scholarly journals Towards a Risk Governance Culture in Flood Policy—Findings from the Implementation of the “Floods Directive” in Germany

Water ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Daniel Heintz ◽  
Maria Hagemeier-Klose ◽  
Klaus Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Risk Governance ◽  
Floods Directive ◽  
Flood Policy

scholarly journals Flood risk management in Italy: challenges and opportunities for the implementation of the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2883-2890 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Mysiak ◽  
F. Testella ◽  
M. Bonaiuto ◽  
G. Carrus ◽  
S. De Dominicis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Risk Prevention ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Civil Protection ◽  
Floods Directive ◽  
Eu Floods Directive ◽  
The Eu

Abstract. Italy's recent history is punctuated with devastating flood disasters claiming high death toll and causing vast but underestimated economic, social and environmental damage. The responses to major flood and landslide disasters such as the Polesine (1951), Vajont (1963), Firenze (1966), Valtelina (1987), Piedmont (1994), Crotone (1996), Sarno (1998), Soverato (2000), and Piedmont (2000) events have contributed to shaping the country's flood risk governance. Insufficient resources and capacity, slow implementation of the (at that time) novel risk prevention and protection framework, embodied in the law 183/89 of 18 May 1989, increased the reliance on the response and recovery operations of the civil protection. As a result, the importance of the Civil Protection Mechanism and the relative body of norms and regulation developed rapidly in the 1990s. In the aftermath of the Sarno (1998) and Soverato (2000) disasters, the Department for Civil Protection (DCP) installed a network of advanced early warning and alerting centres, the cornerstones of Italy's preparedness for natural hazards and a best practice worth following. However, deep convective clouds, not uncommon in Italy, producing intense rainfall and rapidly developing localised floods still lead to considerable damage and loss of life that can only be reduced by stepping up the risk prevention efforts. The implementation of the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) provides an opportunity to revise the model of flood risk governance and confront the shortcomings encountered during more than 20 yr of organised flood risk management. This brief communication offers joint recommendations towards this end from three projects funded by the 2nd CRUE ERA-NET (http://www.crue-eranet.net/) Funding Initiative: FREEMAN, IMRA and URFlood.

scholarly journals Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Hartley ◽  
Robert D. J. Smith ◽  
Adam Kokotovich ◽  
Chris Opesen ◽  
Tibebu Habtewold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malaria Control ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Control Programme ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Malaria Control Programme ◽  
Gene Drive ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
New Directions ◽  
High Level

Abstract Background The African Union’s High-Level Panel on Emerging Technologies identified gene drive mosquitoes as a priority technology for malaria elimination. The first field trials are expected in 5–10 years in Uganda, Mali or Burkina Faso. In preparation, regional and international actors are developing risk governance guidelines which will delineate the framework for identifying and evaluating risks. Scientists and bioethicists have called for African stakeholder involvement in these developments, arguing the knowledge and perspectives of those people living in malaria-afflicted countries is currently missing. However, few African stakeholders have been involved to date, leaving a knowledge gap about the local social-cultural as well as ecological context in which gene drive mosquitoes will be tested and deployed. This study investigates and analyses Ugandan stakeholders’ hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control and explores the new directions needed for risk governance. Methods This qualitative study draws on 19 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Ugandan stakeholders in 2019. It explores their hopes for the technology and the risks they believed pertinent. Coding began at a workshop and continued through thematic analysis. Results Participants’ hopes and concerns for gene drive mosquitoes to address malaria fell into three themes: (1) ability of gene drive mosquitoes to prevent malaria infection; (2) impacts of gene drive testing and deployment; and, (3) governance. Stakeholder hopes fell almost exclusively into the first theme while concerns were spread across all three. The study demonstrates that local stakeholders are able and willing to contribute relevant and important knowledge to the development of risk frameworks. Conclusions International processes can provide high-level guidelines, but risk decision-making must be grounded in the local context if it is to be robust, meaningful and legitimate. Decisions about whether or not to release gene drive mosquitoes as part of a malaria control programme will need to consider the assessment of both the risks and the benefits of gene drive mosquitoes within a particular social, political, ecological, and technological context. Just as with risks, benefits—and importantly, the conditions that are necessary to realize them—must be identified and debated in Uganda and its neighbouring countries.

Principles and Structures of European Risk Governance, or: How (not) to Play a Trust Game

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-174
Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Trust Game ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Regulatory Functions ◽  
The Eu

Ever more risky service activities are carried out across borders, creating spillovers and externalities. At the same time, if freedom to provide services is legally enabled, states can cooperate in multiple ways to mitigate the potential risks accruing from crossborder activities. Global Administrative Law Scholarship distinguishes five types of administrative regulation: “administration by formal international organizations; administrations based on collective action by transnational networks of governmental officials; distributed administration conducted by national regulators under treaty regimes, mutual recognition arrangements or cooperative standards; administration by hybrid intergovernmental–private arrangements; and administration by private institutions with regulatory functions. In practice many of these layers overlap or combine […]”. In the area of risky cross–border service provision, the EU has moved from a more decentralised version of networks and mutual recognition characterised by coordination and minimum harmonization of rules and standards to a more centralized commandand–control system with European authorities and supervision.

Accountability and risk governance: a scenario-informed reflection on European regulation of GMOs

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 1123-1140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Drott ◽  
Lukas Jochum ◽  
Frederik Lange ◽  
Isabel Skierka ◽  
Jonas Vach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Governance ◽  
European Regulation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document