Difference between revisions of "ASI:Reflection on Challenges and Lessons Learned in Negotiations over the Western Scheldt Estuary"
From AquaPedia Case Study Database
[unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== Implementation Gap === | === Implementation Gap === | ||
− | + | Because the resources needed for the implementation of international policies were distributed among national governments, lower level governments, and NGOs, the latter parties were able to exert influence on decision-making by national governments, and in some cases were able to make tactical linkages” (Meijerink 1999:354). The local and regional actors were not cooperative with the national governments on the aspects of implementation for which they had not been able to have a say (which was the case for much of the negotiations), and their resistance created an implementation gap, as either their resources were needed to carry out the plans on which the countries had agreed (in the case of the local and regional authorities), or—in the case of environmental NGOs—their buy-in was needed in order to avoid delays brought on by legal obstruction. | |
=== Potential for Increased Effectiveness and Harmonization under the Long-Term Vision Plan for 2030 === | === Potential for Increased Effectiveness and Harmonization under the Long-Term Vision Plan for 2030 === |
Revision as of 19:23, 22 May 2014
About this Article
Contributed by:Elizabeth Cooper
Article last edited 22 May 2014 by Elizabeth
Article originally added by Elizabeth
What is an ASI Article? Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case by linking a case to an ASI article. These ASI articles are protected, so that each person who creates a section retains control of their own content. Please use the discussion page for commenting on this article. Learn More
This article is linked to Multilateral Negotiations over the Scheldt River Estuary: Transforming Centuries of Deadlock into Productive Multiparty Negotiations?