The European Union (EU) has declared itself to be committed to the goal of sustainable development. Ecological modernisation provides the framework within which it marries economic and environmental objectives. Yet, when judged against the authoritative Brundtland formulation of sustainable development, the strategy of ecological modernisation could be viewed as ‘merely symbolic’ politics. This contribution elaborates on the distinction between sustainable development and ecological modernisation and investigates why the EU continues to make declaratory commitment to the former, when it could make a more straightforward statement of allegiance to the latter. The analysis suggests that if ‘symbolism’ is understood as representation, the discourse on sustainable development can be seen as representing the EU in a particular way and thereby contributing to the construction of EU identity. Furthermore, it is argued that the EU's symbolic commitment to sustainable development is not simply an act of ecological deception, but bears important transformative potentials.

Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high‐level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi‐dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio‐economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders, and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land‐use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular.

Baker, S., and K. Eckerberg. 2013. A policy analysis perspective on ecological restoration. Ecology and Society 18(2): 17.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05476-180217

Petursdottir, T., O. Arnalds, S. Baker, L. Montanarella, and Á. Aradóttir. 2013. A social–ecological system approach to analyze stakeholders’ interactions within a large-scale rangeland restoration program. Ecology and Society 18(2): 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05399-180229

This article discusses how ecological restoration success can be understood and evaluated using a policy analysis lens. First, this article details a conceptual tool that helps to develop a more encompassing set of criteria to assess restoration activities that provide socioeconomic benefits. Second, by broadening the understanding of restoration success and how it can be evaluated, it allows a more critical view of evaluation itself and its uses as a policy tool. A table is presented that can help practitioners reveal preferences and clarify the aims and objectives of particular initiatives. The table also sensitizes practitioners to the complexity of the links between restoration rationales and evaluation criteria, which in turn may open up much needed discussion and dialogue between restoration participants about the underlying values an actor may wish to promote. It heightens awareness of the fact that evaluation methods need to recognize that restoration is driven by multiple rationales often in the same project, both process driven and output oriented, which in turn can change over time. Adding process and output criteria together may also raise issues of priority. Evaluation criteria thus need to be assigned in ways that reflect these multiplicities, while at the same time recognizing that some restoration values might be conflictual and that there may be winners and losers. Furthermore, judgement about “failure” of a project can change as new goals emerge in delivery and implementation. Ecological restoration evaluation should therefore be ongoing, contextual, and not a one‐off event.

Baker, S., and F. Chapin, III. 2018. Going beyond “it depends:” the role of context in shaping participation in natural resource management. Ecology and Society 23(1):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09868-230120