Suchergebnisse

The report summarises the results of a Delphi study carried out in the Contracts2.0 project. The reports key findings: The report presents the detailed results of a Delphi survey conducted about innovative agri-environmental and climate measures among European decision-makers, experts, NGOs and farmers. The Delphi had three consecutive rounds between March 2021 and May 2022. The report presents the three rounds without contextualizing the results; a more detailed analysis of the Delphi research can be found as a public deliverable of the project: D4.3. Considering the characteristics of currently typical AECM contracts, respondents highlighted the need for more flexibility, improved monitoring and control mechanisms, and better regional differentiation (i.e.g tailor-made solutions which adapt to regional specificities both in terms of the environmental and the socio-economic context). The overly complicated nature of some of the existing schemes were mentioned as a limitation, based on which some respondents argued for simplified contracts. AECM is the most popular contract type combining the different elements the most popular contract would be an AECM using both result based and action based elements, with a medium long contract signed by individual farmers There is almost a consensus around seeing innovative contract elements in combination with mainstream contracts as top-ups. At the same time, it is clear that respondents are afraid of an increasing bureaucracy, thus they could imagine a re-design of the current AECM administration. Flexibility is a key -point in the adaptability at the EU level; more than half of the respondents think that the ideal model can be implemented at EU level if there is a possibility for regional adaptation; only a minority assumes that the ideal model cannot be implemented. Respondents see ideal contract types highly beneficial: there is a consensus that those will have a positive impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services, on European farmers' knowledge and attitudes ...

AbstractTo support legitimate European Union (EU) biodiversity policy development, there is a growing momentum to engage society in these policy processes and build meaningful and inclusive dialogue between science, policy, and society in policy deliberation. So far, engagement efforts have been made to encourage citizen participation in knowledge production via, for example, citizen science. At EU level means to encourage public participation have included a variety of online mechanisms for spreading information and promoting public deliberation. Despite these developments, the involvement of the general public in policy-making at the EU level has been rather inconsistent to date. In this article, we evaluate online science cafés as potential means to encourage dialogue between science, policy, and society; we ask what elements in their design and implementation are essential for inclusive dialogue between science, policy, and society. Our findings emphasise iterative dialogue when approaching multi-scalar challenges. This has important implications for developing legitimate participation across Europe.

To achieve biodiversity conservation targets comprehensively, and to support transparent, democratic and legitimate EU biodiversity policy, there is a growing need and momentum to engage society as a whole to develop biodiversity and ecosystem service policies. For example, citizen science efforts made in environmental sciences have generally been innovative and efficient at harnessing the knowledge and know-how of citizens in observations and data gathering. In addition, different means to encourage public participation in policy development have been presented and implemented both in real life and online, including a variety of especially asynchronous online mechanisms for both spreading information and awareness and promoting public deliberation on EU policy matters. Despite these developments, the involvement and role of the wider public in deliberating on policy matters regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU level has been rather inconsistent to date. Therefore, more systematic, meaningful and inclusive interplays between science, policy and society need to be developed. Towards this aim, we evaluate the potential of online science cafés to narrow the gap between science, policy and society, strengthen the interface of them, and encourage active and effective public participation in biodiversity policy on the EU scale. Developing social engagement via online science cafés is a manifold process; technical usability, participant's previous knowledge, past discussions and the framing of the topic and the implicit and explicit objectives and outcomes all relate to the meaningfulness and quality of the discussion and the commitment of the participants. Keywords: societal engagement, online participation, science café, EU biodiversity and ecosystem services, policy development, science-policy-society interface, transnational discussion ; peerReviewed

AbstractSustainability, knowledge forms and rural development are the core concepts combined in this study to explore how different forms of knowledge manifest themselves in rural development and how their dynamics can contribute to rural sustainability. Based on a qualitative research process, we compare two individual livelihood strategies from rural Hungary, the case of a family farmer and a potter. We argue that scientific, local and managerial knowledge forms cannot be identified in pure forms in Hungarian rural initiatives. In the absence of a strong networking capacity, rural entrepreneurs replace knowledge‐sharing and community‐learning processes with individual knowledge‐gathering strategies. As a consequence, person‐bound, multifaceted knowledge sets are used in rural initiatives and are produced according to context; however, the absence of knowledge dynamics hinders actors in developing sustainable solutions. Thus, rural development policy should encourage interaction among different rural actors instead of aiming at providing better education for managerial knowledge.

The food- and feed-value systems in the European Union are not protein self-sufficient. Despite their potential to improve the well-being of arable cropping systems, sufficient production of high-protein legume grains in Europe has not been achieved due to multiple barriers. The reasons are multiple and span economic, agronomic, research, and extension services, as well as aspects of culture and traditional dietary habits. Given the well-documented advantages of legume-supported production systems and diets, that include ecosystem and health provisions, acknowledging and promoting legumes as cornerstone species for more sustainable agri-food systems is a necessary and logical step. This paper provides an integrated analysis of case studies and current policies that shape the production and consumption of legumes in Europe. This study identified three key pathways, which can be integrated into sustainable farming systems to support current and future food security challenges via the use of legumes and legume-based products. At each pathway, we identified several enablers that support the sustainability transformation of legume production and consumption in Europe. ; N/A

The food- and feed-value systems in the European Union are not protein self-sufficient. Despite the potential of legume-supported production systems to reduce the externalities caused by current cultivation practices (excessive use of N fertilizer) and improve the sustainability of the arable cropping systems and the quality of human diets, sufficient production of high-protein legume grains in Europe has not been achieved due to multiple barriers. Identifying the barriers to the production and consumption of legumes is the first step in realizing new pathways towards more sustainable food systems of which legumes are integral part. In this study, we engage stakeholders and decision-makers in a structured communication process, the Delphi method, to identify policy interventions leveraging barriers that hinder the production and consumption of legumes in the EU. This study is one of a kind and uses a systematic method to reach a common understanding of the policy incoherencies across sectors. Through this method we identify policy interventions that may promote the production of legumes and the creation of legume-based products in the EU. Policies that encourage reduced use of inorganic N fertilizer represent an important step toward a shift in the increased cultivation of legumes. Relatedly, investment in R&D, extension services, and knowledge transfer is necessary to support a smooth transition from the heavy use of synthetic N fertilizer in conventional agriculture. These policy interventions are discussed within current EU and national plant-protein strategies. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

An approach that has been suggested as potentially addressing the challenges of science-policy-interfaces (SPIs) is the mobilization of existing networks through a 'network-of-networks' (NoN) approach. This paper shares empirical findings from a mixed-method study, combining qualitative and quantitative data, that critically evaluates the 'network-of-networks' approach for SPIs. To establish whether and how a NoN can help existing networks act more effectively at the boundary of science and policy, we use the Eklipse Mechanism as a key example. We analyse the major characteristics of networks active in biodiversity-focused science-policy interactions, the potential roles and types of engagement of participants, and the major challenges faced by networks and individuals when acting at the boundaries of science and policy. Results suggest that the more diverse the actors involved, the more effective the SPI. While a formalized EU-level SPI for biodiversity is welcomed by most respondents, willingness and actual potential to contribute to such an entity differed amongst networks, highlighting that contributions to SPIs are highly dependent on individual and organizational capacities. The challenges faced by individuals and networks range from limited resources to effective communication and achieving meaningful impact even if the institutional context is unrewarding. To make a 'network-of-networks' model fully operational requires meeting the capacity building needs of networks, providing institutional support, and creating room for wider engagement.

International audience ; The COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well-being. In 2019 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post-2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post-2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and must take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short-term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well-being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post-2020 agenda to do so.

International audience ; The COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well-being. In 2019 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post-2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post-2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and must take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short-term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well-being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post-2020 agenda to do so.

International audience ; The COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well-being. In 2019 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post-2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post-2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and must take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short-term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well-being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post-2020 agenda to do so.

International audience ; The COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well-being. In 2019 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post-2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post-2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and must take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short-term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well-being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post-2020 agenda to do so.

International audience ; The COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well-being. In 2019 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post-2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post-2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and must take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short-term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well-being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post-2020 agenda to do so.

The COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well-being. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post-2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post-2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and ust take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short-term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well-being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post-2020 agenda to do so. biodiversity conservation, economic systems, green finance, incentives, metrics, policy, regulation, subsidies, trade, transformative change ; publishedVersion