Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article defines the term valorization of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) measures, as distinguished from their valuation, and underpins it with an assessment of private valorization examples along the agri-food value chain. Valorization incentivizes measures for promoting BES, while valuation refers to its quantification. Valuation can be a step of valorization but is not indispensable. In scientific literature, the terms valorization and valuation are often used interchangeably. In addition, there is a lack of research on private options versus conventional, public policy options. Therefore, we searched for private valorization options primarily in public sources (gray literature and websites). This led to the identification of four clusters (markets for voluntary services, labeling, and certification, environmental management/CSR, and tradable permits and quotas). Based on these clusters the options were assessed from a legal and systems dynamics perspective. In addition, the viability of selected valorization options in different future scenarios was examined. The analysis revealed a wide range of private valorization options, which in contrast to public policy options that focus almost entirely on the production stage, are spread across the agri-food value chain. Their suitability differs under different future scenarios, legal and systems conditions.

Impact Assessment (IA) intends to collect evidence on the likely impacts of new policies and thereby minimize unwanted side-effects and maximize the benefits to society. Although it is a requirement in the EC and all OECD countries, the scope and methods vary considerably. Governments have invested considerably in research to support the evidence basis of policy making for sustainable development. However, the general picture shows a gap between the proliferation of IA tools from the scientific community and their actual use in the policy process. The FP7 network of excellence LIAISE (www.liaise- noe.eu) is designed to identify the causes for non-use of IA tools and bridge the gaps between researchers with a generally strong orientation towards their (disciplinary) peers and practitioners who tend to focus on their policy domain and policy problems. LIAISE aims at: 1) understanding of the policy process and the resulting needs for IA knowledge and IA tools; 2) description of IA tools and scientific IA expertise in a standardised way; 3) a shared IA toolbox targeted at the needs of both researchers and practitioners; 4) a shared IA research agenda integrating scientific knowledge gaps and the priorities for the development of new IA knowledge that arise from the future policy agenda; and 5) safeguarding the project results beyond the period of project funding, by developing an institutional setting and a business plan that facilitate the extension of the present consortium towards a broad centre of IA expertise with a structural permanence. A lively interaction between the different communities involved, is essential to realize these objectives. The Berlin Conference is an important opportunity to inform external research groups about the LIAISE approach to bridging the gap between science and policy. Their feedback and views on possible next steps in the further integration of the IA research community are highly valued, as well as their interest to become involved in this process.

Impact Assessment (IA) intends to collect evidence on the likely impacts of new policies and thereby minimize unwanted side-effects and maximize the benefits to society. Although it is a requirement in the EC and all OECD countries, the scope and methods vary considerably. Governments have invested considerably in research to support the evidence basis of policy making for sustainable development. However, the general picture shows a gap between the proliferation of IA tools from the scientific community and their actual use in the policy process. The FP7 network of excellence LIAISE (www.liaise- noe.eu) is designed to identify the causes for non-use of IA tools and bridge the gaps between researchers with a generally strong orientation towards their (disciplinary) peers and practitioners who tend to focus on their policy domain and policy problems. LIAISE aims at: 1) understanding of the policy process and the resulting needs for IA knowledge and IA tools; 2) description of IA tools and scientific IA expertise in a standardised way; 3) a shared IA toolbox targeted at the needs of both researchers and practitioners; 4) a shared IA research agenda integrating scientific knowledge gaps and the priorities for the development of new IA knowledge that arise from the future policy agenda; and 5) safeguarding the project results beyond the period of project funding, by developing an institutional setting and a business plan that facilitate the extension of the present consortium towards a broad centre of IA expertise with a structural permanence. A lively interaction between the different communities involved, is essential to realize these objectives. The Berlin Conference is an important opportunity to inform external research groups about the LIAISE approach to bridging the gap between science and policy. Their feedback and views on possible next steps in the further integration of the IA research community are highly valued, as well as their interest to become involved in this process.

While land serves numerous societal functions and contributes to sustainable development, it is often unclear how these functions are affected by political decisions and common drivers of land use change, such as economic development, climate change and demographic change. This study evaluates alternative land use scenarios in reference to a rural region of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (China), where various processes and decisions have historically triggered unsustainable development. The scientifically tested "Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA)" method is developed further to address specific features of the case study region, and its function as a knowledge-brokerage (KB) tool is evaluated. Three scenarios are developed and analysed in expert workshops. "Land intensification: Agriculture" and "Land intensification: Mining" scenarios are found to have mainly negative environmental and social effects and positive economic impacts, while the "Environmental conservation and tourism" scenario is found to more positively affect all three sustainability dimensions. Assessments of methodological phases show that the FoPIA primarily serves to establish the KB process and that the framework particularly benefits from early examinations of scientific results by policy makers.

This paper presents the results of a sustainability impact assessment (SIA) of policy induced land use changes in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The regional problems include rapid expansions of urban areas, due to high population pressure, and the conversion of paddy fields and forests into settlements. The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of two land use policies on social, economic, and environmental Land Use Functions (LUFs) in Yogyakarta. The following scenarios were developed for the SIA: a forest protection scenario (S1), a paddy field conservation scenario (S2), and a counterfactual (no policy) scenario of 'Business As Usual' (BAU). The Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) was applied to conduct an expert-based impact assessment. For the specification of the regional sustainability context, a set of nine key LUFs and associated indicators were developed, including three social, three economic, and three environmental sustainability criteria. The resulting scenario impacts of the assessment differed considerably, with positive impacts of the S1 and S2 scenarios on seven of nine LUFs, and negative impacts of the BAU scenario on six LUFs. The perception of the FoPIA method by the regional stakeholders was positive. We conclude that this method contributes toward an enhanced regional understanding of policy effects and sustainability, particularly in data-poor environments.

Priorities in addressing research gaps and challenges should follow the order of im­por­tance, which in itself would be a matter of defining goals and metrics of importance, e.g. the extent, impact and likelihood of occurrence. For improving assessments of cli­mate change impacts on agriculture for achieving food security and other sustainable develop­ment goals across the European continent, the most important research gaps and challen­ges appear to be the agreement on goals with a wide range of stakeholders from policy, science, producers and society, better reflection of political and societal prefer­ences in the modelling process, and the reflection of economic decisions in farm manage­ment within models. These and other challenges could be approached in phase 3 of MACSUR.

Priorities in addressing research gaps and challenges should follow the order of importance, which in itself would be a matter of defining goals and metrics of importance, e.g. the extent, impact and likelihood of occurrence. For improving assessments of climate change impacts on agriculture for achieving food security and other sustainable development goals across the European continent, the most important research gaps and challenges appear to be the agreement on goals with a wide range of stakeholders from policy, science, producers and society, better reflection of political and societal preferences in the modelling process, and the reflection of economic decisions in farm management within models. These and other challenges could be approached in phase 3 of MACSUR.