The matter of scale is a particularly recurrent topic of environmental studies. It appears in the literature that environmental issues should ideally be considered and implemented independently from political or administrative boundaries (Mulvihill et al., 2006; Wolmer, 2003; Agrawal, 2000; Chasek, 2000; Hurrel, 1992;). Ecosystems such as forests for example, are functioning independently from political borders and cannot be managed within a single region, province or nation. In other words, to be sustainable, the preservation of natural resources, and more particularly the conservation of biological and landscape diversity, needs to be considered on a range of different scales. Furthermore, environmental policies should ideally operate at six spatial levels and encourage connections between them in order to support sustainable measures and in particular participation. In this case, Sustainable Conservation should indeed act successively on global, multinational (or international), national, regional, local and individual levels (Moffat, 2006), combining as required ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches (see Figures 1 and 2). It is however, far from easy to realise in practice.
Sustainability has to be assessed on six different spatial levels through appropriate connections (Moffat, 2006):
Figure 1: The six spatial scales of the Environment
Global
▼
Multinational
(International Cooperation)
▼
National
▼
Regional
▼
Local
▼
Individual
Sustainable conservation is, however, confronted to a variety of obstacles such as problems of frontiers, borders, limits and territorial sovereignty, as well as political and local community matters as further discussed in Section 2.2. The notion of Transboundary Natural Resources Management (TBNRM) or Transboundary Conservation (Agrawal, 2000), is an interesting concept from an ecological and social point of view, but presents many complications. Transboundary protected areas, also known as ‘Peace Parks’ in Africa, are meant to create a point of attraction for contact between communities, and abolish the inconvenient of a political and physical border, both for wildlife and humans within the areas. In spite of the expansion of ‘Peace Park’ in Southern Africa, the expected benefits of such areas are still controversial, especially with regards to the real social outputs they actually bring (Chasek, 2000; Wolmer, 2003; Jones, 2005).
As Watts and Selman argue (2004), biodiversity planners generally prefer to operate on a wider countryside, rather than on a purely site-centred basis. This is justified by the fact that ecological processes often take place at the ‘landscape scale’, whereas reserves and environmental preservation in general are failing by not sufficiently allowing these processes, resulting in declines of species and habitats. Similar ideas can be found in the notion of bioregionalism,seeking to harmonize human activities with the environment within a geographical region delimited by common natural characteristics. These can be the hydrology of a watershed, the climate and the variations in topography, ecosystems or biomes. It generally aims to influence human activity and economies in a sensible and conscious way with regards to the places in which they are situated (Mulvihill et al., 2006). Education is regarded as the key of the approach. However, the implementation of rural land-use strategies and biodiversity plans at the landscape scale is not easy and heavily relies on general consensus between stakeholders. Hence, substantial gaps may appear between policy and implementation. The concept of bioregions, as argued by Agrawal (2000), is also presented in some cases as mainly promoting ‘ecological-continuity’ and may be considered in it radical extremes as too ecocentric and simplistic or stained by romantic views and reductionist understandings. It is finally considered as wrongly addressing the human particularities. Nevertheless, this approach seems particularly interesting for nature conservation by reducing ‘boundary effects’ created by artificial limits such as administrative borders. In addition, the use of socio-economic data should reduce potential subjective analysis. New discourses have emerged from the field of conservation biology, with scientific and managerial roots in favour of ecosystemic approaches (e.g. biological corridors). On the other hand, a tendency promotes participatory planning, stakeholder and partnership managements instead (Wolmer, 2003). Landscape scale or bioregional management strategies seem a bit far from this study, which mainly focuses on conservation problems affecting migratory birds (multi-species scale). Yet, for addressing these issues is relevant as sustainable conservation of particular species can only be attained by simultaneously managing habitats at a site or landscape scale. The use of rational boundaries will therefore privilege large-scale managements for sustainable migratory bird conservation.
For sustainability reasons, if global biodiversity conservation is decided on a higher hierarchal level, it has to be implemented nationally then locally through adapted coordination processes between the different stakeholders concerned (Hurrell & Kingsbury, 1992). Cooperation on different scales seems therefore essential for the planning and the implementation of sustainable conservation. Indeed coordination is necessary for a global understanding of economical and social factors on one hand, and for considering ecological aspects on the other hand, especially to assess the transboundary features of environmental issues. But how are these questions reflected in the international relations of the environment and what is the impact of these global interactions for sustainable conservation?
