Governance threats discounted in social and institutional threat reporting by UNESCO 1972–2018.
Fig. 5: National responses according to economic complexity and natural resource dependency.

Data availability

Findings are derived from the following primary and secondary data sources: in-depth, confidential stratified and key-informant interviews (n = 32 interviews), threat and certification data for natural WH sites (n = 238 sites), documentary analysis (n = 3,099 documents) and economic and governance data (n = 102 countries) (Supplementary Fig. 1). The data that support the findings of this study (excluding confidential interviews) are available from the corresponding author upon request. Interview results are confidential in accordance with James Cook University ethics approval no. H6149. A detailed explanation of methods is available in the Methods.

Change history

  • 03 August 2020

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

References

  1. 1.

    Kroner, R. E. G. et al. The uncertain future of protected lands and waters. Science 364, 881–886 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Qin, S. et al. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement as a threat to iconic protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1275–1285 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Allan, J. R. et al. Recent increases in human pressure and forest loss threaten many natural World Heritage sites. Biol. Conserv. 206, 47–55 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Asner, G. P. & Tupayachi, R. Accelerated losses of protected forests from gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 094004 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Morrison, T. H. Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3013–3021 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    UNESCO World Heritage (UNESCO, 2019).

  7. 7.

    Hølleland, H., Hamman, E. & Phelps, J. Naming, shaming and fire alarms: the compilation, development and use of the List of World Heritage in Danger. Transnatl Environ. Law 8, 35–57 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Brown, N. E., Liuzza, C. & Meskell, L. The politics of peril: UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger. J. Field Archaeol. 44, 287–303 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bertacchini, E., Liuzza, C., Meskell, L. & Saccone, D. The politicization of UNESCO World Heritage decision making. Public Choice 167, 95–129 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    de Wit, W., Machimbarrena, M., Tench, E. & Bigaud, N. Our Natural World at Risk: How Politicization Is Limiting the Effectiveness of the World Heritage Convention (WWF, 2019).

  11. 11.

    Meskell, L., Liuzza, C., Bertacchini, E. & Saccone, D. Multilateralism and UNESCO World Heritage: decision-making, states parties and political processes. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 21, 423–440 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Agrawal, A., Hajjar, R., Liao, C., Rasmussen, L. V. & Watkins, C. Forest governance interventions for sustainability through information, incentives, and institutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32, A1–A7 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bodin, Ö. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357, eaan1114 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Niemeyer, S. Deliberation in the wilderness: displacing symbolic politics. Environ. Polit. 13, 347–372 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lindenmayer, D., Thorn, S. & Noss, R. Countering resistance to protected-area extension. Conserv. Biol. 32, 315–321 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lambin, E. F. et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129–140 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mastrángelo, M. E. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1115–1121 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Young, O. R. Research strategies to assess the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Nat. Sustain. 1, 461–465 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lawless, S., Song, A., Cohen, P., & Morrison, T. H. Rights, equity and justice: a diagnostic for social meta-norm diffusion in environmental governance. Earth Syst. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100052 (2020).

  21. 21.

    Zimmermann, L. Same same or different? Norm diffusion between resistance, compliance, and localization in post-conflict states. Int. Stud. Perspect. 17, 98–115 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D. & Zangl, B. Competence versus control: the governor’s dilemma. Regul. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12234 (2019).

  23. 23.

    Turner, M. G. et al. Climate change, ecosystems and abrupt change: science priorities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20190105 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kates, R. W. & Clark, W. C. Environmental surprise: expecting the unexpected? Environment 38, 6–34 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sterner, T. et al. Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2, 14–21 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Morrison, T. H. et al. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57, 101934 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    The IUCN World Heritage Outlook (IUCN, 2017).

  29. 29.

    Badman, T. et al. World Heritage in Danger: A Compendium of Key Decisions on the Conservation of Natural World Heritage Properties via the List of World Heritage in Danger (IUCN, 2009).

  30. 30.

    WHC/17/41.COM/7 Item 7 of the Provisional Agenda: State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties (UNESCO, 2017).

