Suchergebnisse

Burden sharing in security organizations: broadening the burden sharing debate This study argues that burden sharing entails more than defense spending only, covering military capabilities, contributions to missions and soft power issues as well. In this respect, the study broadens the burden sharing debate amongst security organizations from a one-sided input approach concerning the military to a more comprehensive view on security communities. Doing so, a variety of dimensions and parameters to measure states' burden sharing behavior are put forward. By considering burden sharing a process rather than an output, politicians are offered opportunities to conduct more meaningful and in-depth dialogues. Before focusing on the distribution of the burden, instead, such dialogues may start by asking 'How do individual states' contributions aggregate?' As a consequence, mutual understanding of how states perceive and value international public goods may develop, rendering discussions on the distribution of the burdens to bear more constructive.

Across the world, the perceived common ground regarding global safety and security is changing. Facing divergent threats, in addition to their cooperation on defense states will increasingly need to collaborate on additional dimensions to protect their citizens. Hence, next to the military burden-sharing debate, questions as to whether states are contributing their fair shares in other arenas as well will be subject to debate also. This article analyzes national contributions by 28 NATO states to five dimensions connected to today's safety and security situation, namely military expenditures, foreign aid, combating terror financing, carbon dioxide reductions, and refugee protection. We find that states vary in their contributions to safety and security, each preferring to fund some dimensions more than others. We suggest that acknowledging and allowing for a certain degree of complementarity among states could help transform the debate on burden-sharing, which is cost-focused, to include benefit-sharing behavior. Thus, it may become possible to value every country's contributions and, building on national strengths, to further cooperation for safety and security along all necessary dimensions.

Abstract
By offering a comprehensive insight into the burden sharing behavior of states contributing to the MINUSMA peacekeeping mission, this paper contributes to the growing literature on burden sharing during specific crisis response operations. Three fairness principles (i.e. equality, equity and exemption) are applied to present an inclusive view on how burden sharing evolves. We find proximity to serve as a paramount motivation to contribute to the mission. As compared to advanced states, low income developing countries both deployed most troops to MINUSMA and were overrepresented in Mali's most dangerous areas. The highest troop contributing countries have been compensated financially and advanced economies provided the financial and technical means.

International audience ; Understanding complex processes of landscape change is crucial to guide the development of future landscapes and land resources. Through Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping, we studied the processes of landscape change of six different environmental zones in Europe. Results show that landscapes are complex systems, with many interactions. Except for one, all regions show a strong decline in landscape quality. Dominant drivers are EU policy and the global economy, sometimes in conjunction with environmental drivers or the governance system. The process of change differs for all cases, through urbanisation or land abandonment in some cases, and agricultural intensification in others. The (un)intended effects of policies are difficult to predict. Although some EU Policies directly improve landscape quality, their indirect effects as well as other EU policies outweigh this positive influence and jointly result in a decrease of landscape quality. To counter these negative side effects, targeted landscape policies are urgently needed.

Understanding complex processes of landscape change is crucial to guide the development of future landscapes and land resources. Through Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping, we studied the processes of landscape change of six different environmental zones in Europe. Results show that landscapes are complex systems, with many interactions. Except for one, all regions show a strong decline in landscape quality. Dominant drivers are EU policy and the global economy, sometimes in conjunction with environmental drivers or the governance system. The process of change differs for all cases, through urbanisation or land abandonment in some cases, and agricultural intensification in others. The (un)intended effects of policies are difficult to predict. Although some EU Policies directly improve landscape quality, their indirect effects as well as other EU policies outweigh this positive influence and jointly result in a decrease of landscape quality. To counter these negative side effects, targeted landscape policies are urgently needed.

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in "multi-level biodiversity governance", investigated within the BESAFE project. The following broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies: • Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance? • How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)? • How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance? The study's approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives to argument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance. The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are "products" of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments "say". By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance. The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors "do" D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and what strategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), upscaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media. The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate "fit" into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation.

International audience ; About one-third of the world's land surface is used for farming, a fact that bears important implications for biodiversity. In Europe, for instance, an estimated 50 percent of all wild species are reliant on agricultural habitats, while agricultural productivity often depends on the presence or absence of particular species. Despite this close coupling, surprisingly little is known about the status and evolution of farmland biodiversity. A team of European and African researchers, hoping to fill this gap in information, recently invented and piloted a new toolbox called the BioBio indicator set, which measures 23 different instances of biodiversity across a variety of farm types and scales in Europe. Applications were also tested in Tunisia, Ukraine, and Uganda, where they proved a feasible starting point for adaptation to the agricultural context of different countries.

About one-third of the world's land surface is used for farming, a fact that bears important implications for biodiversity. In Europe, for instance, an estimated 50 percent of all wild species are reliant on agricultural habitats, while agricultural productivity often depends on the presence or absence of particular species. Despite this close coupling, surprisingly little is known about the status and evolution of farmland biodiversity. A team of European and African researchers, hoping to fill this gap in information, recently invented and piloted a new toolbox called the BioBio indicator set, which measures 23 different instances of biodiversity across a variety of farm types and scales in Europe. Applications were also tested in Tunisia, Ukraine, and Uganda, where they proved a feasible starting point for adaptation to the agricultural context of different countries.