Accreditation and related regulatory matters in the UK

About the book: This volume presents a rich account of the development of accreditation and evaluation in 20 European countries. The authors are leaders in the field and they have cooperated in this effort by writing richly different, often deep and insightful analyses of the situation in their country. The two editors have added a synopsis detailing the main trends, and sketching commonalities as well as contrasts in the developments across Europe. The book shows how accreditation is becoming a main mechanism in the steering of higher education all over Europe. The book is unique in its analysis of forces driving towards the spread of different models of accreditation in the emerging European Higher Education area. Readers will obtain an up-to-date picture of the state of affairs of accreditation in the framework of evaluation activities in Europe. They will gain an understanding of why accreditation and evaluation systems have evolved the way they have, and subsequently, they will obtain more realistic views on potentialities for European comparability and cooperation in this area. This volume is of interest to researchers and policy-making staff in higher education, especially those involved at the level of national systems for quality assurance, accreditation, internationalization and the Bologna process. It is also of interest to Master/PhD students in (higher) education management

Development and implementation of policies for the management of psychosocial risks: exploring the role of stakeholders and the translation of policy into practice in Europe

The key aim of this research is to evaluate the impact of policy level interventions for the management of psychosocial risks in Europe. This research is exploratory in nature and seeks to clarify the policy framework in relation to psychosocial risk management, identify key policy stakeholders, examine their perceptions and clarify their role in the policy making process. The research also evaluates the impact of selected policies by analysing their implementation and impact on action at the national and enterprise levels. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies was employed. Three qualitative and two quantitative studies were conducted and sought to: a. identify all stakeholders relevant to psychosocial risk management, b. analyse the role of key stakeholders in the policy development process as well as drivers and barriers for the development and implementation for such policies for psychosocial risk management, c. investigate the effectiveness and needs related to EU and national regulations governing health and safety and psychosocial risk management at the workplace, d. explore stakeholders’ views on the impact of policy interventions and priorities for action at the policy level, and e. analyse the translation of policy into practice at the enterprise level, by assessing the impact of policies on enterprise action (specifically on the implementation of procedures and measures to manage psychosocial risk management), and by identifying the key drivers, barriers and needs of European enterprises in relation to psychosocial risk management. Overall, the findings of this work recognise many challenges in relation to policy evaluation for psychosocial risk management. However, unless the impact of these policies is evaluated using predefined and appropriate evaluation methodologies and criteria, the basis on which further policies can be developed will not be clear. The research also highlighted that despite the increased awareness of issues relating to psychosocial risks in Europe, there are several differences in perceptions amongst stakeholders and lack of prioritisation of these issues at the policy level that may seriously hinder practice. In this context, the role of researchers and academics is important. Evaluation of policies must therefore ideally be carried out on a tripartite plus basis and should not be within the remit of governmental agencies alone

Using ecosystem models to inform ecosystem-based fisheries management in Europe: a review of the policy landscape and related stakeholder needs

The need to implement an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is enshrined in numerous regulations and strategies, at both global and European level. In practice, it is challenging to implement EBFM because it requires a complex evaluation of interlinked management effects and environmental and climate forcing on multi-species interactions, habitat status and human activities. Ecosystem models are one of the most critical research tools to inform EBFM, because they can integrate a wide variety of data, examine multiple and complex ecosystem interactions, and can make forecasts based on specific management scenarios. However, despite clear progress in marine ecosystem modelling, many models do not address policy goals and targets, which hinders uptake in policy. In this paper, we review the global and European policies and implementing bodies which directly or indirectly have a repercussion on the implementation of EBFM. Moreover, we highlight specific stakeholder needs related to the implementation of EBFM in European waters, which ecosystem models could help address. We review the policy commitments that drive these needs and the concerns raised by stakeholders during a survey and dedicated workshop. Key topics of concern were effects of climate change; bycatch; protected areas/fisheries restricted areas; and reducing the impacts of trawling. Stakeholders also provided specific questions related to these topics which ecosystem models could help address. Scenario and data results visualizations, as well as specific barriers in using the results of ecosystem models for decision-making are also discussed. A close involvement of stakeholders in scenario development and in designing graphical outputs is important, and can help overcome some of the main barriers that can hinder uptake of models and scenarios, including a lack of understanding of the benefits and limits of ecosystem models; insufficient involvement and interaction with stakeholders; and inadequate characterization of uncertainties.publishedVersio

Sustainability and Urban Planning Processes. An Integrated Tool for Sustainable Urban Management.

