If this email is not displayed correctly, please click here.




Dear ESEE Member,

We are pleased to send you the spring edition of the electronic ESEE newsletter, prepared by the Centre for Transdisciplinary Study of Institutions, Evolutions and Policies (CETIP Network).

The newsletter is distributed to members of the European Society for Ecological Economics. To join ESEE or renew your membership please visit www.euroecolecon.org.

If you want to publish interesting news, or information about events, job openings and new publications on the website or in the newsletter, feel free to send an email to eseenews@cetip.sk. We are also open for suggestions to improve our communication channels.




1. Editorial

  • Editorial – The ESEE at 20, by Juha Hiedanpää

2. News from ESEE and its members

  • ESEE in solidarity with our Turkish colleagues and for freedom of expression
  • Social sciences and humanities in IPBES

3. Hot topics

  • Challenge of financing investment in renewable energy, by Tim Foxon
  • IPBES at a turning point?, by György Pataki
  • How Ecological Economists Should React to the Paris Agreement, by Clive L. Spash

4. Events, jobs and publications

  • Call for Applications: Course on Bioeconomy
  • Call for Nomination of Experts: Global Assessment and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
  • Job posting: Lecturer / Associate Professor in Sustainability, Economics, and Low-Carbon Transitions
  • Job posting: Departmental Research Lecturer in the Economics of Environmental Change
  • Job posting: One post-doctoral researcher or advanced PhD candidate – Energy and the Post-Carbon Economy
  • Environmental Policy and Governance: Current issue 26(1), Jan./Feb. 2016 and early view online
  • Latest Issue of Environmental Values now online: Vol.25, No.1, February 2016
  • Special discount for ESEE members: Handbook of Ecosystem Services

5. Students and early career

  • ESCP Europe Workshop
  • The 11th ALTER-Net Summer School
  • MSc in Environmental Management and Sustainability
  • MSc in Energy Law, Business, Regulation and Policy
  • New MSc in Ecological Economics

1. Editorial


Editorial – The ESEE at 20

by Juha Hiedanpää

The European Society for Ecological Economics turns 20 this year. The society was established in 1996 at the Paris conference held at Saint Quentin en Yvelines. During this time, the operating environment of ESEE has changed quite dramatically but has simultaneously remained almost the same – we are still tackling the same challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change and problems with planning for natural resource use just as during the years of our infancy. Today, ESEE is old enough, but not too old, to adjust its corporeal and mental habits in order to be capable of living with the change in actor networks, in areas of collective attention and climate of ideas.

I have watched the whole history of ESEE, first from a distance and then from within, as a member of the board since 2013. My ESEE history begins from the moments of its inception. During the academic year 1996-1997, I visited Lancaster University (UK) and worked there with John O’Neill and Alan Holland. In our fortnightly sessions, we discussed environmental history and valuation – or, to be honest, I told them what puzzled me and they discussed it intensively for an hour. What brilliant educative moments those were. (As a side-note, I am still puzzled by the same questions.) It was at one of the special Lancaster meetings that I met Clive Spash for the first time. I was happy to hear about the birth of ESEE: ecological economics being done a little differently than it was by the mother society ISEE, the International Society for Ecological Economics. A few years later, Clive became the second president of ESEE, after the inaugural presidency of Sylvie Faucheux.

Because Clive has always had a different and, I should say, a somewhat more radical, angle on key matters in ecological economics, for the purposes of this editorial, I decided to ask him how he sees ecological economics in Europe these days. This was his answer:

“Ecological economics is a conflicted movement that struggles between being co-opted by mainstream economics and finding its own identity as a radical alternative to the mainstream. In Europe, the greater emphasis on social and political theory, classical institutional economics, applied ethics, philosophy of science and history of thought have all helped maintain a better understanding of the potential of the field to achieve social ecological transformation. However, that potential remains unfulfilled. There remains a tendency towards adopting simplistic ‘solutions’, seeking magic bullet approaches that lack theoretical rigour, and adopting supposedly pragmatic positions that appeal to the dominant neoliberal political system. The European Union that offered potential for progressive environmental policy 20 years ago has become a highly problematic institution pushing undemocratic back room deals such as TTIP, neoliberalisation of environmental policy, financialisation of Nature and the drive for innovation, technology, competition and growth above all else. Ecological economists in Europe today need to be aware of this and do better at supporting and seeking institutional reform.”

