Logo der Universität Wien
You are here:>University of Vienna >Research Platform Life Science Governance>IPA2013 3-5 July

Practice Panels: “Science interacts with Politics”

Practice seminars will bring policy analysis scholars into dialogue with policy workers suchas civil servants and politicians. Building on the successful format of the series of practiceseminars developed in former IPA conferences in Cardiff and Tilburg, practice seminarsexplore how to bring researchers and practitioners together around shared problems.
The seminars will feature a variety of policy problems linked with the conference themes.Moreover they will experiment with different forms of presentations; policy workers willportray policy problems and policy scholars will react to these, also policy practitioners willbe confronted with research and study results.

Practice Panel 1 ThinkForest – interaction between scientists and policy-makers: European Forest Governance at stake Seminar Room 1,
Department of East Asian Studies,
Wednesday, 3 July court 2.3
14.00–15.45

Practice Panel 2 Democratisation of Science Policy?
Stakeholder Participation and Expert Consultation in Science Policy Work
Seminar Room 1,
Department of East Asian Studies,
Thursday, 4 July court 2.3
9.00–10.45

Practice Panel 3 How to Move Forward?
Participation, Cooperation and Coordination In Traffic Policy Work
Seminar Room 1,
Department of East Asian Studies,
Thursday, 4 July court 2.3
14.00–15.45

Practice Panel 4 Regulating Prostitution – Negotiating Moral Policy: Street Prostitution Policy in Vienna Lecture Hall B 2.10
Thursday, 4 July
16.15–18.00


 

Practice Panel 1

ThinkForest – interaction between scientists and policy-makers:
European Forest Governance at stake


Chair: Helga Pülzl
European Forest Institute @ INFER, BOKU University, Vienna

Participants:
Bernhard Budil
Secretary General, Association of Austrian Land and Forest Owners

Gerhard Mannsberger
Director General of the Forestry Department, Austrian Federal Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Peter Mayer
Director, Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape

Gerald Steindlegger


Theme and rationale for the session:

Forest governance beyond the national has become increasingly European over the years. Notonly that a complex set of legal and non-legally binding instruments have evolved in Europe,but also complex set of structures emerged and a high number of actors are involved. This situation does not only create challenging situations of compliance, but also evokes inconsistencies, incoherence and conflict.
Forests, generally spoken, are owned individually and not collectively while collective goals of the public shall be met. Forests are therefore not at all uncontested as different priorities depending of ones situated view arise: while owners and forest workers mainly focus on production of goods and services, a number of actors aim primarily at protecting and, to some extend conserving the natural beauty and species composition. Others, again, are interested in the sustainable yield, health and the possibility to store carbon in trees. This panel aims at discussing new and innovative ideas between scientists and policy-makers on how this situation can be dealt with in order to strengthen both forest policy-making and implementation processes in the EU and Pan-European level.

The panel idea is based on a report – European Forest Governance: issues at stake and the way forward – that has been very recently prepared by scientists. The results will be shortly presented and thereafter discussed with panel participants.

 


 

Practice Panel 2

Democratisation of Science Policy?
Stakeholder Participation and Expert Consultation in Science Policy Work


Chair: Peter Biegelbauer
Austrian Institute of Technology

Speakers:

Christian Naczinsky
Austrian Ministry for Science and Research

Jeremy Rayner
University of Saskatchewan

Janus Hansen
Copenhagen Business School

 

Theme and rationale for the session:

The much discussed move from government to governance is a shorthand for the fact thatpolitics has given up most of its efforts to directly steer society. This development is decriedby some civil servants, others see it as a chance since the civil service has been overburdenedby steering efforts. However governance arrangements, in which actors from civil service,society and economy cooperate, are no less demanding than were the older forms of governmentalsteering. In that sense, how can meaningful operation between different actor groupsbe achieved in science policy without again overburdening the civil service?

A side-effect of the change from older government structures and processes to newer governance arrangements is that the more traditional networks and forms of expertise and consultation are dissolving. In neo-corporatist political systems such as Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden this development is felt particularly strong, ans there was traditionally an emphasis on coordinative network structures in these systems. Who should be asked for their opinion by way of “notice and commentˮ in science policy? Which stakeholders should be invited to react to civil service proposals? Are there ways to reach out to the informed public? Can social networks play a role in this endeavour? The development of governance arrangements has surprising repercussions on the EU level. When before national positions (e.g. the development of a new framework programme) were formed in complex processes of interactions between politicians, civil service and stakeholders from member states, such position papers now are largely missing and are created "on-the-fly", i.e. in the process of negotiating a new policy.
This may become problematic for large organisations such as multinational companies, but what does this mean for the possibility of smaller or non-organised interests to influence EU science policy initiatives? What does this mean for issues of transparency and accountability?

 


 

Practice Panel 3

How to Move Forward?
Participation, Cooperation and Coordination In Traffic Policy Work


Chair: Peter Biegelbauer
Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT)

Speakers:
Franz Schwammenhöfer
Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT)

Markus Knoflacher
independent expert, Vienna

Sabine Weiland
Freie Universität Berlin


Theme and rationale for the session:

Traffic policy-making over time has become a daunting task. Planned roads, airports and trainstations either end up with costs exploding or not being built at all. Money, time and energy are lost in costly planning processes ending in protests of citizens, who want to have a say about their environment or in political stalemates between actors with differing goals.Austrian law foresees citizen involvement in traffic planning, which however often takes place in a rather schematic and unflexible manner. Citizens sometimes invest time and energy in to the process, but often achieve a very limited impact by taking part in the official procedures.Their frustration about the ways of being involved may have an impact on the readiness of taking part in such processes again and adds to a general feeling of being ignored by policy-makers.Policy-making is an activity in need of coordination between different actor groups. This pertains not only to the coordination between policy-makers and citizens, but also between these and other concerned stakeholders, between regions and the federal state and between federal ministries. In fact the coordination processes often result in policy blockages with actors advancing their interests rather than in the creation of better, more problem-adequate solutions. Mostly planning activities are carried out by civil servants. They cannot do this on their own and regularly consult with experts on traffic policy problems. How do civil servants and experts deal with this complex situation in their policy work? What are their problem views and how do they compare with perspectives from policy analysis? In general traffic policies should aim at being consensual, systemic, sustainable and transparent in the way they are being obtained and communicated. Yet at the moment they often fulfill these criteria only perfunctory. How can policy workers come closer to reaching these goals in an imperfect world? What could be role of policy analysis in supporting policy workers?

 


 

Practice Panel 4

Regulating Prostitution – Negotiating Moral Policy:
Street Prostitution Policy in Vienna


Panel Convenors:
Helga Amesberger, David Laws and Hendrik Wagenaar


Theme and rationale for the session:

In this practice seminar, four practitioners – a high-ranking administrator from the Women’s Department of the City of Vienna, a member of the Green Party (part of the governing coalition) of the Viennese parliament, a member of an NGO, and a prostitution activist –have agreed to share with the audience their experiences with designing and implementing measures to deal with street prostitution in Vienna. By way of background: With the new Viennese Prostitution Law 2011 (WPG 2011) street prostitution is prohibited in residential areas. The Viennese government followed in this respect primarily the interest of residents living in boroughs in which street prostitution took place. To expedite the implementation of the WPG 2011 a steering group was created in which political representatives, administrative agencies, police officials, and NGOs participate. One of its main efforts was to find zones for outdoor prostitution, but the planned designation of soliciting zones within residential areas failed so far due to the resistance of district politicians and residents, supported by the local press. Street prostitution is a politically sensitive issue. The ongoing resistance indicates that street based sex work is at least as much a matter of public order as of moral politics. In the end three areas, the Prater, the Auhof and an industrial area in the 23rd district, were allocated for street prostitution. Through an information campaign by NGO-outreach workers and the police, outdoor sex workers have moved to the new designated areas within a matter of days.
On an average day about 120 street prostitutes work in the designated areas. However, the new law induced mobility – mobility to indoors (which was intended), to illegal apartment prostitution, some left the city or the country, new sex workers came in. One of the goals of the WPG 2011 was to improve the working conditions of sex workers. With regard to outdoor sex workers this goal has not been reached. The reallocation had a number of negative unintended consequences such as the lack of infrastructure for outdoor sex workers, crowding and fights among sex workers, pollution of parking lots, fining of sex workers who tried to use one of the“Stunden Hotels” near the Prater (because by crossing the street they moved outside the designated zone) and exercising sexual services in cars and in public spaces (which is forbidden).
Furthermore, with the move of the Vienna University of Economics and Business to the Prater in September this year this so far legal soliciting zone will turn into a prohibition zone, with the consequence that again less space will be available for street prostitution. Clearly, street prostitution is a wicked problem.

We want to discuss two main questions with the participants and the audience to this practice seminar:

1. Are there better or worse ways to formulate the problem of street prostitution in Vienna?
2. What practically feasible and morally acceptable policy solutions canwe design for this problem?


Font:

Life Science Governance Platform
University of Vienna
Universitätsstrasse 7
A-1010 Vienna

Email: ipa2013@univie.ac.at
University of Vienna | Universitätsring 1 | 1010 Vienna | T +43-1-4277-0
Lastupdate: 26.06.2013 - 16:16