Suchergebnisse

SUMMARY 1 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 2 FIGURES, TABLES, ABBREVIATIONS 7 Figures 7 Tables 7 Abbreviations 8 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Policy Impact Assessments and the Environmental Dimension 9 1.2 Entry Points for Environmental Consideration 11 2 PROBLEM DEFINITION, RESEARCH QUESTION, AND STATE OF RESEARCH 13 2.1 Problem Definition and Research Question 13 2.2 State of Research 15 2.2.1 Evidence on the Consideration of the Environmental Dimension in IA 15 2.2.2 Factors Shaping the Consideration of the Environment Dimension 17 2.2.2.1 IA System 17 2.2.2.2 Organisational Context 19 2.2.2.3 Actors and Use of IAs 19 2.2.2.4 IA Process 20 2.2.2.5 Methodological-Technical Issues 21 2.2.2.6 Underlying Logic of IA 22 2.2.3 How Can Environmental Consideration in IA Processes be Improved? 22 2.2.3.1 IA system 22 2.2.3.2 Institutional Context 23 2.2.3.3 Actors and use of IA 23 2.2.3.4 IA process 24 2.2.3.5 Methodological-Technical Issues 24 3 METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION 26 3.1 The Comparative Method 26 3.1.1 Selection of Case Studies 27 3.2 Data Collection and Structuring 30 3.2.1 Process-Tracing 30 3.2.1.1 Structure of the IA Processes Analysed 31 3.2.2 Document and Content Analysis 32 3.2.3 Semi-Structured Interviews 33 4 THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK – OPERATIONALISING IA PROCESSES 35 4.1 Introduction to Actor-Centred Institutionalism 35 4.2 Institutional Context 36 4.2.1 Operationalisation 37 4.2.1.1 Political system 37 4.2.1.2 IA system 38 4.3 Actors 40 4.3.1 Capabilities 40 4.3.2 Action Orientation 40 4.3.3 Operationalisation 42 4.3.3.1 Capabilities 42 4.3.3.2 Preferences of IA Actors 42 4.3.3.3 Interaction Orientation 43 4.4 Actor Constellation 44 4.4.1 Form of Interaction 44 4.4.2 Operationalisation 45 4.4.2.1 Provisions for Coordination 45 4.4.2.2 Departments' Decision-Making Autonomy 45 4.5 Non-Institutional Context 46 4.5.1 Operationalisation 46 4.5.1.1 Problem Structure 46 4.5.1.2 Origin and Maturity of the Policy 48 4.6 Level of Environmental Consideration 48 4.6.1 The Environmental Evidence-Base 48 4.6.2 Operationalisation 48 ...

This study provides an overview of existing approaches and methods for assessing the environmental impacts of trade and trade-related activities. It considers both approaches that are tailored to the assessment of trade- environment linkages and more generic approaches for environmental assessment and analyzes their respective usability in the context of trade-related development cooperation. The study thereby aims to contribute to a more extensive use of such tools, while improving the practice and application of environmental assessments of trade-related policies and programs. In doing so, the study will complement the existing study on the assessment of the socio- economic impacts from trade carried out by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)1. The study is divided into two parts. Part I begins with a brief discussion on trade-related development cooperation followed by a short overview of the debate on trade, development and the environment. Next it provides an overview of existing approaches to conceptualizing environmental impacts from trade-related activities. After this, it provides a general introduction to impact assessment (IA) and the assessment of environmental impacts in this context. It closes with a brief overview of the assessment of environmental aspects in German development cooperation. Part II provides a more detailed review of existing frameworks and methods for assessing the environmental impacts from trade-related policies and programs.

Despite regular reforms, problems under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) persist. In order to identify priorities for future reforms of the policy, we developed an analytical framework consisting of 17 criteria and specifying indicators, derived from scientific, wider fisheries, and common resources literature. We applied the framework to the CFP governance system, its regulations, institutions, and processe at EU as well as member state level. The results show that the CFP does not fully meet any of the 17 criteria for an effective resource policy. Its performance was assessed as "neutral" regarding 10 criteria and "negative" regarding seven criteria. Trend analysis shows that there is a slightly positive trend regarding the CFP's performance, with five criteria trending positively, 11 showing a neutral trend and only one criterion trending negatively (simplicity of rules). The analysis identified five criteria which are performing badly and have not improved over time: simplicity of rules, user-pays principle, resource efficiency, accountability, and compliance mechanisms. Future reforms of the CFP should first and foremost address these criteria while continuing efforts to improve the CFP's performance regarding other criteria. The evaluation of the CFP demonstrates the applicability of the analytical framework which can also be applied to other multilevel fisheries governance systems. Moreover, the results can inform reforms of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. Like the CFP, these institutions manage transboundary fisheries and have not effectively addressed the issues of resource rent capture and resource efficiency.

