Suchergebnisse

Evaluating environmental governance processes is a precondition for their improvement in contexts of change. In order to do so, one can (1) examine the outcome of a governance process, which consists of outputs and their consequences, or (2) look at the governance process itself. Outcome-oriented and process-oriented approaches have different strengths and weaknesses. This paper discusses the challenges associated with both options when applied to European biodiversity and water governance – namely the implementation of the Habitats and Water Framework Directives. Current evaluation practice focuses mainly on outcomes. Can the process-oriented approach reduce or compensate for the weaknesses of outcome-oriented evaluation? We argue that there are three reasons why it makes sense to combine both approaches: a normative reason, relating to good governance; a substantive reason, relating to the complexity of governance; and a third, instrumental reason concerning the governance cycle. A combined approach makes it possible to evaluate governance processes convincingly with regard to all criteria associated with 'good governance'. This paper also describes some of the challenges posed by such a combination; these require particular attention, given that existing concepts are not yet sufficiently sensitive to the distinctions between process and outcome orientation.

Participation is said to improve decisions on environmental conflicts. When investigating 16 case studies of participatory processes in European Water and Biodiversity Governance, which necessarily is multi-level, the picture becomes blurred: many different forms of participation can be observed, only few of them are well-defined and well organised; most of them are dominated by ad-hoc decisions on whom to include, how to close debates, and how to deal with uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. While nearly all of these processes could be improved by a more conscious and careful setting, the application blueprints will necessarily remain out of scope. Natural, cultural and institutional contingencies make each case special and often unique and the multi-level characteristic of European governance of natural resources adds an additional layer of complexity on how to organise participation. The empirical account of whether deliberation can deliver what it promises in theory is still incomplete.

The financial resources needed for globally implementing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been estimated at US$ 150-440 billion per year (CBD COP11, 2012) - of which only a fraction is currently available. Significant efforts have been undertaken in many countries to increase funding for biodiversity conservation. Nonetheless, this funding shortage remains immense, acute and chronic. However, we do not lose biodiversity and ecosystems primarily for lack of conservation funding but also due to poor governance, wrong policies, perverse incentives and other factors. This begs the question: How should limited conservation resources be used? For directly tackling biodiversity threats, for addressing the underlying drivers, or rather for strengthening the financial management and fundraising capacity of implementing organisations? As country contexts differ, so do the answers. This report synthesizes experiences of German development cooperation working towards improved biodiversity finance in eight countries: Viet Nam, Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritania, Ecuador and Peru. Our findings suggest a shift in perspective in the international biodiversity financing debate: We need to move from a focus on innovative financing mechanisms towards thinking "innovation" more broadly. Financial resource mobilisation needs to go hand in hand with efforts to slow the drivers of conservation costs and to improve effective spending capacity. For this, the constraints to financial sustainability of biodiversity conservation need to be better understood at country level. Innovative financing mechanisms can be part of the solution and deliver multiple benefits only if their design is carefully fitted to context. Beyond that, landscape approaches to conservation make clear that investing in healthy ecosystems is critical for livelihoods and development.

The financial resources needed for globally implementing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been estimated at US$ 150-440 billion per year (CBD COP11, 2012) - of which only a fraction is currently available. Significant efforts have been undertaken in many countries to increase funding for biodiversity conservation. Nonetheless, this funding shortage remains immense, acute and chronic. However, we do not lose biodiversity and ecosystems primarily for lack of conservation funding but also due to poor governance, wrong policies, perverse incentives and other factors. This begs the question: How should limited conservation resources be used? For directly tackling biodiversity threats, for addressing the underlying drivers, or rather for strengthening the financial management and fundraising capacity of implementing organisations? As country contexts differ, so do the answers. This report synthesizes experiences of German development cooperation working towards improved biodiversity finance in eight countries: Viet Nam, Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritania, Ecuador and Peru.

Die vorliegende Publikation ist die Kurzfassung der englischsprachigen Studie 'Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience' (veröffentlicht als UFZ-Bericht 3/2021) und wurde im Rahmen des Projekts 'Transformativer Wandel zum Schutz von globalen Gemeingütern' erstellt. Im ersten Teil werden die Folgen unserer Lebensweise für die globalen Gemeingüter Biodiversität, Wald und Meere beleuchtet und die Dringlichkeit des Handels betont. Warum eine Trendwende hin zu einem nachhaltigen Umgang mit unseren Lebensgrundlagen im Sinne der Agenda 2030 der Vereinten Nationen bisher nicht erreicht wurde und welche zentralen Herausforderungen in den Bereichen Biodiversität, Wald und Meere gelöst werden müssten, fasst der zweite Teil zusammen. Der letzte Teil wirbt für einen 'radikalen Inkrementalismus' der von einer übergeordneten, transformativen Vision für einen nachhaltigen Wandel geleitet ist und in dem zahlreiche unterschiedliche Maßnahmen gesamtgesellschaftlich verhandelt und neu ausgerichtet werden. Damit einher geht eine kluge Auswahl vieler Schritte, um schnell radikale Veränderungen in einzelnen Sektoren wie Energie, Wohnen, Landwirtschaft oder Finanzen, und in verschiedenen sozialen, ökonomischen und politischen Systemen einzuleiten. Der Kurzbericht schließt mit Handlungsoptionen für die drei zentralen Transformationshebel 1) strukturelle Verankerung des sozial-ökologischen Wandels und Gemeinwohlorientierung, 2) Ökologisierung der Landwirtschaft und 3) Globale Governance zum Schutz der globalen Gemeingüter Biodiversität, Wälder und Meere.