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, (... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Mostert, Erik
Dokumenttyp: Text
Erscheinungsdatum: 2015
Verlag/Hrsg.: The Maritime Commons: Digital Repository of the World Maritime University
Schlagwörter: Institutions;Decentralization;Polycentric governance;Integration;The Netherlands;Water
Sprache: unknown
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-26846455
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://commons.wmu.se/lib_articles/130

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.