Environmental policy is defined as a set of principles and intensions used to guide decision-making about the management of environmental capital and environmental services (Roberts, 2004). This simple and clear explanation, accepted for this research, can also be considered as the mechanisms by which changes are implemented to attain the goal of sustainable conservation through the process of sustainable development (Sections 1.1. and 1.3.). It has to be said that global environmental issues have attained a prominent position on the international agenda. Moreover, in the field of international relations, the term Environmental Politics reflects a growing interest in the challenges brought by the environment (Chasek, 2000). The traditional theories of state sovereignty are defied by environmental politics as environmental degradation may have transnational impacts. Environmental issues are therefore described as ‘intermestic’, by combining actors from domestic and international contexts (Evans & Newnham, 1998). These problems are also recognised as transnational and can therefore not be managed by governments (national and local) independently from each other, from a national down to a local level. The conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems appears as a global challenge, requiring partnerships between all actors such as governments as well as businesses and the civil society (Visseren-Hamakers & Glasbergen, 2007). More widely, policy-making occurs at every level of human organisation: It exists from an individual level, where every one of us is making particular choices every day, up to the level of confederations of nation states such as the UN or the EU (Figures 1 and 2). Decision makers and managers need effective institutions to facilitate cooperation across borders and to organise policymaking in favour of sustainable development. The acknowledgement of the importance of sustainable development, and especially the Brundtland Report and the Agenda 21 Program, seems to have created the first frameworks for governments and other organizations to make concerted efforts to protect the earth's life support systems in ways that simultaneously promote the goal of sustainability (Kirkby et al., 1995). The key issue of Environmental Politics, assessed with difficulties by several authors (Connelly & Graham, 1999; Chasek, 2000), is commonly summarised by Hurrell and Benedict’s central question (1992 p.1): How ‘can a fragmented and often highly conflictual political system, made up of over 170 sovereign states and numerous other actors, achieve the high (and historically unprecedented) levels of cooperation and policy cooperation needed to manage environmental problems on a global scale?’. This matter is not the focal point of this modest piece of research, however, it seems important to identify some of the key international environmental agreements and to look at the actors to be taken into consideration for sustainable conservation.
International environmental institutions have proliferated since the 1972 United Nations, Conference on the Human Environment. Over sixty multilateral environmental treaties have been signed. New principles, norms and rules have been adopted such as to protect the stratospheric ozone layer, which represents a good example of successful international agreement on a global scale issue (Skjærseth, 1992; Connelly & Graham, 1999). The protection from pollution of many regional seas, the regulation of oil pollution from tankers and the control of Europeans acid rain or the regulation of trade in potentially hazardous farm chemicals, also constitute significant international regimes (Haas et al. 1993). Still, it is difficult and complex to assess the effectiveness of international agreements and the achievement of the institutions initiating them. Yet, this dissertation aims to assess particular international nature conservation policies by looking at them from the perspective of cooperation, and examining the role of these exchanges for the sustainability of conservation through the example of migratory birds assessed further (Section 6.3). The World Conservation Strategy and the Convention on Biological Diversity significantly serve the cause of nature conservation by initiating or sealing cooperation processes between the different actors of International Politics. These agreements provide forums for discussion and set-up international agendas for global conservation, with regular targets and reviews, bringing essential guidance towards sustainable conservation. Furthermore, this type of agreement can be considered a major illustration of International Cooperation for conservation purposes.
On a global scale, the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) launched in 1980, promots the conservation of the living resources on which development depends, and the integration of development and conservation policies. This strategy has associated conservation and development for the first time through the coordination of social and environmental expertises. As highlighted by Gilping (1996), the WCS encourages every country to prepare its own national conservation strategy by stressing three main objectives for living resource conservation: · primarily to maintain essential ecological processes and life supporting systems (such as soil regeneration, the recycling of nutrients, and the safeguarding of waters)
· secondly to preserve genetic diversity
· finally to ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems (notably fish and other wildlife, forests, and grazing lands).
In 1996, over 50 national conservation strategies had been adopted since the release of the WCS (Gilpin, 1996). Moreover, the Brundtland Report created the first framework for governments and other organizations to take concerted action to protect the earth's life support systems in ways that simultaneously promoted economic goals (development, growth and employment) and ‘social justice’ objectives (greater equality both within and among nation-states) (Kirkby et al., 1995). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted during the Rio Summit, promotes the Conservation and Sustainable use of biodiversity as well as its components, while affirming that states have sovereign rights over biological resources in their territories. Similarly, the benefits provided by biological resources should be shared in fair and equitable ways on mutually agreed terms (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006). Like the World Conservation Strategy, it encourages Countries to develop national plans to achieve the sustainable conservation of Biodiversity on a global scale (O’Riordan, 2000). 188 countries, including the United Kingdom, accepted in 1992 the Framework Convention on Biological Diversity, then ratified in 1994. The 2002 Johannesburg World Summit confirms the CBD objectives and goals, in addition to an agreement to stop biodiversity loss by 2010. This goal, approved by all Parties to the Convention in the Hague in 2002, aims ‘to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level, as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth’ (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006; p 2). This target is also the main framework of the European Biodiversity Strategy. The Agenda 21 program, also signed at Rio, outlines an International action plan for sustainable development, integrating environmental and developmental concerns and, in particular, it promotes bottom-up participatory and community-based approaches. The program finally insists on the fact that action plans for sustainable development should integrate the environmental as well as developmental concerns, as well as recognise and accept the market principles within an appropriate regulatory framework (O’Riordan, 2000). International environmental and nature conservation policies provide significant structures for collaborative approaches towards common targets. Nevertheless, who are the different international stakeholders and what is their role in the hierarchy of environmental politics.