  31. 31.

    Award of a $443.3 Million Grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (ANAO, 2019).

  32. 32.

    Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019).

  33. 33.

    Morrison, T. H. et al. Advancing coral reef governance into the Anthropocene. One Earth 2, 64–74 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Scott, J. C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (Yale Univ. Press, 1990).

  35. 35.

    DeFries, R. & Nagendra, H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356, 265–270 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    GDP Per Capita, PPP (Current International $) (World Bank, 2018).

  37. 37.

    Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank, 2018).

  38. 38.

    International Tourism, Receipts (% of Total Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

  39. 39.

    Exports of Goods and Services (Current US$) (World Bank, 2018).

  40. 40.

    Merchandise Exports (Current US$) (World Bank, 2018).

  41. 41.

    Agricultural Raw Materials Exports (% of Merchandise Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

  42. 42.

    Fuel Exports (% of Merchandise Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

  43. 43.

    Ores and Metals Exports (% of Merchandise Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

  44. 44.

    Hartmann, D., Guevara, M. R., Jara-Figueroa, C., Aristaran, M. & Hidalgo, C. A. Linking economic complexity, institutions, and income inequality. World Dev. 93, 75–93 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hertel-Fernandez, A., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. C. Legislative staff and representation in Congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 1–18 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Hardy, C. & Maguire, S. Organizing risk: discourse, power, and “riskification”. Acad. Manage. Rev. 41, 80–108 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    PADDDtracker: Tracking Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement (WWF, 2019).

  48. 48.

    Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D. & Zangl, B. Two logics of indirect governance: delegation and orchestration. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 719–729 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Kruck, A. & Zangl, B. Trading privileges for support: the strategic co-optation of emerging powers into international institutions. Int. Theory 11, 318–343 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Hameiri, S., Hughes, C. & Scarpello, F. International Intervention and Local Politics: Fragmented States and the Politics of Scale (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  51. 51.

    Morrison, T. H. et al. Save reefs to rescue all ecosystems. Nature 573, 333–336 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Cameron, C. & Rössler, M. Many Voices, One Vision: The Early Years of the World Heritage Convention (Routledge, 2013).

  53. 53.

    Osipova, E. et al. IUCN World Heritage Outlook 2: A Conservation Assessment of All Natural World Heritage Sites (IUCN, 2017).

  54. 54.

    Wibowo, A. & Giessen, L. Absolute and relative power gains among state agencies in forest-related land use politics. Land Use Policy 49, 131–141 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Clarke, J. N. & McCool, D. Staking Out the Terrain: Power and Performance Among Natural Resource Agencies (SUNY Press, 1996).

  56. 56.

    Patry, M., Bassett, C. & Leclerq. B. The state of conservation of world heritage forests. In Proc. 2nd World Heritage Forest Meeting (eds Patry, M. & Ripley, S.) 21–31 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005).

  57. 57.

    World Economic Outlook: Gaining Momentum? (International Monetary Fund, 2017).

  58. 58.

    Simoes, A. J. G. & Hidalgo, C. A. The Economic Complexity Observatory: An Analytical Tool for Understanding the Dynamics of Economic Development. In Proc. 25th AAAI Conference on Scalable Integration of Analytics and Visualization 39–42 (AAAI, 2011); https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW11/paper/view/3948/4325

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project received ethics approval from James Cook University (no. H6149) and was supported by the Australian Research Council. The authors thank G. Cumming, L. McHugh, P. Cohen, J. Day and S. Lawless for their helpful comments and suggestions and project interviewees and key informants for their insightful interview responses.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

T.H.M. conceived the idea and led the study design. W.N.A., K.B., M.C.L. and T.P.H. contributed analytic concepts and ideas. T.H.M., M.H. and C.H. collected, collated and analysed the qualitative and quantitative data. All authors drafted, reviewed and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. H. Morrison.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1, Tables 1 and 2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morrison, T.H., Adger, W.N., Brown, K. et al. Political dynamics and governance of World Heritage ecosystems. Nat Sustain (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0568-8

Download citation

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing