Suchergebnisse

On 3 May 2019, the UN secretary general António Guterres, tweeted: "No democracy is complete without access to transparent and reliable information. On #WorldPressFreedomDay, we must all defend the rights of journalists, whose efforts help us build a better world for all." How can we see to it that Guterres someday soon also will promote environmental assessment - on #FreePlanningDay?.

__Abstract__ National EIA systems include many actors: EIA agencies, project proponents, sectoral authorities, environmental and social NGOs, consultants, academics, lawyers, politicians and even journalists. Their views and actions largely determine whether EIA systems are successfully strengthened. The PAANEEAC programme assisted national associations of EIA professionals in Central Africa to bring all these actors together, to become platforms for exchange, and to undertake joint action to improve the system. The programme was considered successful by the participants. They experience these platforms as beneficial and have continued to keep them in operation after the programme came to an end. This article describes some of the success factors and the importance of the EIA associations within an EIA system.

Abstract: Policy-related research in general, and Impact Assessments in particular, are too loosely connected to decision-making processes. The result is often sub-optimal or even undesirable, as one of two situations arises: 1) much research is done; however, those with the real power to make decisions do not make use of all of the resulting information, or 2) advocates of contrary opinions struggle with each other, using policy-related research as ammunition. To avoid these unwanted situations, the connection between the world of knowledge and the world of decisionmaking should be carefully constructed, by connecting the process of decision-making to the academic research and carefully developing research goals in response to the demands of decision-makers. By making these connections in a stepwise manner, knowledge may generate new insights and views for involved decision-makers and stakeholders, thus changing perceptions and problem definitions. In this way, these actors learn about the possibilities of several alternatives as well as each other's perceptions, and thus can make educated decisions leading to the most desirable and socially acceptable solution. The way this proposed method works is illustrated using two cases in The Netherlands: the project "Mainport Rotterdam" (the enlargement of the port of Rotterdam), the project "A fifth runway for Amsterdam Airport (Schiphol)".

Climate change potentially brings continuous and unpredictable changes in weather patterns. Consequently, it calls for institutions that promote the adaptive capacity of society and allow society to modify its institutions at a rate commensurate with the rate of environmental change. Institutions, traditionally conservative and reactive, will now have to support social actors to proactively respond through planned processes and deliberate steps, but also through cherishing and encouraging spontaneous and autonomous change, as well as allowing for institutional redesign. This paper addresses the question: How can the inherent characteristics of institutions to stimulate the capacity of society to adapt to climate change from local through to national level be assessed? On the basis of a literature review and several brainstorm sessions, this paper presents six dimensions: Variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous change, leadership, availability of resources and fair governance. These dimensions and their 22 criteria form the Adaptive Capacity Wheel. This wheel can help academics and social actors to assess if institutions stimulate the adaptive capacity of society to respond to climate change; and to focus on whether and how institutions need to be redesigned. This paper also briefly demonstrates the application of this Adaptive Capacity Wheel to different institutions.

Abstract: Intuitively it is clear that institutions can both enhance and hamper the adaptive capacity of a society. But what characteristics make an institution more or less helpful for development and implementation of adaptation strategies? Based on the literature, we developed an analytical framework to assess the adaptive capacity of institutions. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel consists of six dimensions: variety, learning, autonomous ability to change, leadership, legitimacy and resources. The six dimensions were operationalised into 22 criteria and were applied to formal institutions in a content analysis. We conclude that sometimes dimensions and criteria seem to contradict each other, which is not surprising, because this reflects existing paradoxes in the governance of society. We would like to discuss the analytical instrument and its possible uses with the audience of the Amsterdam Conference.