Through the different scales of the global environment (2.1), four main levels of participators present a particular interest for this study (2.3). This hierarchy offers several opportunities for communication, partnerships and cooperation between six key actors.
a. The United Nations:
It appears for fact that a nation state cannot act alone at an international dimension. As a response, states have successively been persuaded to adopt international regimes to tackle both transboundary and global environmental issues (see 2.4). Moreover, by following different degrees of collaboration with the states, International Organisations (IOs) have significantly gained an important role. In particular, the United Nations, Environmental Programme (UNEP) and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as the WWF (Buckingham-Hatfield & Percy, 1999), appear as central actors, especially since the Rio UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The United Nations, operate on multiple levels and emerges as the major general governmental advisor. The UNEP specifically operates as a catalyser for international cooperation and as a facilitator for states to conclude individual agreements. Indeed, it serves by creating and maintaining a particular framework for negotiations, and by providing organisational assistance (Hurrell & Kingsbury, 1992). The UNEP, whose headquarters are situated in Nairobi, plays an essential role in the monitoring and coordination of international action, often by cooperating with other organisations, in particular to define issues and promote conferences, research and negotiations (Connelly & Graham, 1999).
b. NGOs:
The importance of non-governmental organisations has progressively grown in global politics on all levels, from local to global scales, which seems to contribute to the objectives of sustainability also by reflecting a part of citizen concern. They now play key roles as independent bargainers and as agents of social learning beyond the simple lobbying of national governments. However, NGOs do not appear as replacements for other actors, such as governments and businesses (Princen & Finger, 1994), and can contribute by setting up partnerships and campaigns to develop dialogue and peace between stakeholders on various levels. Moreover, they may implement international cooperation through partnerships with individuals, communities, industries and governmental institutions. Exchange of information, communication and education represent important aspects of international conservation. Furthermore, the development of networks is essential to coordinate the activities of the different participants (Moon & Park, 2004), which is facilitated by the NGO’s external point of view.
c. IMF, World Bank and WTO:
In the context of the global economy it is also necessary to take into account the Brettons Woods system institutions composed of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Indeed the role of the three organisations in the world economy, as well as the financial and the political weight of Trans-National Corporations, cannot be denied. However, the international lobbying against these three organisations is important, such as the denunciation of a lack of environmental and labour standards. Nevertheless a growing pressure to recognise the links between trade, development and environmental degradation, has brought some progresses with, for instance, the expansion of Green and Fair Trade economies. In spite of that, these organisations still mainly address sustainable development issues through economical sustainability, more than by properly supporting environmental and social equity (Section 1.).
d. The EU:
On another level, the European Union emerges as a major actor for environmental action and law making. Originally established to manage areas of transnational activities and create supports for economic growth between member states, it is now a key political institution of international environmental politics, promoting sustainable development as a policy target (Lowe & Ward, 1998). Criticisms are, however, largely formulated, as briefly described previously in Section 1.3. Some member-states may regard its policy as weak and ineffective on the one hand, or as weakening national sovereignties on the other hand, whereas from an international point of view, the EU can be considered as too protective towards it own interests (Connelly & Graham, 1999). Nevertheless, the development of transnational schemes such as the Pan-European strategies for the preservation of habitats and biodiversity (e.g. Natura 2000 networks, BAP and 2010 objectives), appear as positive objectives for sustainable conservation. Moreover, EU environmental laws and strategies have provided significant results in terms of international conservation policy (Donald et al., 2007).
e. Nations:
At the national echelon, most governments now progressively address a coordinated management that integrates environmental, social and economic policies. Indeed, international environmental agreements (2.3) and organisations, such as NGOs developing local activities, have all contributed to the creation of frameworks within which national environmental policies are now operating through the acknowledgement and the promotion of participation at a local level. Some of these are legally binding and force a national response on issues such as carbon dioxide emission reduction or the protection of endangered species (Connelly & Graham, 1999). As a result, in the UK for instance (see further in Section 6), we are individually challenged on a daily basis by issues such as ‘carbon footprint’, ‘green attitudes’, biodiversity conservation, and by the overall promotion of sustainable behaviours. In fact, this evolution is not only the result of a ‘British culture for nature conservation’ but is more significantly the consequence of institutional changes which are influencing people on an individual level (see figure 1). In addition, individuals may also play a role on an international level through effective feedback processes (see Section 3.1, Figure 1 and Section 7.2.)
f. Regions and Local Actors:
Ultimately, in most European countries and under decentralisation policies, the authority of central governments is taken over by regional and local governments within a national framework. Also, conservation policies must act on a local level to be successful, even if the policy generated on global, European or National level. Local authorities such as Councils and local communities are important stakeholders, especially with the development of local democracies, recognised as essential for sustainable development (4.1). Regional and local levels, outlined by the Agenda 21, will however not be fully assessed in this case study limited to a national scale.
This hierarchy shows that good opportunities exist for cooperation.
From a Biogeographical perspective the term of ‘Landscape’ can be translated as a visual unit of space. It may be composed of a group habitats or ecosystems, in relation with each others, and can be influenced by human activity. (Michel, 1999) 