Its intellectually broader, critical (Continental, perhaps) and more radical mode of doing ecological economics was the first characteristic that attracted me to ESEE. The society had, and still has, a character of its own. As the above quote witnesses, critical preparedness is still evident in Clive’s thinking at a time when ESEE, as an epistemic community, is moving towards the mainstream. I am wondering whether there is a need or a necessity to turn back to the more radical playing fields of ESEE.

After the global economic meltdown in 2008, neoliberal thinking in the global governance of developmental and environmental issues has only strengthened, and the crisis did not lead to the regulatory revisions the critics had hoped to see. Hand in hand with the recovery from the economic and financial crisis come many concurrent trends – climate change, digitalisation processes and the concept of ecosystem services to mention three – that have supported and contributed to the way in which environmental governance and policy are exercised on the global and regional levels. From the ESEE’s perspective, the challenge of providing meaningful institutional advice and workable policy alternatives is ridiculously large. There are two general ways to go, I think: provide up-to-date economic pricing information about the changes in ecosystem services and other natural values which societal planning and decision-making apparatuses seem to lean on, or become a more critical and reformative economic science again that identifies, designs, experiments and evaluates the ideological and societal alternatives. These two are not necessarily incompatible, but to make them compatible takes some intellectual effort. I think this calls for the root mission of ESEE.

But how does Clive see the future of ecological economics in Europe?

“The only future for ecological economics is to become a critical social science that has firm theoretical foundations in understanding biophysical reality. Adopting mainstream models, valuation approaches and market mechanisms merely relegates the field to being a second rate version of the mainstream that it has always criticised and opposed. Yet being an apologist for mainstream ideas has become a common approach. The idea, pervasive in the journal, that the field should be a form of environmental studies or some sustainability science, that includes anything and everything that has the words environment or sustainability in them, is also the antithesis of creating a field of knowledge.

In the last 20 years the complex of social, ecological and economic problems have not been addressed and there has been a reversal of policies and deconstruction of institutions aimed at controlling the worst excesses of corporate capitalism and the consumer society. The drive for growth, markets and money is worse today, individualisation is greater, inequity has grown, the loss of biodiversity has not been stopped, greenhouse gases have increased relentlessly, innovative new pollutants and substances are spreading, militarisation and securitisation have spread and resource extraction has become more dirty and with higher social and environmental impacts (e.g. fracking). To date ecological economics has clearly not succeeded in addressing these issues in any substantive way and will only be helpful if it avoids becoming another rhetorical device for apologising about why planetary destruction and social injustice are necessary so humans can progress. Unfortunately there are a lot of apologists for the capital accumulating system and the growth machine who claim to be ecological economists and there are many who divorce their personal practice from the actions necessary to avoid the continuation of social, ecological and economic crises. If the ESEE is to succeed it must address these issues.”

I agree that the institutional and socioecological problems Clive lists above are something the ESEE folks should get their hands dirty with in the next twenty years. I am not much of a predictor, but I think that taking the task seriously would entail, in general, more ESEE members, perhaps as dedicated economists, becoming engaged not only in the social psychology of emotion, cultural studies on institutional inertia and the organisational ethnography of administrative routines but also in more reform-orientated inter- and transdisciplinary action research on environmental policy planning, implementation and reception for the sake of making things better.

As we can read in this newsletter, Tim Foxon points in this direction in his Hot Topic. He asks how to encourage institutional investors to reorient their investment portfolios towards low carbon energy. It takes effort and courage to go against the current; to take actions that one’s peers will not take, with or without monetary reward. Hopefully more researchers are asking what the source (and sink) of this courageousness is, first of themselves and then of those whom they study. Let me give another example. György Pataki discusses the same general matter in his Hot Topic. However, he does not focus on business enterprises but on the acts of governmental representatives as part of the IPBES process (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). After the policy effort has been taken, biodiversity decline has not halted, and while the meaning and significance of ecosystem services as constituents of socioecological resilience and human wellbeing are becoming clearer due to the IPBES work, governments may grow more hesitant about funding the collective efforts to find and design the conditions of safeguarding the protection of biodiversity and sustainable use of ecosystem services. There is indeed something worth investigating for critical ecological economists in the next 20 years.


2. News from ESEE and its members

ESEE in solidarity with our Turkish colleagues and for freedom of expression
21 March 2016

The European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE) herewith expresses its concern for the academics in Turkey being investigated, and three being held in prison since March 15, for expressing their views—under the petition “We Will Not be a Party to this Crime”—on the conflict in the South-East region of Turkey, and condemns the recent steps taken against the scholars who have been calling for peace in the country.

Concerned about the decline of academic freedoms in Turkey and in line with its commitment to the defense of freedom of representation and dissemination of ideas, the ESEE urges the government of Turkey to fully respect the right of scholars to express their opinions in public without censorship or restraint. We also urge the Higher Education Council (YÖK) to withdraw its request to the rectors to open up an inquiry on the signatories.

While our expression of solidarity extends to all people and academics affected by the repressive measures taken by the Government of Turkey, the ESEE is particularly concerned with the ecological economics community of scholars, intellectuals, practitioners, and activists in Turkey who are facing prosecution for their commitment to peace and social justice.

Irene Ring, Erik Gómez-Baggethun & Tom Bauler (president / vice-presidents)


Social sciences and humanities in IPBES

ESEE President Irene Ring represented the Society in November 2015 in Bonn at a Workshop on “Social sciences and humanities in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)”, convened by German IPBES Coordination Office.

The recently established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) aims at providing a mechanism to synthesize, review, assess and critically evaluate relevant information and knowledge generated worldwide on the status of and trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The role of natural scientists is quite obvious in the IPBES process: they have proven to be (pro-)active contributors to global assessments and related policy debates. By contrast scholars from the social sciences and humanities remain a minority, even though their role in identifying the barriers for policy implementation and the sustainable use of natural resources is generally recognized.

Recommendations and associated policy options emerging from the one-day multidisciplinary expert meeting in Bonn were formulated by the experts in a policy-relevant format and contain practical measures to overcome the identified low representation of experts from the fields of social sciences and humanities in IPBES assessment and review processes.

The document was made available for discussions at the IPBES stakeholder days, which took place from 20 to 21 February 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and was available at the subsequent fourth Plenary of the IPBES, held from 22 to 28 February 2016 in Kuala Lumpur as well. The deliberations and outcomes of IPBES-4 will be used as an opportunity to rethink the role of social sciences and humanities and their scientific communities in biodiversity politics and science.

More information


3. Hot topics

Challenge of financing investment in renewable energy

by Tim Foxon, SPRU – Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex

Under the Paris Agreement in December 2015, nations committed to holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. This should provide a clear signal to businesses and investors that there is international political support for a new direction in energy policy to achieve a transition to low carbon energy systems, despite the fact the current national commitments fall short of what is needed to achieve these targets. However, implementing the agreement requires mobilising high levels of investment in renewable energy and other low carbon technologies, including energy efficiency measures.

A recent workshop organised by my new SPRU colleagues Mariana Mazzucato and Gregor Semeniuk, and hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), examined the challenge of Financing Innovation in Renewable Energy. Drawing on projections by BNEF, Christopher Knowles from the European Investment Bank argued that an additional $8.6 trillion of investment in clean energy is needed within the next 25 years to keep on track for 2 °C target, roughly double the business as usual level of global energy investment. Despite the growth of renewable energy funds, supported by the European Investment Bank and other public development banks, and new instruments, such as climate bonds, less than 1% of the assets held by institutional investors, including pension funds and insurance companies, are currently invested in clean energy projects. More work is needed to encourage these institutional investors to reorient their investment portfolios towards low carbon energy, and to divest from supposedly ‘safe’ investments in fossil fuel companies, whose assets would become ‘stranded’ if governments back up their commitments at Paris with action.

In work with colleagues Stephen Hall at Leeds and Ronan Bolton at Edinburgh, we interviewed a number of people from the investment community in UK and Germany (Hall et al., 2015). This work identified a number of structural constraints to renewable energy investment, including the immaturity of the sector as an asset class, the lack of liquidity of long-term investments in renewable energy, the short-term drivers on fund managers and the lack of secondary market vehicles. Markets in the real world are not the efficient markets of conventional economic theory, but need encouragement and incentives to adapt to the new world signalled by the Paris Agreement.

Ecological economists have an important role to play in engaging with the sometimes opaque world of investment finance to address these challenges, support social movements such as divestment campaigns, and help to mobilise the levels of investment needed for a rapid transition to low carbon energy systems, to meet the Paris commitments.

