Brussels Council Registered Participants.Xlsx
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Resit Akcakaya
H. Reşit Akçakaya Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794 USA • 1-631-632-8605 • http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/akcakayalab/ EDUCATION 1989 Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook Thesis: "Population cycles of mammals: theory and evidence" 1983 B.Sc. (high honors) in Biology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey CAREER 2007 to present Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, New York 2012 to 2015 Director, Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, New York 1988 to 2007 Senior Scientist, Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, New York 1993 Post-doctoral fellow, Inst. of Animal Ecology, Univ. of Lausanne, Switzerland PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND MEMBERSHIPS 2016 to present IUCN SSC Task Force on Assessing Conservation Success, which is developing guidelines for a new IUCN Green List of Species to quantify species recovery and conservation impact. 2014 to present Regional Editor (North America), Conservation Biology 2014 to present Coordinating Lead Author, Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), deliverable on "Policy support tools and methodologies for scenario analysis and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services." 2001 to present Chair, Red List Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC). 2001 to present IUCN SSC Red List Committee 2012 to present IUCN SSC Climate Change Specialist Group Steering Committee 2014 to -
Green Parties and Elections to the European Parliament, 1979–2019 Green Par Elections
Chapter 1 Green Parties and Elections, 1979–2019 Green parties and elections to the European Parliament, 1979–2019 Wolfgang Rüdig Introduction The history of green parties in Europe is closely intertwined with the history of elections to the European Parliament. When the first direct elections to the European Parliament took place in June 1979, the development of green parties in Europe was still in its infancy. Only in Belgium and the UK had green parties been formed that took part in these elections; but ecological lists, which were the pre- decessors of green parties, competed in other countries. Despite not winning representation, the German Greens were particularly influ- enced by the 1979 European elections. Five years later, most partic- ipating countries had seen the formation of national green parties, and the first Green MEPs from Belgium and Germany were elected. Green parties have been represented continuously in the European Parliament since 1984. Subsequent years saw Greens from many other countries joining their Belgian and German colleagues in the Euro- pean Parliament. European elections continued to be important for party formation in new EU member countries. In the 1980s it was the South European countries (Greece, Portugal and Spain), following 4 GREENS FOR A BETTER EUROPE their successful transition to democracies, that became members. Green parties did not have a strong role in their national party systems, and European elections became an important focus for party develop- ment. In the 1990s it was the turn of Austria, Finland and Sweden to join; green parties were already well established in all three nations and provided ongoing support for Greens in the European Parliament. -
ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions. -
Professionalization of Green Parties?
Professionalization of Green parties? Analyzing and explaining changes in the external political approach of the Dutch political party GroenLinks Lotte Melenhorst (0712019) Supervisor: Dr. A. S. Zaslove 5 September 2012 Abstract There is a relatively small body of research regarding the ideological and organizational changes of Green parties. What has been lacking so far is an analysis of the way Green parties present them- selves to the outside world, which is especially interesting because it can be expected to strongly influence the image of these parties. The project shows that the Dutch Green party ‘GroenLinks’ has become more professional regarding their ‘external political approach’ – regarding ideological, or- ganizational as well as strategic presentation – during their 20 years of existence. This research pro- ject challenges the core idea of the so-called ‘threshold-approach’, that major organizational changes appear when a party is getting into government. What turns out to be at least as interesting is the ‘anticipatory’ adaptations parties go through once they have formulated government participation as an important party goal. Until now, scholars have felt that Green parties are transforming, but they have not been able to point at the core of the changes that have taken place. Organizational and ideological changes have been investigated separately, whereas in the case of Green parties organi- zation and ideology are closely interrelated. In this thesis it is argued that the external political ap- proach of GroenLinks, which used to be a typical New Left Green party but that lacks governmental experience, has become more professional, due to initiatives of various within-party actors who of- ten responded to developments outside the party. -
Timetable for Green Party Autumn Conference Hove Centre, Hove Town Hall September 21St to 24Th 2006
