Suchergebnisse

Local authorities need to find more effective ways to engage communities because public participation in collection schemes and acceptance of municipal waste facilities are integral to delivering effective waste strategies. The technical expertise politicians relied on in the past, to produce cost-effective and environmentally sound solutions, no longer provides sufficient justification to approve waste facilities. A new conceptualization of the relationship between science and politics, whereby there is some balance in the use of expert and local knowledge, is required to legitimize waste policy decisions. This paper aims to develop a better understanding of what happens at the interface between 'expert' and 'public' in municipal waste management decision making. It establishes opinions on the extent to which public values and preferences may be considered in practice in order to avoid or resolve controversial issues by gaining public consent.

The precautionary principle was formulated to provide a basis for political action to protect the environment from potentially severe or irreversible harm in circumstances of scientific uncertainty that prevent a full risk or cost‐benefit analysis. It underpins environmental law in the European Union and has been extended to include public health and consumer safety. The aim of this study was to examine how the precautionary principle has been interpreted and subsequently applied in practice, whether these applications were consistent, and whether they followed the guidance from the Commission. A review of the literature was used to develop a framework for analysis, based on three attributes: severity of potential harm, standard of evidence (or degree of uncertainty), and nature of the regulatory action. This was used to examine 15 pieces of legislation or judicial decisions. The decision whether or not to apply the precautionary principle appears to be poorly defined, with ambiguities inherent in determining what level of uncertainty and significance of hazard justifies invoking it. The cases reviewed suggest that the Commission's guidance was not followed consistently in forming legislation, although judicial decisions tended to be more consistent and to follow the guidance by requiring plausible evidence of potential hazard in order to invoke precaution.

The precautionary principle was formulated to provide a basis for political action to protect the environment from potentially severe or irreversible harm in circumstances of scientific uncertainty that prevent a full risk or cost-benefit analysis. It underpins environmental law in the European Union and has been extended to include public health and consumer safety. The aim of this study was to examine how the precautionary principle has been interpreted and subsequently applied in practice, whether these applications were consistent, and whether they followed the guidance from the Commission. A review of the literature was used to develop a framework for analysis, based on three attributes: severity of potential harm, standard of evidence (or degree of uncertainty), and nature of the regulatory action. This was used to examine 15 pieces of legislation or judicial decisions. The decision whether or not to apply the precautionary principle appears to be poorly defined, with ambiguities inherent in determining what level of uncertainty and significance of hazard justifies invoking it. The cases reviewed suggest that the Commission's guidance was not followed consistently in forming legislation, although judicial decisions tended to be more consistent and to follow the guidance by requiring plausible evidence of potential hazard in order to invoke precaution.

The technical expertise that politicians relied on in the past to produce cost-effective and environmentally sound solutions no longer provides sufficient justification to approve waste facilities. Local authorities need to find more effective ways to involve stakeholders and communities in decision-making since public acceptance of municipal waste facilities is integral to delivering effective waste strategies. This paper presents findings from a research project that explored attitudes towards greater levels of public involvement in UK waste management decision-making. The study addressed questions of perception, interests, the decision context, the means of engagement and the necessary resources and capacity for adopting a participatory decision process. Adopting a mixed methods approach, the research produced an empirical framework for negotiating the mode and level of public involvement in waste management decision-making. The framework captures and builds on theories of public involvement and the experiences of practitioners, and offers guidance for integrating analysis and deliberation with public groups in different waste management decision contexts. Principles in the framework operate on the premise that the decision about 'more' and 'better' forms of public involvement can be negotiated, based on the nature of the waste problem and wider social context of decision-making. The collection of opinions from the wide range of stakeholders involved in the study has produced new insights for the design of public engagement processes that are context-dependent and 'fit-for-purpose'; these suggest a need for greater inclusivity in the case of contentious technologies and high levels of uncertainty regarding decision outcomes.

