- Email: [email protected]
Sustainability impact assessment and land-use policies for sensitive regions
environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 1075–1076
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
Editorial
Sustainability impact assessment and land-use policies for sensitive regions Today, population growth and land-use change including urbanization, agricultural intensification and wetland conversions threaten the sustainability of many regions worldwide. The problems are compounded by issues such as water management and climate change. Sustainability impact assessment (SIA) addressing the long-term balance between environmental, social and economic issues is playing an increasingly prominent and important role in development of land-use policies around the world (e.g. Helming et al., 2008). A range of new SIA tools have been developed by researchers and made available to policy makers, with the intention that they are used to provide ex ante insights into policy impacts. Policies addressed by these tools include policies related to the provision of food, water and habitats, the support of health, equity and education as well as economic wealth and space for human activities. SIA is particularly relevant to policies that will affect relatively sensitive areas. For example, Dilly et al. (2008) identified four sensitive area types for SIA in Europe: postindustrial regions, mountains, coasts and islands. This special issue provides a diverse but complementary set of nine papers on this topic, ranging from papers about policy processes and policy engagement through to case studies of particular sustainability impact assessments. The case studies examine a variety of land-use types, including: agriculture for food production, forestry, bioenergy, habitat for biodiversity and tourism. They highlight the importance of local conditions and local issues when assessing the sustainability of policies in these areas. The local details matter greatly when determining the likely impacts of alternative policies for food production, resource management and the environment. The papers have in common that they were presented at the international conference ‘Impact assessment of land use changes’ held at the Humboldt-University of Berlin, April 6–9, 2008. This conference was initiated by the integrated European Union (EU) project ‘Sustainability Impact Assessment: Tools for Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of Multifunctional Land Use in European Regions’ (SENSOR) and supported by three related EU projects addressing ‘System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European
Science and Society’ (SEAMLESS), ‘Strategies and Sustainability Assessment Tools for Urban–Rural Linkages’ (PLUREL) and ‘Sustainability Impact Assessment of Forestry Wood Chain’ (EFORWOOD). The first paper (by Ba¨cklund) deals with the institutional context for impact assessment for policy, through a detailed case study of impact assessment in the European Commission. Ba¨cklund highlights a number of challenges in achieving effective usage by policy officers of SIA tools that have been developed by researchers, including that policy officers have a different perspective on the purpose of impact assessment—it is at least as much a tool for communication and for focusing the complex negotiation process that accompanies policy development as it is a tool for predicting policy outcomes. Although tools may help to satisfy calls for a stronger evidence base in policy, policy makers may fear a loss of control of the policy process. Continuing the theme of linking research to policy, Pannell and Roberts present a case study from Australia in which a range of research into land use was integrated to develop an investment framework for policy makers and natural resource managers. They highlight the challenges facing researchers who attempt to influence land-use policy, including differences in perspective and language, differences in time frames, and different incentives facing researchers and policy makers. Agroforestry systems are examined from different perspectives in two papers. Firstly, Nair et al. provide estimates of the carbon-sequestration potential for agroforestry systems in tropical areas for different agro-ecological zones. This work is highly relevant to the design of local policies for mitigation of climate change. Next, Quinkenstein et al. review the ecological benefits of agroforestry (alley cropping) in temperate Europe, where agroforestry still represents a rare land-use type. They find that ecosystem functions are improved in various ways by alley cropping. The study relates to several policy areas: bioenergy, biodiversity and climate change. Priorr et al. use detailed farm- and region-scale modelling to examine the likely impacts of future policy scenarios on land-use patterns for case-study regions in Germany and Italy. They find that results for the two regions differ substantially
1076
environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 1075–1076
across regions with different soil and climate characteristics, highlighting the value of the case-study approach. Krolikoska et al. investigate reasons for the deterioration of land reclamations schemes (based on regional drainage systems) in Poland. Collective effort among farmers is needed to maintain the systems, but does not occur to an adequate extent. The analysis shows that farmers face a strong temptation to free-ride since the marginal benefits to them alone from contributing to the maintenance effort are unlikely to exceed the costs. An existing institution, the Water Partnership, has not been successful in countering these free-rider problems. The complexity of this particular problem makes a collective solution especially difficult. Fjellstad et al. investigate farmer attitudes to ‘‘Protected Landscapes’’, a policy mechanism used in Norway to preserve cultural values in agricultural areas. This mechanism places constraints on land use: No measures may be initiated that may substantially alter the nature or character of the landscape. The study reveals substantial differences in the attitudes of farmers and authorities, reinforcing the need for communication and involvement of farmers to enhance long-term landscape protection. Zhen et al. apply sustainability assessment to two contrasting regions of China: a well-developed region and an under-developed one. As a result of their analysis, they identify different policy priorities for the two regions, focusing on environmental improvements in one case and on economic development in the other. The last paper, by Dilly and Hu¨ttl demonstrates a comprehensive approach to SIA involving top-down analysis, bottom-up analysis and participatory processes. Their case study is an assessment of alternative policies to promote bioenergy production in Lusatia, Germany. The top-down analysis involves large-scale, Europe-wide assessment, while the bottom-up analysis uses high-resolution regional-level data. The participatory phase involved interviews and a workshop with a wide variety of stakeholders. This threestep approach to SIA proves to be an effective strategy. Although the research in this special issue covers a wide diversity of policy issues, drawn from countries from most of the world’s continents, there are some consistent messages. The need of stakeholder involvement in policy development is discussed in a number of the papers. The strong influence of local conditions and local issues on policy outcomes is a
persistent theme. The benefits of integrating multiple types of information to support policy decisions are ably demonstrated by the case studies. Finally, the complex challenges in moving from impact assessment to policy influence are highlighted. There are important lessons in these papers for all researchers undertaking multi-sector, multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder sustainability impact assessment.
