Key concepts to investigate agri-environmental contracts – shared conceptual framework

The Contracts2.0 project aims to develop novel contract-based approaches to incentivise farmers for the increased provision of environmental public goods alongside private goods. The background to this work is the current imbalance in the provision of private and public goods from agricultural land management. This complex problem can best be addressed by using insights and methods from a range of disciplines. However, for methods and researchers to complement each other and contribute to the project aim, the parts must be brought together as a coherent whole. We developed a conceptual framework which draws on different concepts to explain the issues underlying the delivery of private and public environmental goods from agriculture

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) ; Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 06, Revision 4 (FGE.06Rev4 ): Straight - and branched - chain aliphatic unsaturated primary alcohols, aldehydes, carboxylic acids and esters from chemical groups 1, 3 and 4

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate 56 flavouring substances in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 6, Revision 4, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. This revision is made due to the inclusion of six additional flavouring substances, (-)-3,7-dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol [FL-no: 02.229], dec-4(cis)-enal [FL-no: 05.137], neral [FL-no: 05.170], trans-3,7-dimethylocta-2,6-dienal (geranial) [FL-no: 05.188], trans-3-hexenyl formate [FL-no: 09.562] and cis-3-hexenyl 2-methylbutanoate [FL-no: 09.854]. None of the substances were considered to have genotoxic potential. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach (the Procedure) that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that the 56 substances [FL-no: 02.125, 02.138, 02.152, 02.170, 02.175, 02.176, 02.195, 02.201, 02.222, 02.229, 02.234, 05.061, 05.082, 05.137, 05.143, 05.170, 05.174, 05.188, 05.203, 05.217, 05.218, 05.220, 05.226, 08.074, 08.100, 08.102, 09.341, 09.368, 09.377, 09.562, 09.567, 09.569, 09.572, 09.575, 09.612, 09.638, 09.640, 09.643, 09.672, 09.673, 09.674, 09.831, 09.838, 09.854, 09.855, 09.871, 09.872, 09.884, 09.885, 09.897, 09.898, 09.928, 09.937, 09.938, 09.939 and 09.950] do not give rise to safety concern at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Adequate specifications including complete purity criteria and identity for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 56 candidate substances

IMAGINE: Integrative Management of Green Infrastructures Multifunctionality, Ecosystem integrity and Ecosystem Services

Using a multidisciplinary approach in six case study sites covering a European north-south gradient from the boreal zone to the Mediterranean, the IMAGINE project assessed the multifunctionality and societal values of green infrastructure (GI) in different contexts at landscape level. An important objective of IMAGINE is to provide guidelines and develop ready-to-use methods for integrated management of GI’s multifunctionalities. To stimulate and improve the performance of GI’s ecosystem services. We explored different methods based on the most recent knowledge on the interaction between the environmental (abiotic characteristics of soil and water), structural (size, shape, spatial network configuration) and biological (species composition, structure, production) properties of the GI, which are necessary for the optimal provision of ecosystem services by the GI. In relation with GI ecological functions, we considered the societal values from different stakeholders and citizens as well as the policyscape addressing GI management in a set of case study sites.Our project not only generated new knowledge on the relationship between management, ecosystem integrity and multifunctionality of GI ecosystem services but also provided local stakeholders with scientific and territorial arguments, regulation mechanisms and decision-making tools for sustainable landscape management.En utilisant une approche multidisciplinaire dans six sites d'étude couvrant un gradient nord-sud européen de la zone boréale à la Méditerranée, le projet IMAGINE a évalué la multifonctionnalité et les valeurs sociétales des trames vertes et bleues (TVB) dans différents contextes au niveau du paysage. Un objectif important d'IMAGINE est de fournir des directives et de développer des méthodes prêtes à l'emploi pour la gestion intégrée des multifonctionnalités des TVB. Afin de stimuler et d'améliorer les performances des services écosystémiques des TVB, nous avons exploré différentes méthodes basées sur les connaissances les plus récentes concernant l'interaction entre les caractéristiques environnementales (caractéristiques abiotiques du sol et de l'eau), structurelles (taille, forme, configuration du réseau spatial) et biologiques (composition des espèces, structure, production) des TVB, qui sont nécessaires pour la fourniture optimale des services écosystémiques par les TVB. En relation avec les fonctions écologiques des TVB, nous avons pris en compte les valeurs sociétales de différents acteurs et citoyens, ainsi que le paysage politique abordant la gestion des TVB dans un ensemble de sites d'étude.Notre projet a non seulement généré de nouvelles connaissances sur la relation entre la gestion, l'intégrité de l'écosystème et la multifonctionnalité des services écosystémiques des TVB, mais a également fourni aux acteurs locaux des arguments scientifiques et territoriaux, des mécanismes de régulation et des outils d'aide à la décision pour une gestion durable du paysage

Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies : Deliverable No: 3.1, EC Contract Ref: FP7-ENV-2011-282743

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in “multi-level biodiversity governance”, investigated within the BESAFE project. The following broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies:• Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance?• How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)?• How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance?The study’s approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives to argument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance.The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are “products” of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments “say”. By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance.The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors “do”D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-levelgovernance interactions in case studies5with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and what strategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), up-scaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media.The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate “fit” into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation