Who should do what in environmental management? Twelve principles for allocating responsibilities

Abstract

In environmental management there is often discussion on the allocation of responsibilities. Such discussions can continue for a long time and can form an obstacle for effective action. In this article twelve normative principles for the allocation of responsibilities are identified, coming from three different sources: the arguments used in discussions on responsibilities, Dutch and European law, and the environmental management literature. The principles are 1) capacity, 2) lowest social costs, 3) causation, 4) interest, 5) scale, 6) subsidiarity, 7) structural integration, 8) separation, 9) solidarity, 10) transparency, 11) stability (but not standstill), and 12) acquired rights. These principles point to fundamental tensions in environmental management and sometimes conflict with each other. At the same time they may help to resolve conflicts by providing common points of reference that are independent from the often conflicting interests of the discussants.

Local governments in the driving seat? A comparative analysis of public and private responsibilities for adaptation to climate change in European and North-American cities

“…If vague responsibilities hamper climate adaptation, conversely a more explicit allocation of responsibilities could drive climate adaptation. It is suggested that the formal allocation of responsibilities facilitates and structures the collaboration between actors , and gives legitimacy to the actors (Mostert, 2015). In addition to providing clarity of responsibilities, it also matters who takes on responsibilities (Mostert, 2015): it matters how the different public and private actors divide responsibilities for climate adaptation in their cities.…”

“…It is suggested that the formal allocation of responsibilities facilitates and structures the collaboration between actors , and gives legitimacy to the actors (Mostert, 2015). In addition to providing clarity of responsibilities, it also matters who takes on responsibilities (Mostert, 2015): it matters how the different public and private actors divide responsibilities for climate adaptation in their cities. Public actors, such as for instance urban planners, water managers and health officers, may decide to bear responsibility for adaptation action so that present and future generations are sufficiently protected against climate impacts (e.g.…”

River basin management and community: the Great Ouse Basin, 1850–present

“…Completely national management is problematic too because it would result in a separation between decision-making, financing and benefits; increases dependence on national politics; and reduce the possibilities to take local conditions and preferences into account and to experiment (cf. Mostert 2015).…”

“…Issues such as local flooding and pollution hotspots have a smaller geographical scope, whereas issues such as inter-basin water transfers and continental water recycling have a much larger scope (e.g. Hoekstra 2010, Van der Ent et al 2010, Mostert 2015, Pande and Sivapalan 2016. Outside of the water sector the river basin scale often is not important at all.…”

“…Following up on previous work on the Netherlands (Mostert 2015(Mostert , 2017), I will focus on the allocation of responsibilities, the discussions on this issue, and the role of different interests. Moreover, I will link the developments with the lack of 'community' or Gemeinschaft (Tönnies 1963) at the basin scale.…”