Timetable for Green Party Autumn Conference Hove Centre, Hove Town Hall September 21st to 24th 2006 Note – this timetable reflects the situation at 15/09/06; any changes will be notified on the timetable notice board at Conference Time Wednesday 20th September 1600 onwards Stalls set-up 1800 - 2000 Registration Time Thursday 21st September 0845 - 1900 Registration 0830 – 0930 Breakfast 1145 - 1415 Lunch 1745 - 2015 Dinner 0930 - 1030 Workshop on motions A5 (Policy committee report) & A7 (Disputes Resolution Committee report) Workshop on motion A1 (SOC report) Workshop on motions C02 (middle East) &C05 (Education Enabling Motion) Workshop on motions D05 (selection procedures review), D08 (GPRC selection), D09 (GPRC elected by postal ballot) 1030 - 1150 PLENARY – Motion A1, SOC report (1030-1135) and Emergency Motions (1135-1150) 1200 - 1250 Young Greens present their views on Green Party education policy, Francesca Richards The state of childhood, Peter Reeves, GP Education spokesperson Travellers in Education, Liz Wakefield Workshop on motion B1, Natural Resources Voting Paper Workshop on motions C03 (Use of NHS trained staff) & C09 (Education policy updates) Thursday 21st September (continued) 1300 - 1410 PANEL – What is Education for?, chair Peter Reeve, speakers Kevin Aveson (Steiner Schools fellowship) and Anne Rix (Education Otherwise), David Woollcombe (President, Peace Child International) 1420 - 1510 Faith Schools – why do we need them? – chair Matthew Follett What is higher education for? Richard Clarke Education for sustainability, -
The Electorates of Greenleft and the Party for the Animals Otjes, Simon; Krouwel, Andre
University of Groningen Two shades of Green? The electorates of GreenLeft and the Party for the Animals Otjes, Simon; Krouwel, Andre Published in: Environmental Politics DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2015.1067349 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2015 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Otjes, S., & Krouwel, A. (2015). Two shades of Green? The electorates of GreenLeft and the Party for the Animals. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 991-1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1067349 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 26-09-2021 Environmental Politics, 2015 Vol. 24, No. 6, 991–1013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1067349 Two shades of Green? The electorates of GreenLeft and the Party for the Animals Simon Otjesa* and André Krouwelb aDocumentation Centre Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Communication Science/Kieskompas B.V., VU University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands The Netherlands has two electorally significant parties that might be con- sidered to be part of the ‘Green’ family: GreenLeft and the Party for the Animals. -
Challenger Party List
Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against -
Belgium and Its Green Parties at the Crossroads
Belgium and its Green Parties at the Crossroads Article by Luc Barbé July 2, 2019 On May 26 2019, Belgians voted in national, regional and European elections and the results spoke to a country divided along regional and political lines. In the Flemish north, the right-wing forces dominated. In Brussels and the Walloon south, progressive parties made gains, leaving Belgium at an impasse at the federal level. One month after the vote, Luc Barbé surveys the political terrain to ask where Belgium’s Green parties now stand. From momentum brought by street movements to the challenge posed by “ecorealism”, Barbé picks apart the threads to explain the how the Greens fared, why they did not do better, and the roads that lie open from here. There are two Green parties in Belgium, one Dutch-speaking, Groen, and one French-speaking, Ecolo, which also has a small German-speaking section. The two parties work together closely, form a single political group in the federal Chamber of Representatives, and submit joint lists to the local elections in Brussels. But the results of Belgium’s Green parties often diverge. At the federal, regional and European elections that took place in Belgium on May 26 2019, Ecolo scored higher than Groen, as was the case in past elections. Groen received 9.8 per cent of Flemish votes for the federal Chamber of Representatives, an increase of 1.2 per cent. The result makes Groen the sixth largest party in Flanders, disappointing for a party that was polling at 15 per cent in the months running up May 26. -
International Union for Conservation of Nature
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA REGIONAL OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2019 Mutnovsky Volcano, Kamchatka, Russia © IUCN/Boris Erg CONTENTS 2 Message from the Director 3 IUCN at a glance 5 Strategic orientation 6 IUCN ECARO Members 8 IUCN Commissions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia 9 Regional Councillors 9 Regional Conservation Forum 2019 10 Programme work and main achievements 10 Valuing and conserving nature 15 Governance of nature’s use 18 Deploying Nature-based Solutions 20 Our team 21 Publications and other outputs 24 Promotional materials 25 Events and awareness campaigns 27 Strategic partnerships 27 Regional financial summary 2019 MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR This year marked the 15th anniversary since the establishment of the IUCN office in Belgrade in 2004. We have come a long way ever since. From a small team