Search

Regime complexes have been discussed in international literature as an intervening variable which bring about policy coherence at national levels. There is a dearth of literature which examines aspects related to the link between global biodiversity regime, national policy coherence and sustainable development goals (SDGs) reporting. By taking the case study of India and using liberal institutional approaches and critical appraisal, this paper seeks to analyse the role of SDGs reporting for promoting coherence between the international biodiversity regime complex and country level planning. This paper will have implications for praxis on biodiversity and sustainable development policy as well as have implications for theory related to liberal institutional scholarship. This paper argues that while the normative scope of the global biodiversity regime has evolved to encompass principles such as scientific enquiry as well as sustainable development, national level reporting on biodiversity related SDGs have to still catch up to facilitate better policy coherence at all levels. Further the paper also calls for a greater science-policy interface to supplement SDG reporting framework towards better understanding of conservation and ecosystem services aspects of biodiversity in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2018 European bioeconomy strategy sets a new vision for Europe's sustainable development: a transition to regenerative resource usage that embraces circular principles. Similarly, various member states have developed national bioeconomy strategies. To be effective, such strategies require methodologically sound monitoring tools that support the alignment of national and urban policies. Indeed, cities are central to the bioeconomy, mobilizing ever increasing amounts of biogenic materials. To better understand the suitability of national bioeconomy strategies for guiding urban circular bioeconomy transitions, this paper examines the composition, features, and topical coverage of national bioeconomy indicator sets with a threefold analysis: (1) assessment of the integration of circularity principles in the sets and their alignment with existing policy frameworks; (2) appraisal of quality and the fulfillment of the sets' functional purposes; (3) evaluation of the breadth and depth of tackled issues. Of the 27 EU member states, only nine have a dedicated bioeconomy strategy, of which four propose an indicator set. While there is a general lack of sophisticated monitoring, the tools proposed after the publication of the 2018 bioeconomy strategy (Germany and Italy) follow indicator development standards rigorously. They include circularity in their notion of bioeconomy and combine indicators for a comprehensive, substantial, informative and politically relevant analysis. These characteristics strongly improve the potential for alignment and coherence with urban-level bioeconomy monitoring efforts. Although national measuring tools are not intended to cover all urban needs, the findings of this paper give insight into their remaining gaps and highlight improvement pathways for an efficient EU-wide circular bioeconomy transition. [Display omitted] • Most EU national bioeconomy strategies lack sophisticated indicator sets. • National bioeconomy strategies should favor alignment with other policy levels. • Thoroughly developed indicator sets allow targeted answers to environmental change. • Recent strategies follow indicator development standards more rigorously. • Recent indicator sets enable monitoring of urban circular bioeconomy transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]