Hall, S., Foxon, T.J. and Bolton, R. (2015). Investing in low carbon transitions: Energy finance as an adaptive market. Climate Policy (online) [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2015.1094731]


IPBES at a turning point?

by György Pataki

A year ago one of the hot topics in this newsletter was a general introduction to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to the European ecological economics community. Now, after the 4th Plenary of the member states in Kuala Lumpur, we are beginning to confront emerging contradictions with regard to the future operation of IPBES.

On the one hand, one may well see a global policy-making body on biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) that is very actively pursuing its mandate, which is to produce knowledge assessments within the very limited timeframe of its 5-year long first work programme. The first major deliverables have been discussed and evaluated by Member States at the recent Plenary (IPBES-4): the thematic assessment of pollinators, pollination and food production (“pollination assessment”) and the methodological assessment on scenarios and modelling of BES (“scenario and modelling assessment”). Both have been accepted, with considerable media coverage.

On the other hand, during the Plenary and within the so-called budget contact group, experts working for IPBES were shocked to learn of the unwillingness of most member states to provide the funding IPBES needs to carry out the first work programme that member states had previously accepted and mandated as the core function of IPBES. Thus the question unavoidably arises regarding the commitment of national governments to IPBES as a meaningful and effective global policy-making body for BES. It seems to be contradictory to create and mandate a global biodiversity policy organisation, in addition to the existing ones, and then fall short of providing the necessary resources to carry out the mandated tasks. What might be the reasons for national governments acting in this way? Is this an issue specifically relevant to IPBES or is it a general situation to all UN-related efforts for global cooperation?

As a member of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) that is supposed to oversee and facilitate the knowledge performance of IPBES, I see experts of diverse knowledge backgrounds committing their time and expertise to enhance the cause of biodiversity conservation from global, regional and local levels. IPBES’s operations are highly dependent on their voluntary (uncompensated) or semi-voluntary (partly compensated) work. The unwillingness of governments to fund IPBES’ work programme leads to questions concerning the commitment of these same national governments to halt and reverse biodiversity decline globally, regionally and locally. Such a message of lack of commitment to IPBES has negative impact on the motivation and commitment of all stakeholders to the IPBES process, who are made up of diverse knowledge-holders who have already contributed significantly to assessing knowledge and providing policy support regarding BES.

After Kuala Lumpur we now face a situation in which previously agreed assessments have been postponed: these include the thematic assessment on invasive alien species and their control (“IAS assessment”) and the assessment of methodologies regarding the diverse conceptualization of values of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people including ecosystem services (“valuation assessment”). The Plenary has also decided that the thematic assessment on the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity (“sustainable use assessment”) requires additional expert work on scoping. All of these assessments will be on the agenda of the next Plenary (IPBES-5, March 2017, Bonn) to be discussed and decided upon regarding their timing and funding.

More positive news reached those who were concerned with the fate of the global assessment of BES: the Plenary decided to issue a call for expert nominations to start carrying out this assessment. Meanwhile, four regional assessments of BES in Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia (ECA) are ongoing and first drafts are expected to be delivered this Spring. Call for nominations for review editors to provide structured critical feedback on these drafts will be issued soon by the IPBES Secretariat.

Time will tell to what extent IPBES will progress in real terms, that is, being effective at a global level to institutionalise knowledge production and policy support mechanisms that will positively contribute to the cause of biodiversity. IPBES will either fail to come up to the expectations of diverse stakeholders, who have made concerted efforts to make  global collaboration for knowledge generation work, and lead to policy support in favour of biological and biocultural diversity. IPBES has already received significant academic attention through critical pieces of analysis, which may contribute to directing IPBES towards effective institutionalisation and impact. IPBES still states that it looks forward to the critical and constructive attention of the ecological economics community.

More information on IPBES will be happily provided upon request. Contact: György Pataki at gyorgy.pataki@uni-corvinus.hu , MEP for the Eastern European Region


How Ecological Economists Should React to the Paris Agreement

by Clive L. Spash

At the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Paris, France, 30 November to 11 December 2015, an Agreement was reached by the international community including 195 countries. The Agreement was immediately hailed, by participants and the media, as a major turning point for policy in the struggle to address human induced climate change. One of the apparent reasons to celebrate was the admission by the COP that the unilateral targets set by the world’s governments—as part of the pre-Paris process—are totally inadequate for a 50:50 chance of achieving an average global temperature rise of 2°C. They will more likely head the planet to 3°C, or more. Another is that, despite this, the COP now recognise the real target should be reduced down to 1.5°C. Full marks for honesty and zero marks for achievement.

