Trade and SDG 13: Action on climate change

This paper assesses the interaction of international trade with climate policies, and the influence of trade on the implementation of SDG 13 (climate change). Although international trade contributes directly to GHG emissions, increased trade can help to achieve development goals in a GHG-efficient manner, provided that GHG emissions are correctly priced everywhere. Given that emissions are not universally priced, the paper examines where policies related to trade may be misaligned with or otherwise hindering climate change objectives. While concluding that the multilateral agreements of the World Trade Organization do not generally prevent governments from pursuing strong domestic climate policy, the chapter does identify potential misalignments. These include import tariffs on environmental goods, barriers to trade in services and domestic policies designed to support local low-carbon industry but which are restrictive of international trade and therefore potentially counter-productive. The paper concludes by stressing the importance of building up resilience in the global trade system in the face of increasingly frequent and severe weather-related shocks

Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards. Sustainable Development Report 2019

The Sustainable Development Report 2019 presents an updated SDG Index and Dashboards with a refined assessment of countries’ distance to SDG targets. The report has been successfully audited for the first time by the European Commission Joint Research Centre. New indicators have been included, primarily to refine the indicator selection on agriculture, diets, gender equality and freedom of speech. We have also added more metrics for international spillovers, including on fatal work accidents. A new website and data visualization tools are available (http://sustainabledevelopment.report). Once again, Nordic countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland – top the SDG Index. Yet, even these countries face major challenges in implementing one or several SDGs. No country is on track for achieving all 17 goals with major performance gaps even in the top countries on SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). Income and wealth inequalities, as well as gaps in health and education outcomes by population groups also remain important policy challenges in developing and developed countries alike. The Sustainable Development Report 2019 generates seven major findings: 1. High-level political commitment to the SDGs is falling short of historic promises In September 2019, heads-of-states and governments will convene for the first time in person at the UN in New York to review progress on their promises made four years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda. Yet, our in-depth analyses show that many have not taken the critical steps to implement the SDGs. Out of 43 countries surveyed on SDG implementation efforts, including all G20 countries and countries with a population greater than 100 million, 33 countries have endorsed the SDGs in official statements since January 1st, 2018. Yet in only 18 of them do central budget documents mention the SDGs. This gap between rhetoric and action must be closed. 2. The SDGs can be operationalized through six SDG Transformations SDG implementation can be organized along the following Transformations: 1. Education, Gender, and Inequality; 2. Health, Wellbeing, and Demography; 3. Energy Decarbonization and Sustainable Industry; 4. Sustainable Food, Land, Water, Oceans; 5. Sustainable Cities and Communities; and 6. Digital Revolution for Sustainable Development. The transformations respect strong interdependencies across the SDGs and can be operationalized by well-defined parts of governments in collaboration with civil society, business, and other stakeholders. They must be underpinned and guided by the principles of Leave No One Behind and Circularity and Decoupling of resource use from human wellbeing. 3. Trends on climate (SDG 13) and biodiversity (SDG 14 and SDG 15) are alarming On average, countries obtain their worst scores on SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). No country obtains a “green rating” (synonym of SDG achieved) on SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Trends on greenhouse gas emissions and, even more so, on threatened species are moving in the wrong direction. These findings are in line with the recent reports from the IPCC and IPBES on climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection, respectively. 4. Sustainable land-use and healthy diets require integrated agriculture, climate and health policy interventions Land use and food production are not meeting people’s needs. Agriculture destroys forests and biodiversity, squanders water and releases one-quarter of global greenhouse-gas emissions. In total, 78% of world nations for which data are available obtain a “red rating” (synonym of major SDG challenge) on sustainable nitrogen management; the highest number of “red” rating across all indicators included in the report. At the same time, one-third of food is wasted, 800 million people remain undernourished, 2 billion are deficient in micronutrients, and obesity is on the rise. New indicators on nations’ trophic level and yield gap closure highlight the depth of the challenge. Transformations towards sustainable landuse and food systems are required to balance efficient and resilient agriculture and forestry with biodiversity conservation and restoration as well as healthy diets

Climate Policy in the United States and Japan: A Workshop Summary

Resources for the Future and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (Japan) convened a one-and-one-half day workshop on domestic and international climate policy on February 12–13, 2004 in Washington, D.C. On the first day, 55 participants heard presentations from 14 speakers and discussed domestic activities, economics, and politics. The second day featured a smaller group of 27 participants hearing six informal sets of comments and discussing opportunities for international collaboration. Participants included government officials from the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other U.S. administration and congressional staff; representatives from business and environmental groups; and academic experts. Over the course of both days, it was clear that great opportunities exist for informing participants from both countries on recent developments, economic analyses, and political nuances in the other country. For example, American participants were unaware of the Keidanren’s success at exceeding required efficiency standards. Japanese participants were unaware of U.S. treaty tradition, by which ratification cannot occur until implementing legislation is in place—a fact that makes the Kyoto Protocol virtually unratifiable. Participants on both sides benefited from a frank discussion of how and why it may be unwise for the international community to attempt to re-engage the United States in international climate policy until the United States settles on its own course of meaningful domestic action. Looking forward, an important lesson may be taken from U.S. experience with early environmental regulation, where state action provided experience and impetus for federal action. As an alternative to the Kyoto model, distinct national actions may provide experience and impetus for international action. In addition, policies in both the United States and Japan reflect a strong emphasis on technology development and commercialization; this may be an area where bilateral cooperation could be particularly beneficial.climate change, global warming, United States, Japan, Kyoto

Is technical efficiency affected by farmers’ preference for mitigation and adaptation actions against climate change? A case study in northwest Mexico

Climate change has adverse effects on agriculture, decreasing crop quality and productivity. This makes it necessary to implement adaptation and mitigation strategies that contribute to the maintenance of technical efficiency (TE). This study analyzed the relationship of TE with farmers’ mitigation and adaptation action preferences, their risk and environmental attitudes, and their perception of climate change. Through the stochastic frontier method, TE levels were estimated for 370 farmers in Northwest Mexico. The results showed the average efficiency levels (57%) for three identified groups of farmers: High TE (15% of farmers), average TE (72%), and low TE (13%). Our results showed a relationship between two of the preferred adaptation actions against climate change estimated using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method. The most efficient farmers preferred “change crops,” while less efficient farmers preferred “invest in irrigation infrastructure.” The anthropocentric environmental attitude inferred from the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale was related to the level of TE. Efficient farmers were those with an anthropocentric environmental attitude, compared to less efficient farmers, who exhibited an ecocentric attitude. The climate change issues were more perceived by moderately efficient farmers. These findings set out a roadmap for policy-makers to face climate change at the regional levelPeer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Achieving food security in the face of climate change: Final report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change

To bring our interconnected food and climate systems within a ‘safe operating space’ for people and the planet, the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change has outlined seven major areas for policy action. Throughout 2011, the Commission worked to harvest the practical solutions detailed in the many recent authoritative reports on food security and climate change. By combining this thorough review of the substantive evidence base with the diverse perspectives and disciplinary expertise, the 13 Commissioners have crafted a succinct roadmap for policy makers. The Commission offers no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, but rather points the way forward to foster national, regional and sectoral innovation that can aggregate up to meaningful global change

Linkages between climate, seasonal wood formation and mycorrhizal mushroom yields

Fungi provide important forest ecosystem services worldwide. In Mediterranean pine forests, predicted warmer and drier conditions could lead to a decline in mushroom yields. Climate is a key factor regulating both tree growth and fungal yields, particularly in drought-prone Mediterranean ecosystems. However, the responses of forest growth and mushroom production to climate depend on the differences among tree and fungal species and functional groups (e.g., mycorrhizal vs. saprotrophic), forest types, as well as depending on site conditions. Here we investigate how climatic conditions drive seasonal wood formation (earlywood −EW− and latewood −LW− production) and mycorrhizal mushroom production, to disentangle if growth and fungal yields are related. This assessment was done in Mediterranean forests dominated by four pine species in two areas located in Catalonia (NE Spain) representing mesic and xeric conditions and encompassing wide ecological gradients. The data consisted of 7-year to 13-year long inventories of mushroom production. EW production was favoured by cold and wet climate conditions during the previous fall and winter, and during the current spring and summer. LW production was enhanced by warm and humid conditions from spring to early fall. Mushroom yield was improved by wet late-summer and fall conditions, mainly in the most xeric area. This study confirms the ample differences found in tree growth and fungal production along ecological and climatic gradients. Clear relationships between mycorrhizal fungal yields and tree growth were mostly observed in specific sites characterized by severe summer drought. Specifically, latewood production seems to be the tree-ring variable most tightly linked to mycorrhizal fungal yield in drought-prone areas.This study was partially funded by the research projects AGL2012-40035-C03-01 and AGL2015-66001-C3-1-R (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad of Spain, Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación), by the European project “StarTree—Multipurpose trees and non-wood forest products: a challenge and opportunity” under grant agreement No. 311919. Irantzu Primicia work was supported by a STSM Grant from the COST Action FP1203 (European Non-Wood Forest Products). Sergio de Miguel’s work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the framework of the MultiFUNGtionality Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (IF-EF) under grant agreement No 655815

Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource, collected and edited by Noah Levin

Collected and edited by Noah Levin Table of Contents: UNIT ONE: INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPORARY ETHICS: TECHNOLOGY, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND IMMIGRATION 1 The “Trolley Problem” and Self-Driving Cars: Your Car’s Moral Settings (Noah Levin) 2 What is Ethics and What Makes Something a Problem for Morality? (David Svolba) 3 Letter from the Birmingham City Jail (Martin Luther King, Jr) 4 A Defense of Affirmative Action (Noah Levin) 5 The Moral Issues of Immigration (B.M. Wooldridge) 6 The Ethics of our Digital Selves (Noah Levin) UNIT TWO: TORTURE, DEATH, AND THE “GREATER GOOD” 7 The Ethics of Torture (Martine Berenpas) 8 What Moral Obligations do we have (or not have) to Impoverished Peoples? (B.M. Wooldridge) 9 Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing (Nathan Nobis) 10 An Argument Against Capital Punishment (Noah Levin) 11 Common Arguments about Abortion (Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob) 12 Better (Philosophical) Arguments about Abortion (Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob) UNIT THREE: PERSONS, AUTONOMY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND RIGHTS 13 Animal Rights (Eduardo Salazar) 14 John Rawls and the “Veil of Ignorance” (Ben Davies) 15 Environmental Ethics: Climate Change (Jonathan Spelman) 16 Rape, Date Rape, and the “Affirmative Consent” Law in California (Noah Levin) 17 The Ethics of Pornography: Deliberating on a Modern Harm (Eduardo Salazar) 18 The Social Contract (Thomas Hobbes) UNIT FOUR: HAPPINESS 19 Is Pleasure all that Matters? Thoughts on the “Experience Machine” (Prabhpal Singh) 20 Utilitarianism (J.S. Mill) 21 Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons (B.M. Wooldridge) 22 Existentialism, Genetic Engineering, and the Meaning of Life: The Fifths (Noah Levin) 23 The Solitude of the Self (Elizabeth Cady Stanton) 24 Game Theory, the Nash Equilibrium, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Douglas E. Hill) UNIT FIVE: RELIGION, LAW, AND ABSOLUTE MORALITY 25 The Myth of Gyges and The Crito (Plato) 26 God, Morality, and Religion (Kristin Seemuth Whaley) 27 The Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant) 28 The Virtues (Aristotle) 29 Beyond Good and Evil (Friedrich Nietzsche) 30 Other Moral Theories: Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism, Intuitionism, etc. (Jan F. Jacko

Enhancing reuse and resource recovery of electrical and electronic equipment with reverse logistics to meet carbon reduction targets

Technological advances, with increasing numbers of products containing complex electronic circuitry, have resulted in e-waste becoming the fastest-growing global waste stream. High levels of embodied carbon in these products ensure that, to meet emissions reduction targets proposed by the United Nations Paris Agreement, tackling e-waste requires strategies to address climate change United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13 (UNSDG13). This paper identifies the contribution improved reverse logistics can make to extending product lifetimes through facilitating reuse. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with academics, industry-leaders and policymakers in the United Kingdom and Europe. This research identified that improvements in availability and efficiency of reverse logistics processes would increase reuse potential and efficient resource recovery. Availability and efficiency challenges can be addressed through careful promotion, incentivisation, and engagement of existing compliance schemes. If these challenges are approached from a life cycle perspective, it will be possible to protect against value loss in global supply chains (UNSDG12) and address the climate action agenda

The critical decade: global action building on climate change

This report presents an overview of progress in international action on climate change since August 2012, with a particular focus on China and the US.Key findings: 1. The energy giants China and the United States are accelerating action. China and the United States (US) are the world’s two largest economies and together produce approximately 37% of world emissions. Both nations are on track to meet their international commitments to tackle climate change. In recent months they have each signalled they will be strengthening their efforts and in April they reached an historic agreement to tackle climate change together.Increasing action from the global energy giants can re-energise the global effort to tackle climate change. While China and the US cannot solve the problem alone, they are acting as significant drivers of change.Only a few years ago some commentators pointed to insufficient action in China and the United States to delay action in Australia. Today the energy giants are undoubtedly on the move, which will fuel global momentum. 2. China’s efforts demonstrate accelerating global leadership in tackling climate change. China is reducing its emissions growth. In 2012 China reduced the carbon intensity of its economy more than expected and almost halved its growth in electricity demand. After years of strong growth in coal use, the rate of growth has declined substantially.China will begin introducing seven emissions trading schemes this year that cover a quarter of a billion people. A national trading scheme is planned, based on these models.China has emerged as the world’s renewable energy powerhouse, taking ambitious strides to add renewable energy to its mix. 2012 was another year of extraordinary growth: Between 2005 and 2012 China increased its wind power generation capacity by almost 50 times. The amount of electricity generated from wind in 2012 was about 36 per cent higher than in 2011.New solar power capacity expanded by 75% in 2012. Solar power capacity is expected to triple to more than 21,000 megawatts by 2015.In 2012 China invested US$65.1 billion in clean energy, 20$35.6 billion in 2012, second only to China. 4. Global momentum to tackle climate change is growing. Every major economy is tackling climate change, setting in place policies to drive down emissions and increase investment and capacity of renewable energy. Ninety-eight countries have committed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.The number of countries pricing carbon is increasing, with four new schemes starting so far this year. Emissions trading schemes are now operating in 35 countries and 13 states, provinces and cities. These 48 schemes, together with the 7 Chinese schemes, are expected to involve 880 million people and about 20% of global emissions.Global renewable energy capacity is growing quickly; in 2012 alone capacity rose 15%. The capacity of solar photovoltaic panels increased by 42% and wind capacity 21%. Total global renewable energy power generation is expected to increase by more than 40% from 2011 to 2017.Policy support has been central to driving investment and growth in installed renewable energy capacity in many countries. Conversely, declining support, or policy uncertainty, has stifled investment in other countries.The global pressure to reduce emissions is only likely to increase as the climate shifts and global action accelerates. 5. Australia is a major player and is important in shaping the global response to climate change. Australia is one of the most vulnerable developed countries to climate change and is already experiencing the impacts of more frequent and severe extreme weather. For instance, during the most recent Australian summer more than 123 heat, flood and rainfall records were broken. Australia’s global influence in averting these risks will depend on how effectively we implement policy solutions at home.Australia is the 15th largest emitter, larger than 180 other countries. This means that Australia has a responsibility to play its part and that Australian actions have a global influence.There have been significant developments in Australia, including: Greenhouse gas emissions have declined. Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation in the period from June to December 2012 were the lowest since 2001-02.Australia’s renewable energy capacity almost doubled from 2001 to 2012. This year a significant milestone of one million households having installed solar photovoltaic panels was reached. 6. This is the critical decade for action. While significant progress is being made, it is not enough. Globally emissions are continuing to rise strongly, posing serious risks for our society.This decade must set the foundations to reduce emissions rapidly to nearly zero by 2050. The earlier such action is under way the less disruptive and costly it will be. This is the critical decade for accelerating action. All countries, particularly the major emitters like China, the United States and Australia, must move beyond their current commitments to reduce their emissions more deeply and swiftly. This is the critical decade to turn the global emissions trend downwards and to set the global foundations for accelerating reductions in decades to come