references
Dilly, O., Camilleri, M., Do¨rrie, C., Formosa, S., Galea, G., Hallenbarter, D., Hasenauer, H., Imrichova´, Z., Korzeniowska-Pucułek, R., Kowalik, M., Koza, P., Kra¨uchi, ¨ ., Moncada, S., Oja, T., N., Kull, A., ˇˇLopatka, A., Mander, U Pudełko, R., Putzhuber, F., Rogaß, C., Schneider, B.U., Siebielec, G., Stuczyn´ski, T., Hu¨ttl, R.F., 2008. A spatial regional reference framework for sustainability assessment. In: Helming, K., Tabbush, P., Perez-Soba, M. (Eds.), Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Springer, Berlin, pp. 471–494. Helming, K., Pe´rez-Soba, M., Tabbush, P., 2008. Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Springer, Berlin, 507 pp.
Oliver Dilly* Brandenburg University of Technology, 03046 Cottbus, Germany David Pannell School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia 6009 *Corresponding author. Present address: School of Integrated Climate System Sciences, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 40 42838 7598 E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Dilly) 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.09.004
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
Editorial
Sustainability impact assessment and land-use policies for sensitive regions Today, population growth and land-use change including urbanization, agricultural intensification and wetland conversions threaten the sustainability of many regions worldwide. The problems are compounded by issues such as water management and climate change. Sustainability impact assessment (SIA) addressing the long-term balance between environmental, social and economic issues is playing an increasingly prominent and important role in development of land-use policies around the world (e.g. Helming et al., 2008). A range of new SIA tools have been developed by researchers and made available to policy makers, with the intention that they are used to provide ex ante insights into policy impacts. Policies addressed by these tools include policies related to the provision of food, water and habitats, the support of health, equity and education as well as economic wealth and space for human activities. SIA is particularly relevant to policies that will affect relatively sensitive areas. For example, Dilly et al. (2008) identified four sensitive area types for SIA in Europe: postindustrial regions, mountains, coasts and islands. This special issue provides a diverse but complementary set of nine papers on this topic, ranging from papers about policy processes and policy engagement through to case studies of particular sustainability impact assessments. The case studies examine a variety of land-use types, including: agriculture for food production, forestry, bioenergy, habitat for biodiversity and tourism. They highlight the importance of local conditions and local issues when assessing the sustainability of policies in these areas. The local details matter greatly when determining the likely impacts of alternative policies for food production, resource management and the environment. The papers have in common that they were presented at the international conference ‘Impact assessment of land use changes’ held at the Humboldt-University of Berlin, April 6–9, 2008. This conference was initiated by the integrated European Union (EU) project ‘Sustainability Impact Assessment: Tools for Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of Multifunctional Land Use in European Regions’ (SENSOR) and supported by three related EU projects addressing ‘System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European
Science and Society’ (SEAMLESS), ‘Strategies and Sustainability Assessment Tools for Urban–Rural Linkages’ (PLUREL) and ‘Sustainability Impact Assessment of Forestry Wood Chain’ (EFORWOOD). The first paper (by Ba¨cklund) deals with the institutional context for impact assessment for policy, through a detailed case study of impact assessment in the European Commission. Ba¨cklund highlights a number of challenges in achieving effective usage by policy officers of SIA tools that have been developed by researchers, including that policy officers have a different perspective on the purpose of impact assessment—it is at least as much a tool for communication and for focusing the complex negotiation process that accompanies policy development as it is a tool for predicting policy outcomes. Although tools may help to satisfy calls for a stronger evidence base in policy, policy makers may fear a loss of control of the policy process. Continuing the theme of linking research to policy, Pannell and Roberts present a case study from Australia in which a range of research into land use was integrated to develop an investment framework for policy makers and natural resource managers. They highlight the challenges facing researchers who attempt to influence land-use policy, including differences in perspective and language, differences in time frames, and different incentives facing researchers and policy makers. Agroforestry