The profile of small-scale fisheries has been raised through a dedicated target within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG14b) that calls for the provision of 'access of small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets'. By focusing on access to fisheries resources in the context of European Union, in this article we demonstrate that the potential for small-scale fishing sectors to benefit from fishing opportunities remains low due to different mechanisms at play including legislative gaps in the Common Fisheries Policy, and long-existing local structures somewhat favouring the status quo of distributive injustice. Consequently, those without access to capital and authority are faced by marginalizing allocation systems, impacting the overall resilience of fishing communities. Achieving SDG14b requires an overhaul in the promulgation of policies emanating from the present nested governance systems.

The profile of small-scale fisheries has been raised through a dedicated target within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG14b) that calls for the provision of 'access of small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets'. By focusing on access to fisheries resources in the context of European Union, in this article we demonstrate that the potential for small-scale fishing sectors to benefit from fishing opportunities remains low due to different mechanisms at play including legislative gaps in the Common Fisheries Policy, and long-existing local structures somewhat favouring the status quo of distributive injustice. Consequently, those without access to capital and authority are faced by marginalizing allocation systems, impacting the overall resilience of fishing communities. Achieving SDG14b requires an overhaul in the promulgation of policies emanating from the present nested governance systems.

Whereas previous AORA discussions have focused on mandate challenges that may be inhibiting the implementation of the EBM, this mandates Task Group workshop led to the insight that while there were some legislative gaps in governance that contrib-uted to the implementation challenges, it was the implementation structure of those mandates that was a significant locus for EBM challenges. This observation resulted from applying the policy-stages heuristic to the overall workshop discussion and de-marcating those aspects that were specific to governance and those that related to im-plementation. In this analysis, it was concluded that there were sufficient legislative mandates to support the decision making to proceed with an EBM approach. Some of the gaps that remained included mechanisms to empower cross jurisdictional or inter-departmental decision making. The majority of identified challenges to the successful implementation of EBM were specific to the implementation process itself, such as overcoming political and administrative boundaries.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) necessarily requires a degree of coordination across countries that share ocean ecosystems, and among national agencies and departments that have responsibilities relating to ocean health and marine resource utilization. This requires political direction, legal input, stakeholder consultation and engagement, and complex negotiations. Currently there is a common perception that within and across national jurisdictions there is excessive legislative complexity, a relatively low level of policy coherence or alignment with regards to ocean and coastal EBM, and that more aligned legislation is needed to accelerate EBM adoption. Our Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance (AORA) task group was comprised of a small, focused and interdisciplinary mix of lawyers, social scientists, and natural scientists from Canada, the USA, and the EU. We characterized, compared, and synthesized the mandates that govern marine activities and ocean stressors relative to facilitating EBM in national and international waters of the North Atlantic, and identified formal mandates across jurisdictions and, where possible, policy and other non-regulatory mandates. We found that irrespective of the detailed requirements of legislation or policy across AORA jurisdictions, or the efficacy of their actual implementation, most of the major ocean pressures and uses posing threats to ocean sustainability have some form of coverage by national or regional legislation. The coverage is, in fact, rather comprehensive. Still, numerous impediments to effective EBM implementation arise, potentially relating to the lack of integration between agencies and departments, a lack of adequate policy alignment, and a variety of other socio-political factors. We note with concern that if challenges regarding EBM implementation exist in the North Atlantic, we can expect that in less developed regions where financial and governance capacity may be lower, that implementation of EBM could be even more challenging.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) necessarily requires a degree of coordination across countries that share ocean ecosystems, and among national agencies and departments that have responsibilities relating to ocean health and marine resource utilization. This requires political direction, legal input, stakeholder consultation and engagement, and complex negotiations. Currently there is a common perception that within and across national jurisdictions there is excessive legislative complexity, a relatively low level of policy coherence or alignment with regards to ocean and coastal EBM, and that more aligned legislation is needed to accelerate EBM adoption. Our Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance (AORA) task group was comprised of a small, focused and interdisciplinary mix of lawyers, social scientists, and natural scientists from Canada, the USA, and the EU. We characterized, compared, and synthesized the mandates that govern marine activities and ocean stressors relative to facilitating EBM in national and international waters of the North Atlantic, and identified formal mandates across jurisdictions and, where possible, policy and other non-regulatory mandates. We found that irrespective of the detailed requirements of legislation or policy across AORA jurisdictions, or the efficacy of their actual implementation, most of the major ocean pressures and uses posing threats to ocean sustainability have some form of coverage by national or regional legislation. The coverage is, in fact, rather comprehensive. Still, numerous impediments to effective EBM implementation arise, potentially relating to the lack of integration between agencies and departments, a lack of adequate policy alignment, and a variety of other socio-political factors. We note with concern that if challenges regarding EBM implementation exist in the North Atlantic, we can expect that in less developed regions where financial and governance capacity may be lower, that implementation of EBM could be even more challenging.

The Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) is a forum for interdisciplinary perspectives on ecosystem science, advice, and governance. It engages with maritime stakeholders from across the North Atlantic to take into consideration and better understand their perspectives. From 2020-2022 WGMARS is focused on methodological, operational, contextual, and science management aspects enabling ecosystem-based maritime management/governance. Topics addressed in this report include the ways that behavioural economics could inform and could be used for an enhanced understanding of fisheries management, the development and use of integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA) in ICES, the types and extent of connectivity among ICES expert groups based on Social Network Analysis (SNA) and the ways in which (IEA), Ecosystem Based Management (EBM), and MSP (Marine Spatial Planning) are implemented in different European Union (EU) member states, the EU, and the United States. Plans for a systematic literature review of the relevance of behavioural economics in fisheries management were developed. Related work on nudging in fisheries management and compliance with marine mammal protection regulations was summarized. Interviews with ten ICES regional IEA expert groups have been completed. Preliminary analyses have identified commonalities and differences among groups, in relation to topics such as contributions to ICES advice, the role of social scientists, the maturity of the IEA they conduct, resource needs, the role of stakeholders and the balance between descriptive and quantitative science. SNA, using a database of 2015-2019 attendees at ICES expert groups, is being used to quantify the centrality of a node expert group in relation to other expert groups in any given year. Four measures of centrality have been adopted: degree centrality, betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, and eigenvector centrality. Results of the analysis will reveal the strengths and types of connections among ICES expert groups, which are expected to influence the effectiveness and impact of ICES ecosy stem and sustainability science.With regard to the implementation of IEA, WGMARS reviewed the development of the national IEA program in the United States, based on reported talks from relevant scientists and managers. At future meetings, the outcomes of this review will be compared those for IEA implementation in other countries and regions .

The overarching focus of Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) has been on understanding the conceptualisation and implementation of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) in ICES and more broadly. From 2017-2019, the Working Group reviewed academic literature and ICES documents, interviewed the chairs of the ICES Regional Seas Working Groups (which are charged with conducting IEAs), and heard member reports on the relationships among IEAs, Ecosystem-Based Management, and Marine Spatial Planning in various European nations, the EU, and the US. We have also examined how IEAs are used in management and attempted to use behavioural economics to think about the types of regulations that might be most effective in specific situations. WGMARS also highlighted the importance of having multiple disciplines from the natural and social science, and the humanities (e.g. history), contributing to conceptualisation and implementation of IEA, as well as stakeholders who are likely to be impacted by changes in regulations (e.g. industries, communities, and local, regional, and national government bodies other than those implementing the regulations in question). To foster this type of multidisciplinary (i.e. involving natural and social science, as well as the humanities) and transdisciplinary (i.e. involving stakeholders) work, we have held workshops with other ICES Working Groups and with government officials from the US (the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Councils) and the Netherlands (officials of Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch national body responsible for roads, waterways, and water systems and part of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management). Our findings suggest that the research work on and for IEAs is still very much a work in progress with strong variance in the way IEA work is approached. Different Regional Seas Working Groups, for instance, are at very different points in moving toward full IEA, especially regarding their inclusion of social sciences and humanities and their inclusion of and types of collaboration with stakeholders. Moreover, structural conditions to create a demand and underlying science varies significantly between different regional seas regions.