| dc.description.abstract | Biodiversity loss is one of the main threats in the era of the Anthropocene. Numerous international legal instruments and agreements have been adopted to govern the issue for decades. However, these legal instruments have not been very effective. The Aichi Biodiversity Targets, as a ten-year global goal-setting strategy, were delivered in 2010 in order to encourage conservation conditions to be improved in several dimensions in every country. However, has it, as non-legally binding goals and targets, been effective in inducing policy change? Scholars have recently pointed out the limited understanding about how this type of global governance tool works. This study therefore, has taken an insight into the policy changes in the United Kingdom under the influence of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. A process tracing approach has been adopted, since the purpose is to illustrate the underlying mechanisms through which the Aichi Biodiversity Targets effect change. The research was based upon two theoretical lenses, namely governing through goals and punctuated equilibrium theory. Firstly, according to the former theory, one has distinguished ideal conditions on the participation level as well as legitimacy and coherence for a global goal. Focusing on these three aspects, the research established an analytical framework and took an insight into how the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and its relevant implementation in the United Kingdom has performed. This includes whether it has met or it has failed to realise the expected conditions. Secondly, punctuated equilibrium theory provided a lens to shed light into what exactly happened within United Kingdom politics with regard to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and its relevant implementation. The inquiry for this part intended to outline the issue attention in different policy venues. Thirdly, the researcher checked passed bills in the United Kingdom Parliament to indicate whether major policy changes occurred under the influence of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Furthermore, there are three hypotheses which assumed that the merits of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as understood under the analytical framework, would play their roles in promoting policy changes. The results illustrated that the Aichi Biodiversity Targets only has limited ability to promote policy changes in the United Kingdom. There was no major policy change, nor collapse of monopolies in the subsystem or a shift of the policy-making stakeholders. Moreover, as tested through the hypotheses, the merits were not enough to promote a major policy change whilst the defects of the implementation had helped to block the advance in changes. | |
