Measuring Policy Coherence among the MEAs and MDGs

The research paper introduces a two-phase methodology to quantify policy coherence by analyzing the frequency of shared goals, instruments, and actors across international agreements. Applying this to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Ramsar Convention, the UNFCCC, and the MDGs, the study finds a significant level of policy incoherence. Specifically, it calculates a 52% degree of incoherence among the four MEAs and a 62% degree of incoherence when the MDGs are included. The CBD is identified as the most coherent agreement, while the Ramsar Convention and UNFCCC show the lowest levels of integration with other frameworks.

• The study identifies three common features essential for assessing policy coherence: goal integration, the integration of institutions and administrations, and the integration of actors responsible for implementation.
• The proposed measurement methodology consists of a two-phase process: first, a conceptual content analysis to determine the frequency of specific keywords, and second, the use of a Policy Coherence Matrix (PCM) to convert this qualitative data into a numerical measure.
• Analysis of the four selected MEAs (CBD, UNCCD, Ramsar, and UNFCCC) reveals a policy coherence level of 48%, meaning the degree of policy incoherence is 52%.
• Among the MEAs, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the most effective at representing the issues of other agreements, whereas the Ramsar Convention is the least effective.
• The UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) is the least represented convention within the documents of other MEAs, which the authors describe as a disturbing finding given the vulnerability of rural poor in arid areas.
• When the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are included in the analysis with the MEAs, the degree of policy incoherence increases to 62%.
• The UNFCCC is not as well-represented in other MEA documents as expected, potentially because the convention has focused heavily on carbon markets and emission reduction methodologies rather than the adaptation agenda.
• The authors argue that 100% policy coherence is an undesirable goal, as it would erase the distinct identity and specific objectives of individual agreements.

APA

Duraiappah, A. K., & Bhardwaj, A. (2007). Measuring Policy Coherence among the MEAs and MDGs. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measuring_policy.pdf

Chicago

Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar, and Asmita Bhardwaj. Measuring Policy Coherence among the MEAs and MDGs. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measuring_policy.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Duraiappah |first1=Anantha Kumar |last2=Bhardwaj |first2=Asmita |title=Measuring Policy Coherence among the MEAs and MDGs |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=2007 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measuring_policy.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{duraiappah2007measuring, author = {Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar and Bhardwaj, Asmita}, title = {{Measuring Policy Coherence among the MEAs and MDGs}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2007}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measuring_policy.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }