Suchergebnisse

© 2018 Elsevier B.V. In 2010 the EU Timber Regulation was passed into law supported by a large majority of EU member states. The stated purpose of the Regulation was to prohibit the placement of illegally produced timber within EU markets and thereby promote more sustainable management of the world's forests. Drawing on sixty interviews and written records from nine member states across the EU, we identify variables to explain differences in the levels of political support, and formal and practical implementation of the Regulation. Through systematic assessment, we find that countries that are relatively wealthy, are significant importers of high risk wood, and that have active civil societies were most likely to support the Regulation and to implement its requirements in a timely manner. In contrast the poorest countries least engaged in high risk imports face the greatest challenges with compliance, suggesting an unequal distribution of costs relative to responsibilities.

Available online: 5 April 2017 ; Natura 2000, which is the core pillar of the European Union's biodiversity conservation policy, is an ambitious and complex venture that requires funding to be successful. A major challenge is said to be a lack of available funding, and a low uptake of allocated funds is also reported. However, in in-depth analysis has still not been produced to assess the approaches to funding, the reasons for these approaches and their impact regarding the achievement of the aims of Natura 2000. Thus, with this article, we intend to fill this gap. To accomplish this, a case study analysis was carried out in six selected EU Member States: Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. In our study, we perceived different approaches which we sum up to two main types of approaches that were present in the Member States to different degrees. The first type was to find the funding necessary for the required activities, and the second was to delay the implementation of Natura 2000. The major reasons for the different approaches were related to domestic political power realities. The funding approaches impacted onto the attractiveness of EU co-financing instruments, and the sustainability of the schemes. Alternative approaches were either absent or declining in importance. The economic benefits were not perceived on the ground. We conclude that neither a "one size fits all" approach to funding Natura 2000 will work nor will a universal claim for "more money". Therefore, a successful funding strategy ultimately necessitates effective interventions at institutional levels, the business environment and the local level. ; Austrian Science Fund ; Conseil National de Recherche Scientifique, France ; Federal Ministry for Education, Science, Research and Technology, Germany ; Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ; Peer Review

Die Wissenschaftsplattform Nachhaltigkeit 2030 ist ein zentraler Ort der Wissenschaft, an dem sie drängende Fragen der Nachhaltigkeits-politik reflektiert und diskutiert – im Austausch mit Politik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Wissen für Nachhaltigkeit wird dort zusammengetragen und weitergetragen, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Umsetzung der Deutschen Nachhaltigkeits-strategie. Die Plattform arbeitet unabhängig und ist systematisch eingebunden in den offiziellen politischen Steuerungs-, Dialog- und Umsetzungsprozess der Agenda 2030. Träger der Plattform sind SDSN Germany, DKN Future Earth und das IASS Potsdam.

Deforestation and forest degradation remain huge global environmental challenges. Over the last decades, various forest governance initiatives and institutions have evolved in global response to interlinked topics such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, indigenous rights, and trade impacts – accompanied by various levels of academic attention. Using a Delphi methodology that draws on both policy and academic insights, we assess the currently perceived state of play in global forest governance and identify possible future directions. Results indicate that state actors are seen to be key in providing supportive regulatory frameworks, yet interviewees do not believe these will be established at the global scale. Rather, respondents point to issue-specific, regional and inter-regional coalitions of the willing, involving the private sector, to innovate global forest governance. Linking forest issues with high politics may hold promise, as demonstrated by initiatives regarding illegal logging and timber trade. Confident rule-setting in support of the public good as well as responsible investments are seen as further avenues. New forest governance "hypes", if used strategically, can provide leverage points and resources to ensure sustainability effects on the ground. At the same time, informal markets are often crucial for governance outcomes and need consideration. As such, clarifying tenure in sovereignty-sensitive ways is important, as are innovative ways for inclusive "glocal" decision-making. Lastly, new technologies, big data and citizens' capacities are identified as potent innovation opportunities, for making global dependencies between consumption, production and deforestation visible and holding players accountable across the value chains.

The tension between biodiversity conservation and multipurpose forest management may lead to conflicts. An internationally prominent example is the Bialowieza Forest Massif (BFM), an extensive forest complex with high levels of naturalness. We apply a systematic, multidisciplinary assessment process to review empirical evidence on different dimensions of the BFM conflict. While there is broad consensus that this forest massif is an exceptional place worth conserving and that a way forward is a zonation system combining conservation with management, exactly how this should be done has yet to be agreed upon. Our assessment shows that the key reasons for the BFM controversy go beyond the availability of knowledge on the ecological status of the BFM and include: 1) evidence stemming from different sources, which is often contradictory and prone to different interpretations; 2) knowledge gaps, particularly with regard to socio-economic drivers and beneficiaries as well as uncertainties about future trends; 3) fundamentally different values and priorities among stakeholder groups, resulting in power struggles, and an overall lack of trust. We conclude that evidence-based knowledge alone is insufficient to cope with complex conservation conflicts. While more evidence may help assess the consequences of decisions, the actual management decisions depend on different actors' worldviews, which are rooted in their professional identities and power, and their political and legal realities. This calls for conflict management through a well-organized participatory process organized and supervised by a body deemed legitimate by the groups involved.

The tension between biodiversity conservation and multipurpose forest management may lead to conflicts. An internationally prominent example is the Białowieża Forest Massif (BFM), an extensive forest complex with high levels of naturalness. We apply a systematic, multidisciplinary assessment process to review empirical evidence on different dimensions of the BFM conflict. While there is broad consensus that this forest massif is an exceptional place worth conserving and that a way forward is a zonation system combining conservation with management, exactly how this should be done has yet to be agreed upon. Our assessment shows that the key reasons for the BFM controversy go beyond the availability of knowledge on the ecological status of the BFM and include: 1) evidence stemming from different sources, which is often contradictory and prone to different interpretations; 2) knowledge gaps, particularly with regard to socio-economic drivers and beneficiaries as well as uncertainties about future trends; 3) fundamentally different values and priorities among stakeholder groups, resulting in power struggles, and an overall lack of trust. We conclude that evidence-based knowledge alone is insufficient to cope with complex conservation conflicts. While more evidence may help assess the consequences of decisions, the actual management decisions depend on different actors' worldviews, which are rooted in their professional identities and power, and their political and legal realities. This calls for conflict management through a well-organized participatory process organized and supervised by a body deemed legitimate by the groups involved.