Can small players make a difference in international environmental negotiations? This question was the starting point of the four-year research project led by the Graduate Institute in collaboration with the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL).

This recently completed project entitled “The Swiss contribution to the establishment of an international regime on biodiversity, SWIC” was based on the assumption that, in spite of its modest size, Switzerland has been a significant contributor to global environmental governance. Such is the case of global biodiversity negotiations, a relatively decentralised domain with some political spaces open to small countries, in contrast to others domains with stronger leaderships.

Two cases were studied: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing, both associated to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Professor Marc Hufty, the project’s main applicant, kindly answered our questions.

What led you to study the role of Switzerland in the production of global norms?

We were amazed by how little research there was on the role of Switzerland in global environmental governance. The European network on global environmental governance (COST IS0802) was an excellent opportunity to help fill this gap, thanks to a research subsidy from the Swiss Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation.

One objective of the project was to contribute to the understanding and theoretical development of multilevel environmental governance. Can you share some conclusions with the academic community and Swiss decision-makers?

We have learned a lot. Most important is that, given the appropriate domestic and international conditions, small states can make a difference in global environmental governance. And Switzerland can be said to have punched over its weight in the Cartagena and Nagoya negotiations.

This is surprising if we consider that the country was critically regarded in the literature for what appeared to be an absence of clear leadership and ad hoc processes in the design of its environmental foreign policy. While we agree that there is a strong informal component, we concluded that it was an advantage in these negotiations. On the one hand, it enabled the building of a consensus among the different federal offices as well as with civil society. On the other hand, it gave Swiss negotiators enough flexibility to make the most of the windows of opportunities that opened during the negotiations, and especially to act as bridge-builders between opposed coalitions.

How was Switzerland able to make a difference?

Among the strong points of the Swiss delegations were their technical expertise, contrasting with the normally more political delegations, the stability of their members over time, allowing them to build a vast experience, and their mixed composition as they included government’s delegates and representatives of Swiss stakeholders.

Added to the (lengthy) process of national consensus building, these assets gave the Swiss delegations an edge as they had already a good overview of the different debates and arguments. They were thus able to present important initiatives at crucial moments and gain some leadership in the negotiations.

What are your recommendations for future negotiations?

Switzerland has high credibility in international environmental governance negotiations, based on its tradition of neutrality and brokerage. I think this is a major asset that has to be kept and reinforced through a closer look at the conditions that make its negotiators successful.

More details in the following publications:

• Hufty, Marc, Tobias Schulz, and Maurice Tschopp. 2014. “The Role of Switzerland in the Nagoya Protocol Negotiations”. Chapter 6 in Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol, edited by Sebastian Oberthür and G. Kristin Rosendal, 96–113. London: Routledge.
• Schulz, Tobias, Marc Hufty, and Maurice Tschopp. Forthcoming. “Small and Smart: The Role of Switzerland in the Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols Negotiations” (submitted to International Environmental Agreements).