systems are examined from different perspectives in two papers. Firstly, Nair et al. provide estimates of the carbon-sequestration potential for agroforestry systems in tropical areas for different agro-ecological zones. This work is highly relevant to the design of local policies for mitigation of climate change. Next, Quinkenstein et al. review the ecological benefits of agroforestry (alley cropping) in temperate Europe, where agroforestry still represents a rare land-use type. They find that ecosystem functions are improved in various ways by alley cropping. The study relates to several policy areas: bioenergy, biodiversity and climate change. Priorr et al. use detailed farm- and region-scale modelling to examine the likely impacts of future policy scenarios on land-use patterns for case-study regions in Germany and Italy. They find that results for the two regions differ substantially
1076
environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 1075–1076
across regions with different soil and climate characteristics, highlighting the value of the case-study approach. Krolikoska et al. investigate reasons for the deterioration of land reclamations schemes (based on regional drainage systems) in Poland. Collective effort among farmers is needed to maintain the systems, but does not occur to an adequate extent. The analysis shows that farmers face a strong temptation to free-ride since the marginal benefits to them alone from contributing to the maintenance effort are unlikely to exceed the costs. An existing institution, the Water Partnership, has not been successful in countering these free-rider problems. The complexity of this particular problem makes a collective solution especially difficult. Fjellstad et al. investigate farmer attitudes to ‘‘Protected Landscapes’’, a policy mechanism used in Norway to preserve cultural values in agricultural areas. This mechanism places constraints on land use: No measures may be initiated that may substantially alter the nature or character of the landscape. The study reveals substantial differences in the attitudes of farmers and authorities, reinforcing the need for communication and involvement of farmers to enhance long-term landscape protection. Zhen et al. apply sustainability assessment to two contrasting regions of China: a well-developed region and an under-developed one. As a result of their analysis, they identify different policy priorities for the two regions, focusing on environmental improvements in one case and on economic development in the other. The last paper, by Dilly and Hu¨ttl demonstrates a comprehensive approach to SIA involving top-down analysis, bottom-up analysis and participatory processes. Their case study is an assessment of alternative policies to promote bioenergy production in Lusatia, Germany. The top-down analysis involves large-scale, Europe-wide assessment, while the bottom-up analysis uses high-resolution regional-level data. The participatory phase involved interviews and a workshop with a wide variety of stakeholders. This threestep approach to SIA proves to be an effective strategy. Although the research in this special issue covers a wide diversity of policy issues, drawn from countries from most of the world’s continents, there are some consistent messages. The need of stakeholder involvement in policy development is discussed in a number of the papers. The strong influence of local conditions and local issues on policy outcomes is a
persistent theme. The benefits of integrating multiple types of information to support policy decisions are ably demonstrated by the case studies. Finally, the complex challenges in moving from impact assessment to policy influence are highlighted. There are important lessons in these papers for all researchers undertaking multi-sector, multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder sustainability impact assessment.
references
Dilly, O., Camilleri, M., Do¨rrie, C., Formosa, S., Galea, G., Hallenbarter, D., Hasenauer, H., Imrichova´, Z., Korzeniowska-Pucułek, R., Kowalik, M., Koza, P., Kra¨uchi, ¨ ., Moncada, S., Oja, T., N., Kull, A., ˇˇLopatka, A., Mander, U Pudełko, R., Putzhuber, F., Rogaß, C., Schneider, B.U., Siebielec, G., Stuczyn´ski, T., Hu¨ttl, R.F., 2008. A spatial regional reference framework for sustainability assessment. In: Helming, K., Tabbush, P., Perez-Soba, M. (Eds.), Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Springer, Berlin, pp. 471–494. Helming, K., Pe´rez-Soba, M., Tabbush, P., 2008. Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Springer, Berlin, 507 pp.
Oliver Dilly* Brandenburg University of Technology, 03046 Cottbus, Germany David Pannell School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia 6009 *Corresponding author. Present address: School of Integrated Climate System Sciences, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 40 42838 7598 E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Dilly) 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.09.004