Development of criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the European Action Plan for Organic Agriculture

This final report provides a synthesis of the results of the EU-funded ORGAP project, with the title “European Action Plan of Organic Food and Farming - Development of criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the EU Action Plan for Organic Agriculture”. This project started in May 2005 and was completed in April 2008. The overall objective of this project was to give scientific support to the implementation of the EU Organic Action Plan (EUOAP) by the development of an evaluation toolbox. In the project 10 partners from 9 countries (CH, UK, DE, IT, DK, SI, CZ, NL, ES) participated, as well as the European umbrella organisation of the Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM EU Regional group), ensuring a broad stakeholder consultation process and dissemination all over Europe. Chapter 1 describes the background and the objectives, structure and the outcome of the ORGAP Project. It shows that since the late 1980s, organic farming development in the European Union (EU) has been stimulated mainly by two factors, one related to strong consumer demand, supported by the EU regulation defining organic food, and the other to policy support for the provision of public goods. Responding to concerns that area payments as ‘supply-push’ measures can impact negatively on the markets for organic products, policy-makers have started to take a more integrated approach to policy using the ‘action plan’ mechanism. Action plans can be found in most EU member states. At national level, action plans provide a mechanism to ensure a balanced policy mix, reflecting different aims and the various supply-push and demand-pull policy instruments available, tailored to local conditions. In 2004 the European Commission launched the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming. The plan contained 21 action points, which relate to the following areas: • Consumer information and promotion campaigns; • Improved research, market intelligence and statistical data collection; • Full utilisation of the rural development programme and other existing options to support organic farming; • Improving the transparency, scope and implementation of the regulation defining organic farming In the meantime, the European Commission has started to implemented most of the actions. In chapter 2 a brief history about organic action plan development is given, in particular about the European as well as national organic action plan for organic food and farming. The European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming (EC 2004) is the result of a three-year process of developing the Action Plan, starting in 2001. This process led to: a Commission staff paper exploring the options for an action plan in 2001; the establishment of an independent expert working group in 2002, a public internet consultation on specific options in February 2003; a European Parliament hearing on the action plan options in June 2003; and a public hearing on the action plan options in January 2004. In June 2004 the action plan was decided by the EU Council in June 2004, following significant internal debate within the Commission and the EU Parliament. The involvement of stakeholders in the development of the EUOAP was mainly in the explorative phases involving identification of organic sector development needs and possible solution phase. The actual action plan was prepared after the public hearing in January 2004, so that stakeholders were not able to comment on the action plan document or the balance of individual actual action points. During the subsequent implementation phase, primary responsibility also rests with the EU Commission, with input from the EU Council, EU Parliament and member-state government representatives, with only limited input from other stakeholder groups. The European Commission has started to implement the actions of the European Organic Action Plan, many of which have been achieved or are at an advanced stage of completion. The most significant initiatives are the publication of the new Council regulation (EC) 834/2004 on organic production and labelling of organic products and the consumer information campaign. The development of national organic action plans started in Europe in 1995 when Denmark introduced its first organic action plan. Denmark thus acted as a forerunner and pioneer in this field. Nowadays, most EU Member States have organic action plans for organic food and farming. Of those that don’t, some have plans in preparation. Under the framework of the ORGAP Project, six national (CZ, DK, DE, IT, NL, SI) and two regional (Andalucia (AND), England (ENG) action plans for organic food and farming were com-pared. As a consequence of the very different situation in the eight case-study countries, the action plans studied vary in their scope. The English and the Dutch action plans represent market-driven and demand-led approaches with a clear focus on market development measures. The German Federal Organic Farming Scheme on the other hand puts a distinct emphasis on informational policy instruments to strengthen the organic sector through consumer information as well as through research and development. Finally, the Andalusian, Czech, Danish, Italian and the Slovenian action plans represent quite broad approaches integrating a broad portfolio of measures targeted to supply and market development as well as to information and research. Apart from the Andalusian Action Plan, all other action plans studied include quantitative tar-gets. Most typically targets for organic adoption are set (CZ, DK, NL, SI and DE). However, the Dutch and Slovenian action plans include a combination of targets addressing the share of nationally produced organic products, the domestic organic market share in general, organic sales per capita and the development of tourist farms. The English action plan target was defined in terms of the proportion of the organic market for indigenous products supplied by domestic producers. To conclude, the case study action plans vary with regard to the development process, targets, objectives and the emphasis of measures on certain areas. This is due to quite different political and socio-economic framework conditions for organic farming in these countries. The comparison revealed that the weaknesses identified in the status quo analyses have only partly been translated to the targets and measures included in the action plan documents. This is on the one side a result of the national priority and budget setting and on the other side on the interdependency between EU policies and national policies. However, as all action plans were developed together with stakeholders, the composition of the stakeholder groups and the power of the initiating actor are crucial to the target and priority setting. In chapter 3 the authors write about organic action plans – what we know and do not know. This includes success factors, stakeholder involvement, coherence and consistency issues and the how to evaluate organic action plans with ORGAPET. What makes a successful action plan? This question is much more difficult to answer than it looks at first sight. Many other economic, social and policy developments influence the organic sector and often instances occur which have not been foreseen when a certain action plan was devised. Because of this a simple measurement of the state of a specific objective might be too simplistic. Under certain circumstances an organic action plan could already be regarded as a success if the measures contribute substantially to a development in the right direction. The point of reference would be here: What would have happened if the organic action plan would have not been in place? The second point to keep in mind in judging the success of an organic action plan is to be aware of the fact that such action plans are often not complete in a sense that they fully include all political measures directly relevant for organic farming. In such cases it is important to keep in mind and to analyse the broader policy and market environment relevant to organic farming in order to judge success of the action plan. Organic farming policies can of course only be successful if they are successfully implemented and need sufficient care and knowledge with respect to the often numerously legal conditions outside the specific organic farming area that influence implementation. It also means that a clear mission of implementation agencies and qualified and motivated personal involved are a key to successful organic policies and to successful organic action plans. Is the concept of an organic action plan an outdate concept? Some policy makers believe that it has been a fashion and its time is over. The authors of this report are convinced that any at-tempt to unify elements that influence organic farming and organic farming policies and to bring policies into an integrated, coherent framework will still be necessary and welcome in the future. Whether such attempts in the future will be called organic action plans is a different issue. Currently some key challenges include the question whether the general trend in agricultural prices has actually been reversed. If agricultural prices which tended to decrease in real terms throughout the 20th century are actually moving upwards due to factors such as increased demand for agricultural products, climate change and a possible slowdown of technological progress. Such general developments will also influence the development of organic farming and the development of suitable measures to support it. Some of the implications of a higher price level for conventional agriculture and a higher volatility of prices both in the conventional and organic markets might challenge the continuation of the traditional per hectare organic support policies. If climate change is actually perceived as the key challenge for decades to come then effects with respect to mitigate climate change of organic farming and with respect to the adaptive capacity of organic farming are quite important for any policy justification in support of organic farming. And finally, there is the productivity issue. If the actually demand for food stuff is increasing rapidly throughout the world then the obvious limitations of organic farming in this respect reported from industrial countries become more serious. In that context research and development supporting increasing productivity in organic farming might become much more important than in the past. It is clear that just looking at the originally envisaged targets and objectives might not be sufficient to judge whether or not an action plan has been successful. One key argument going be-yond clear targets and well balanced measures is that embedding action plan development in the wider policy area seems to be absolutely essential to be successful. However, there are a number of other issues to be dealt with which are also quite important prerequisites for successful organic action plans such as stakeholder involvement, coherence and consistency of action plans and an evaluation monitoring capacity. Stakeholder involvement may be understood and carried out in quite different ways including the provision of information, providing opportunities to comment on proposals, and empowering stakeholders to make their own choices. When preparing the toolbox aimed for evaluating the European Organic Action Plan in the OR-GAP project, attempts were made to involve both organic and mixed stakeholders in various steps in eight different national/regional settings and with different methods. These experiences form the background for recommending stakeholders with a purely organic and/or mixed portfolio to involve through group discussions in order to increase and optimize their analytical capacities and thereby their delivery of relevant information regarding the preconditions for implementing the EUOAP and for assessing its policy impacts. Parallel to this, relevant non-organic stake-holders could be involved on the basis of individual interviews or small group interviews. When deciding on which stakeholders to involve in any stage it is thus necessary to identify all stakeholders considered relevant to the issue and to clarify for each of them which perspective they represent in first priority. Therefore a general model for analysing stakeholder involvement in public policy on organic food and farming has been developed in the project. It includes a distinction of expertise involved in the three main perspectives of organic action plans realised in Europe up to now: the specific values defining organic food and farming; the market perspective as organic food in most plans is expected to develop in response to consumer demand; and a political recognition of the public goods delivered as a consequence of performing organic farming practices. With regard to each of these three perspectives, it is possible to specify expertise of stakeholders acting in the core or periphery of the perspective and to distinguish expertise of purely organic stakeholders and other stakeholders with a mixed or even non-organic expertise relevant for the development of policies in support of organic food and farming. The degree to which participatory methods realise their potential contribution depends critically on how carefully they are used and in what context. There is no one set of techniques to be mechanically applied in all contexts for all participants, but a diverse range of possible techniques which need to be flexibly adapted to particular situations and needs. Stakeholder involvement helps improving the information basis and the legitimacy of public policies. This is especially important on complex issues such as organic action plans, which involves actors with stakes in issues as different as the values of organic food and farming, the food market and the public goods of organic food and farming at one and the same time. Successful stakeholder involvement thus demands: careful preparations of which stakeholders to include at any stage of the policy process and of the methods used to promote participation; sufficient time for the stakeholder to react; this means at least 8-12 weeks of time for allowing substantial and broad participation, in particular in the case of involvement of farmers organisations, and good communication and transparency in each of the five stages of the policy process. Although this results in higher costs and more resources for those administrating the process, the outcome of such a process will improve the legitimacy and acceptability of the decisions and will facilitate very much the implementation (e.g. through public private partnerships). Such a more participative, transparent and time-balanced process helps to avoid unnecessary discussions and misunderstandings, which at the end might be more effective and cost-efficient. Project Synthesis For an evaluation of the internal and external coherence of the EU Organic Action Plan (OAP), the ORGAP project team generally made use of empirical methods and techniques suggested for analysing the synergy of programmes as well as their cross-impacts. A policy analysis of key synergies (positive and negative) was performed by means of a matrix of cross impacts as specified in the MEANS framework (EC, 1999). Two separate matrices were constructed: to appraise the internal coherence between the various measures of the EU Organic Action Plan; and to appraise the external coherence between the EUOAP and some national organic action plans. Experts involved in this evaluation process (Evaluation team) identified any synergy which may exist between pairs of measures or categories of measures. The effects of synergies or conflicts have been rated with the help of 2 electronic consultation rounds. After validation of these ratings, the calculation of the “synthetic” coefficient of synergy was performed, in order to evaluate the overall level of synergy/conflict within the European Organic Action Plan. The analysis suggests that Actions 9 (ensure integrity) and 10 (harmonisation of standards) are essential for the success of the EUOAP, given their synergetic effects. They in addition enter into synergy with many other actions. Interesting is also Action 13 (risked based-inspections) wit