operating a modest portfolio of activities in South-East Europe to a dedicated international team managing a diverse regional programme across Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The path has been challenging and winding, and we have managed to travel this far by working closely with our Members and Commissions, who have greatly helped us raise the profile of IUCN in the region, build successful partnerships and open new thematic chapters Boris Erg, Director of the IUCN Regional Office in our work. By working together, we have successfully for Eastern Europe and Central Asia contributed to policy development and institutional strengthening, priority setting and resource mobilisation for conservation action in the region, and we have also invested in knowledge generation, capacity building, and community engagement. -
Electronic Waste and the Circular Economy
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Electronic waste and the Circular Economy First Report of Session 2019–21 HC 220 Environmental Audit Committee The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House. Current membership Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP (Conservative, Ludlow) (Chair) Duncan Baker MP (Conservative, North Norfolk) Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Feryal Clark MP (Labour, Enfield North) Barry Gardiner MP (Labour, Brent North) Rt Hon Robert Goodwill MP (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby) Ian Levy MP (Conservative, Blyth Valley) Marco Longhi MP (Conservative, Dudley North) Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party, Brighton, Pavilion) Cherilyn Mackrory MP (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth) Jerome Mayhew MP (Conservative, Broadland) John McNally MP (Scottish National Party, Falkirk) Dr Matthew Offord MP (Conservative, Hendon) Alex Sobel MP (Labour (Co-op), Leeds North West) Claudia Webbe MP (Independent, Leicester East) Nadia Whittome MP (Labour, Nottingham East) The following Member is a former member of the Committee: Mr Shailesh Vara MP (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire) Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright. -
Geographical Representation Under Proportional
CSD Center for the Study of Democracy An Organized Research Unit University of California, Irvine www.democ.uci.edu It is frequently assumed that proportional representation electoral systems do not provide geographical representation. For example, if we consider the literature on electoral reform, advocates of retaining single-member district plurality elections often cite the failure of proportional representation to give voters local representation (Norton, 1997; Hain, 1983; see Farrell, 2001). Even advocates of proportional representation often recognize the lack of district representation as a failure that has to be addressed by modifying their proposals (McLean, 1991; Dummett, 1997).1 However, there has been little empirical research into whether proportional representation elections produce results that are geographically representative. This paper considers geographical representation in two of the most “extreme” cases of proportional representation, Israel and the Netherlands. These countries have proportional representation with a single national constituency, and thus lack institutional features that force geographical representation. They are thus limiting cases, providing evidence of the type of geographical patterns we are likely to see when there are no institutions that enforce specific geographical patterns. We find that the legislatures of Israel and the Netherlands are surprisingly representative geographically, although not perfectly so. Furthermore, we find an interesting pattern. While the main metropolitan areas -
ANNUAL REPORT INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN GAY BISEXUAL TRANS and INTERSEX ASSOCIATION Table of Contents
2012 ANNUAL REPORT INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN GAY BISEXUAL TRANS AND INTERSEX ASSOCIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 02 Vision, Mission and Strategic objectives 03 Thanks and acknowledgements Foreword from the Secretaries Generals 04 by Gloria Careaga and Renato Sabbadini A message from the Executive Director 07 by Sebastian Rocca Your Global LGBTI federation: Embracing the movement! Stockholm: global movement meets in the snow for a 09 warm and successful world conference Membership: ILGA reaches 1005 members and “talks” to 4500 LGBTI 13 organisations worldwide! Supporting the growth of LGBTI movements in 15 the Global South: ILGA’s Regional Development and Communication Project 18 World Pride in London: ILGA under the spotlight! Your voice at the United Nations: LGBTI rights are human rights! 2012 at the UN: ILGA deepens its engagement at the 19 United Nations Activism! Tools for change for the L, G, B, T and I communities 24 Second Forum on Intersex Organising 6th edition of the State Sponsored Homophobia 26 report 27 Global maps go… local! 29 ILGA stands up for lesbian rights! Activism! Tools for change for the L, G, B, T and I communities 30 Financial information 32 ILGA Executive Board and its members in 2012 FRIC AN A A IL P GA S T L H E S G I B R I A N N A * M G U A Y H * E B R I A S T E X H U G I A R L * T R R E A T N N S I * ILGA ANNUAL REPORT 2012 THIS REPort OUTLINES THE WORK undertaKEN BY ILGA staFF, board, MEMBERS AND Volunteers FroM January – DECEMBER 2012.