In the last decades in Italy the debate on the urban planning crisis (Balducci, 1991; Urbani, 2000) had showed a shift from practices informed by politics and negotiation to new positions where planning methods are characterized by a communicative adaptive evaluation of a set of options about land uses and transformations. Within this framework the need emerged of new approaches to planning able to fulfil community expectations. In the light of recent developments in the economic sector and his branches, and primarily in business management, various tools for urban policy making have been recently adopted and implemented in many Italian local authorities: - Implementation of certificated systems for environmental management (Varese Ligure was first Italian municipality to obtain an ISO 14001 certification in 1999); - Use of control and evaluation systems like environmental and strategic plan design aiming at the integration of these practices in a single comprehensive tool, articulated within three phases (organizational, social accounting (18 municipalities have already test these tools and a bill is discussed for their insert in public authorities management); - Employment of participatory practices in the government of environmental problems (Local Agenda 21 processes is hitting an advanced level of implementation both in the municipal and in the provincial level especially in regions like the Emily and Romagna, the Marches, Tuscany, Liguria); - Use of means of communication addressed both to internal members of public authorities and to stakeholders and local community (for example environmental and social statements drawing up by local authorities or sustainability reports like that compiled within 21st Olympic Games organization). However, the analysis of many case-studies showed often the use of these tools it is not directly coordinated with urban planning instruments. In this paper the authors propose a tentative framework for a sustainable decisional and operative) cyclicly. The objective is, as far as these practices are promoted by main international and European agendas and declarations, to connect by this tool local government choices to most important policies on sustainable development.

Development and implementation of policies for the management of psychosocial risks: exploring the role of stakeholders and the translation of policy into practice in Europe

The key aim of this research is to evaluate the impact of policy level interventions for the management of psychosocial risks in Europe. This research is exploratory in nature and seeks to clarify the policy framework in relation to psychosocial risk management, identify key policy stakeholders, examine their perceptions and clarify their role in the policy making process. The research also evaluates the impact of selected policies by analysing their implementation and impact on action at the national and enterprise levels. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies was employed. Three qualitative and two quantitative studies were conducted and sought to: a. identify all stakeholders relevant to psychosocial risk management, b. analyse the role of key stakeholders in the policy development process as well as drivers and barriers for the development and implementation for such policies for psychosocial risk management, c. investigate the effectiveness and needs related to EU and national regulations governing health and safety and psychosocial risk management at the workplace, d. explore stakeholders’ views on the impact of policy interventions and priorities for action at the policy level, and e. analyse the translation of policy into practice at the enterprise level, by assessing the impact of policies on enterprise action (specifically on the implementation of procedures and measures to manage psychosocial risk management), and by identifying the key drivers, barriers and needs of European enterprises in relation to psychosocial risk management. Overall, the findings of this work recognise many challenges in relation to policy evaluation for psychosocial risk management. However, unless the impact of these policies is evaluated using predefined and appropriate evaluation methodologies and criteria, the basis on which further policies can be developed will not be clear. The research also highlighted that despite the increased awareness of issues relating to psychosocial risks in Europe, there are several differences in perceptions amongst stakeholders and lack of prioritisation of these issues at the policy level that may seriously hinder practice. In this context, the role of researchers and academics is important. Evaluation of policies must therefore ideally be carried out on a tripartite plus basis and should not be within the remit of governmental agencies alone

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems. Highlights • Policy strongly influences Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) of socio-ecological systems. • We examine M&E of 3 major European policies in 9 regional and national cases. • Policy-driven M&E is imperfect versus ideals of M&E to support adaptive management. • Attention needed to systems, social issues, sharing data, and sharing intended uses. • Examples from across Europe and different policies offer ideas for improvement

Irrigation Water Use in the Danube Basin: Facts, Governance and Approach to Sustainability

In this paper we assess the irrigation water use in the Danube Basin, highlight its complexity, identify future challenges and show the relevance for a basin-wide integrative irrigation management plan as part of a more holistic and coherent resource policy. In this sense, we base our integrative regional assessments of the water-food-energy nexus on insights from an extensive review and scientific synthesis of the Danube Basin and region, experimental field studies on irrigation and agricultural water consumption, current irrigation related policies and strategies in most of the Danube countries, and regulatory frameworks on resources at European Union level. We show that a basin-wide integrative approach to water use calls for the evaluation of resource use trade-offs, resonates with the need for transdisciplinary research in addressing nexus challenges and supports integrative resource management policies within which irrigation water use represents an inherent part. In this respect, we propose a transdisciplinary research framework on sustainable irrigation water use in the Danube Basin. The findings were summarized into four interconnected problem areas in the Danube Basin, which directly or indirectly relate to irrigation strategies and resource policies: prospective water scarcity and Danube water connectedness, agricultural droughts, present and future level of potential yields, and science based proactive decision-making

public policymaking and its analysis at national and european levels

The author describes the specific features of public policy process at the European Unionlevel and its differences related to policy-making at national level. He underlines, amongother things that the policy agenda in the European Union is being shaped differently.At the national level the agenda is under greater influence of politicians who are closelyinterconnected with voters. At the European Union level the technocratic (not directlyelected) European Commission has a monopoly of legislative initiative. Furthermore, atthe European level feasibility studies – as an element of the pre-decision stage in publicpolicy-making – tend to be ignored. In nation-states we can see such analyses as a resultof competition taking place between those who rule and their political opposition. Atthe European Union level it is not the case. The author points out that these mechanisms would have been beneficial for the EU member states. They would have haltedthe implementation of decisions which ran the excessive risk. He has also in mind thedecision related to the introduction of the monetary union. In his opinion, this decisionwas made without a proper feasibility analysis (costs and profits). Basically, the decisionon a common currency was made on political rather than substantive grounds. A largenumber of experts were against the idea as they perceived serious risks involved in it.The supporters of greater European integration ignored the fact that the monetary uniondeprived nation-states of many factors that affected the economic development in a positive way. The point is that they were under influence of "total optimism" expecting only good results of the monetary union. The mechanisms of crisis management, including exitscenario from the monetary union, or methods of supporting those members who needfinancial aid, have not been even created. Furthermore, the evaluation of the monetaryunion was not properly carried out as it was based on the assessment of the process (forexample, smooth introduction of euro notes and coins or phasing out of the nationalcurrencies in 2002) and not of its result

Enhancing Resilience Of Urban Ecosystems through Green Infrastructure (EnRoute): Progress report

EnRoute stands for Enhancing Resilience of urban ecosystems through green infrastructure. EnRoute is a project of the European Commission in the framework of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the Green Infrastructure Strategy. EnRoute provides scientific knowledge of how urban ecosystems can support urban planning at different stages of policy and for various spatial scales and how to help policy-making for sustainable cities. It aims to promote the application of urban green infrastructure at local level and delivers guidance on the creation, management and governance of urban green infrastructure. Importantly, it illustrates how collaboration between and across different policy levels can lead to concrete green infrastructure policy setting. This report describes the progress made by EnRoute since the start of the project (01/12/2016). EnRoute is testing the MAES indicator framework on mapping and assessment of urban ecosystems in 20 cities across Europe. The report collects the relevant policy questions for these cities with respect to urban green infrastructure and identifies which indicators of the MAES analytical framework can be used to support local policy. The report includes the datasets and models that will be used for an EU wide assessment of urban ecosystems and their services. The report contains a first proposal for an online survey on the functionality of a science policy interface on urban green infrastructure at different governance levels. The report describes the contributions of EnRoute to other initiatives: update of the MAES indicator framework for ecosystem condition, the task force on an impact evaluation framework for nature based solutions under Horizon 2020, and the EU urban agenda.JRC.D.3-Land Resource

An assessment of Multilevel Governance in Cohesion Policy, 2007-2013

This study offers a thorough overview of Multi-Level Governance in Cohesion Policy in the current programming period of 2007-2013 by examining the evolution of the concept in terms of its definition and conceptual framework, analysing the current processes of implementing Multi-Level Governance in the EU27, as well as describing the advantages and disadvantages of partnerships in policy-making. Moreover, the study aims to formulate strategic and operational recommendations in the context of the preparation of the 2014- 2020 programming perio