Poor connection between data on emerging issues and credible policy decisions continues to challenge governments, and is only likely to grow as demands on time and resources increase. Here we summarise recent efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation approaches to better connect emerging issues to the political discourse on environmental and food-related issues. Our categorisation of insights including potential future risks and opportunities to inform policy discussions has emerged from a structured three-year programme of horizon scanning for a UK pan-governmental futures partnership led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Our efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation, utilising a qualitative weight of evidence framework, has created a systematic process for identifying all signals of potential future change with significant impact for the strategic mission and underlying values of policy actors. Our approach encourages an exploration of factors out of the control of organisations, recognising that resilience depends on the flexibility of management strategies and the preparedness to deal with a variety of unexpected outcomes. We discuss how this approach addresses key cultural and evaluative challenges that policy actors have had in embedding horizon scanning in evidence-based policy processes, and suggest further developments to build confidence in the use of horizon scanning for strategic planning.

Strategic risk appraisal (SRA) has been applied to compare diverse policy level risks to and from the environment in England and Wales. Its application has relied on expert-informed assessments of the potential consequences from residual risks that attract policy attention at the national scale. Here we compare consequence assessments, across environmental, economic and social impact categories that draw on 'expert'- and 'literature-based' analyses of the evidence for 12 public risks appraised by Government. For environmental consequences there is reasonable agreement between the two sources of assessment, with expert-informed assessments providing a narrower dispersion of impact severity and with median values similar in scale to those produced by an analysis of the literature. The situation is more complex for economic consequences, with a greater spread in the median values, less consistency between the two assessment types and a shift toward higher severity values across the risk portfolio. For social consequences, the spread of severity values is greater still, with no consistent trend between the severities of impact expressed by the two types of assessment. For the latter, the findings suggest the need for a fuller representation of socioeconomic expertise in SRA and the workshops that inform SRA output.

This project developed a long-term, strategic approach to assess plausible changes to the management of water and the water environment over a 35-year period. Futures research, specifically scenario analysis, was adopted to investigate possible developments within water and the water environment, thus providing the government, its arm's length bodies and stakeholders with additional information to support decisions on management strategies, skills, resources, institutions, positions and policies required to deal with the range of plausible outcomes. 'Futures thinking' has been applied to revise and elaborate the Environment Agency's existing 4 socioeconomic scenarios (uncontrolled demand, innovation, sustainable behaviour and local resilience), as well as to introduce a new reference scenario that examines the impact of developing trends in future intervention. This revision has been shaped by experts from a wide range of disciplines (including social science, water sciences, river basin management and risk management) from the Environment Agency and project partners to establish the implications for managing water and the water environment. The report outlines the process used to develop the scenarios and explains the framework used to analyse the complex issues associated with the future of water and the water environment and for supporting thinking and discussion around long-term strategic options and objectives. This analytical framework takes a broad view of the catchments in England and Wales, and the wide context in which management operates. The analysis considered the most important aspects of river catchments, ranging from upland to urban catchments. This report described the scenarios in detail. It is one of 3 reports produced by the project. The other 2 present an overview of the scenarios and discuss the implications of each scenario for the water environment and water users, respectively. Note that the scenarios and the environmental consequences described in these reports reflect the collective views of a set of stakeholders at the time the work was undertaken (2012 to 2014). The work was completed before a number of significant political changes occurred, not least the outcome of the referendum on the UK exit from the EU. Although this affects some of the specifics in the scenarios (notably the reference scenario), the generalities of the scenarios are still valid. The project was led by the Environment Agency and delivered through joint working with Defra and its arm's length bodies (Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry Commission England) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Natural Resources Wales through the Defra Futures Partnership initiative, led by Cranfield University.

Project context The European Union has targets to improve the competitiveness of European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment and the quality of rural life. At the same time there is a need to improve our resilience to climate change and to enhance biodiversity. During the twentieth century, large productivity advances were made by managing agriculture and forestry as separate practices, but often at a high environmental cost. In order to address landscape-scale issues such as biodiversity and water quality, we argue that farmers and society will benefit from considering landuse as a continuum including both agriculture and trees, and that there are significant opportunities for European farmers and society to benefit from a closer integration of trees with agriculture. Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. ; AGFORWARD (Grant Agreement N° 613520) is co-funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research & Innovation, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD. The views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission