Suchergebnisse

AbstractWith the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, UN Member States pledge "to leave no one behind" and "endeavour to reach the furthest behind first". The EU Just Transition Fund (JTF) was designed to meet these policy objectives. It is one of three pillars of the Just Transition Mechanism, aiming at fair delivery of the European Green Deal and reducing adverse social and economic impacts of the transition towards a climate-neutral Europe. We examine the formulation of the JTF Regulation, from January 2020 until July 2021 and analyse seven topics of importance during the JTF formulation. Based on the results, we identify and discuss four paradoxes related to governance scales, offsetting exclusion, equity illusion, and eligibility criteria. The paradoxes arise from tension between the all-inclusive objective to leave no one behind, and selective affirmative actions, seeking to reach the furthest behind first. Results of the analysis enabled us to put forward plausible strategies to embrace these policy paradoxes to offer important lessons learned for the JTF and also to future policies that seek to leave no one behind.

Treeline areas provide a range of ecosystem services, but there are diverging views as to how and for whose benefit, these ecosystem services are managed. Applying a Q-method, we explore experts' attitudes towards forest related decision-making and governance in treeline areas to reveal the attitudinal divergences that exist and analyse patterns of shared assumptions forming attitude-related communities. Experiences, trends, opportunities and challenges in European treeline area decision-making are considered. Our results reveal four attitude-related communities, representing four distinctive types of expert attitudes. Findings demonstrate a number of similarities in attitudes among experts indicating, for example, that treeline area decision-making is hardly socially innovative as it tends to happen in a top-down manner. However, some do and others don't see tree-line governance beneficial from an ecological perspective. The attitudinal heterogeneity identified offers insights into treeline decision-making and could, therefore, be useful to public decision-makers in addressing the opinions of each attitudinal group on a case-by-case basis. The general conclusions are that forest related decision-making in treeline areas requires social innovation and a high level of stakeholder competence and capacity-building; and that an improved knowledge of experts' attitudes, together with an emphasis on increased participation in decision-making, could be of help to policy and practice communities in triggering innovative changes locally. ; Published in Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 92, July 2018, Pages 210-219. Doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.001

Treeline areas provide a range of ecosystem services, but there are diverging views as to how and for whose benefit, these ecosystem services are managed. Applying a Q-method, we explore experts' attitudes towards forest related decision-making and governance in treeline areas to reveal the attitudinal divergences that exist and analyse patterns of shared assumptions forming attitude-related communities. Experiences, trends, opportunities and challenges in European treeline area decision-making are considered. Our results reveal four attitude-related communities, representing four distinctive types of expert attitudes. Findings demonstrate a number of similarities in attitudes among experts indicating, for example, that treeline area decision-making is hardly socially innovative as it tends to happen in a top-down manner. However, some do and others don't see tree-line governance beneficial from an ecological perspective. The attitudinal heterogeneity identified offers insights into treeline decision-making and could, therefore, be useful to public decision-makers in addressing the opinions of each attitudinal group on a case-by-case basis. The general conclusions are that forest related decision-making in treeline areas requires social innovation and a high level of stakeholder competence and capacity-building; and that an improved knowledge of experts' attitudes, together with an emphasis on increased participation in decision-making, could be of help to policy and practice communities in triggering innovative changes locally.