Suchergebnisse

I joined the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) in 1989 as its last formally appointed Chief Scientist, following in the footsteps of Derek Ratcliffe's long and impressive tenure. It was a hard act to follow.

I joined the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) in 1989 as its last formally appointed Chief Scientist, following in the footsteps of Derek Ratcliffe's long and impressive tenure. It was a hard act to follow.

Résumé À première vue, les débats internationaux sur la chasse aux baleines sont simples. Il existe un large soutien pour l'idée que la chasse devrait être interdite, de même qu'une forte opposition émanant de certains pays. Pourtant, les enjeux sont en réalité beaucoup plus complexes et témoignent notamment d'un décalage croissant entre le cadre juridique existant et les problèmes qu'il lui revient désormais de traiter. Ce décalage reflète à son tour la complexité croissante des débats sur l'environnement, et tout particulièrement les tensions entre une conception traditionnelle de la conservation et des approches hostiles à l'anthropocentrisme. Cet article souligne les difficultés que rencontre le droit face aux questions humaines de diversité culturelle et à la nature des dynamiques écologiques, qui se déploient sur des échelles multiples. La conclusion de l'article est que, alors même que le débat s'est ouvert, on a pu perdre de vue les questions urgentes de conservation.

On the face of it, international arguments about whaling are simple. There is broad support for the view that hunting whales should be banned, and strong opposition from certain countries. Yet the arguments are in fact much more complex, and illustrate among other things the growing gap between the existing legal framework and the issues it is now called upon to deal with. This gap in turn reflects the increasing complexity of environmental debate, and in particular the tensions between traditional conservationism and approaches hostile to anthropocentrism. The article emphasises how this framework encounters difficulties in dealing with human issues of cultural diversity as well as the "multi‐scale" nature of ecological dynamics. It concludes that, as debate has opened, the focus on urgent issues of conservation may have been lost.

On the face of it, international arguments about whaling are simple. There is broad support for the view that hunting whales should be banned, & strong opposition from certain countries. Yet the arguments are in fact much more complex, & illustrate, among other things, the growing gap between the existing legal framework & the issues it is now called upon to deal with. This gap in turn reflects the increasing complexity of environmental debate, &, in particular, the tensions between traditional conservationism & approaches hostile to anthropocentrism. The article emphasizes how this framework encounters difficulties in dealing with human issues of cultural diversity as well as the 'multi-scale' nature of ecological dynamics. It concludes that, as debate has opened, the focus on urgent issues of conservation may have been lost. 7 References. Adapted from the source document.

On the face of it, international arguments about whaling are simple. There is broad support for the view that hunting whales should be banned, and strong opposition from certain countries. Yet the arguments are in fact much more complex, and illustrate among other things the growing gap between the existing legal framework and the issues it is now called upon to deal with. This gap in turn reflects the increasing complexity of environmental debate, and in particular the tensions between traditional conservationism and approaches hostile to anthropocentrism. The article emphasises how this framework encounters difficulties in dealing with human issues of cultural diversity as well as the "multi-scale" nature of ecological dynamics. It concludes that, as debate has opened, the focus on urgent issues of conservation may have been lost. (Original abstract)

A Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is under discussion for the period 2021–2030, which will replace the "Aichi Targets" adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010. Given the limited success in meeting most of the Aichi Targets, this new framework must adopt a different approach. A key challenge the GBF must address is its implementation at national scales. Four ways this implementation challenge can be addressed include: The framework must move away from numerical targets to pursue positive trends in biodiversity, through adopting a "vectors of change" approach; The framework should be structured to focus on ecosystems and processes; The framework should synergise more extensively with existing biodiversity-relevant global agreements to maximise leverage and reduce overlap of resource use; The framework must adopt a much stronger theory of change than is in the current GBF Draft, to serve as the roadmap governments can use in upscaling their implementation of biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing. Finally, the GBF must become a "learning framework", committed to facilitating and enabling governments to each meet their specific biodiversity challenges, while sharing back experiences with the global community, leading ultimately to realising the 2050 CBD vision of people living in harmony with nature.

This article addresses implementation failure in international environmental governance by considering how different institutional configurations for linking scientific and policy-making processes may help to improve implementation of policies set out in international environmental agreements. While institutional arrangements for interfacing scientific and policy-making processes are emerging as key elements in the structure of international environmental governance, formal understanding regarding their effectiveness is still limited. In an effort to advance that understanding, we propose that science-policy interfaces can be understood as institutions and that implementation failures in international environmental governance may be attributed, in part, to institutional mismatches (sic. Young in Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research, MIT Press, Cambridge 2008) associated with poor design of these institutions. In order to investigate this proposition, we employ three analytical categories-credibility, relevance and legitimacy, drawn from Cash et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086-8091, (2003), to explore basic characteristics of the institutions proscribed under two approaches to institutional design, which we term linear and collaborative. We then proceed to take a closer look at institutional mismatches that may arise with the operationalisation of the soon to be established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We find that, while there are encouraging signs that institutions based on new agreements, such as the IPBES, have the potential to overcome many of the institutional mismatches we have identified, there remain substantial tensions between continuing reliance on the established linear approach and an emerging collaborative approach, which can be expected to continue undermining the credibility, relevance and legitimacy of these institutions, at least in the near future. Adapted from the source document.