Consultation response on "Securing a sustainable future: Environmental principles, governance and biodiversity targets for a greener Wales"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consultation response on Securing a Sustainable Future: Environmental Principles, Governance and Biodiversity targets for a Greener WalesThis evidence is written by Dr Ludivine Petetin from Cardiff University and the Wales Governance Centre and Dr Viviane Gravey from Queen's University Belfast.Both have expertise in environmental and governance issues and are part of the Brexit & Environment network, which brings together academics analysing how Brexit is affecting the UK and EU environments. General comments:• This White Paper is most welcome to fix governance gaps but it is late in the day.This should have been a priority of the Welsh Government back in 2020 following the 2019 Consultation and 2020 Environmental Governance Stakeholder Task Group.Due to the lack of inaction, the current 'interim' system is not adequate and suffers many governance gaps in comparison to what exists in England and Northern Ireland with the OEP and Scotland with the ESS.It is difficult to understand why this matter was not acted upon quicker especially given the importance that plays the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 for Welsh governance and the Welsh government.•We note a concerning silence in the text about the handover/transition process between the IEPAW and the future governance body.This creates a major gap in environmental governance that needs addressing in the future Bill.The legacy, and lessons, of the IEPAW's work should not be put aside by the new governance body.• In contrast with emerging practice in other parts of the UK on environmental principles, we very much welcome the overarching objective and its emphasis on 'aiming to ensure a high level of environmental protection and improving the quality of the environment in Wales, in particular to contribute to sustainable development'.• We note that the proposed governance body will have a broad remit and fulfil a number of functions.We are concerned that (i) resources will not be commensurate to those powers (notably in terms of staff numbers) weakening the ability of the Commission to deliver on its missions and thus weakening its credibility and (ii) that potential tensions in delivering on these different functions (combination of advice and enforcement) have not been acknowledged or addressed.This will make it extremely difficult for the new governance body to deliver on high expectations.• These points are further addressed in a series of three blog posts for Brexit & Environment 1 , 2 , 3 1 Gravey, V. and Petetin, L. 2024 Late mover advantage?Designing a post-Brexit environmental watchdog for Wales, Brexit & Environment https://www.brexitenvironment.co.uk/2024/04/08/late-mover- advantage/ 2 Gravey, V. and Petetin, L. 2024 The long way to a 'principled' Brexit in Wales: from the 2020 Task Group to the 2024 Consultation, Brexit & Environment https://www.brexitenvironment.co.uk/2024/04/11/principled-brexit-in-wales/ 3 Gravey, V. and Petetin, L. 2024 Third time the charm?Comparing the Welsh approach to environmental principles with the rest of the UK Brexit & Environment
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.041 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".