Ecological economists should also immediately be concerned about the divergence between claimed intentions and the real ongoing actions of nation States. The reality being enforced through social and economic systems remains one of increasing energy and material throughput due to industrial production and fashion conscious conspicuous consumption. These systems are not set to change and, so, neither is their social metabolism. Countries like China and India have massively expanded the number of coal fired power stations, are building more and plan even more; Canada backed out of Kyoto to create the largest environmental devastation of any land area on the planet in the form of fracking; countries like the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Norway (to name but a few) have ongoing programmes supporting exploration and development of conventional and/or non-conventional fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Germany assumes the mantle of a Green Economy while expanding brown coal production, pushing car sales, and cutting investment in public transport, while its citizens are celebrating the success of their competitive growth economy by flying more. Then there is the whole area of Nation State commitment to ‘security’ expenditure and the fossil fuel intensive military-industrial complex.

This is all before we even get to the private sector of the economy and their interests. The raw fact is that some of the largest international corporations are valued on the basis of fossil fuel assets that are toxic. At least 60% cannot be burnt for a 50:50 chance of 2°C and more likely 80% when considering the budget available for the energy sector (Spash 2016). Despite this the energy corporations continue to look for fossil fuel reserves to add to their toxic assets. Just consider how effective was the Paris Agreement when they suffered no share price impact at all? Well not very surprising given that the Agreement makes no mention of any fossil fuels at all.

The rhetoric of Paris just does not match the reality of government and corporate policy and their real intentions and actions. Whether the issue is building more power stations, roads, airports, shopping malls, industrial parks, housing, urban areas or whatever, all current infrastructure remains fossil fuel dependent and much creates social dependency on continued fossil fuel supply. Yet, despite this, people are saying: ‘this is an important first step and a key policy moment’, just as they did at Rio (1992) when the UNFCCC was established and then at Kyoto (1997) with the Protocol, and indeed at most every COP meeting a breakthrough of some sort has been announced and there has been great applause by the participants. After a quarter of a century of international ‘concern’ the lack of substance in the Paris Agreement is breathtaking.

Yet the Paris Agreement is not lacking in content or meaning. A key aspect in terms of international policy was to tie action on human induced climate change to economic growth. The UN resolution for “transforming our world”, agreed earlier last year, is a document highlighted in the introduction to the Paris Agreement. The aim is a new campaign for economic growth as ‘sustainable development’. Supposed concerns over inequity and poverty are translated into the need for 7% growth rates for developing countries, which is now an agreed international goal. Pushing economic growth for poverty alleviation as the only ethical policy response under climate change is something that has been heavily promoted by Stern and his elite associates from the political, banking and finance worlds (Spash 2014). Many in ecological economics applaud Stern despite the fundamental contradictions of his approach and policy recommendations.

Unfortunately the ‘development as growth’ agenda has also been supported by some prominent ecological economists. For example, the aspirations for achieving prosperity without growth have been restricted to the already industrialised countries, the globally rich Nation States. Only those economies that have already had 200 years of economic growth need to avoid further growth, others must be allowed to follow the same path. Of course, growth offers a convenient ‘get out’ when challenged about what happens to the 6 billion, or more, who have not benefited from the capital accumulating system. Rather conveniently the original concerns about biophysical and social reality are forgotten along the way, i.e. that this system is both socially exploitative and created the environmental crisis in the first place.

So how do the pundits pushing the ‘better-growth, better climate’ political agenda square this circle? Same old story: technology, innovation, decoupling. A future promise of a solution around some hidden corner. Promotion of biotech, carbon capture and storage, geoengineering and new energy systems. A set of miraculous cures for social and political failures using corporate science and the profit motive. This can be combined with attacks on government programmes of energy provision as illicit subsidies, while new energy provision systems are to be legitimated by private ownership (backed by massive government transfer payments, justified as correcting market failures and internalising externalities). So the stock market, banking and finance sectors are not upset by the Paris Agreement because it offers a potential business bonanza if not a neoliberal nirvana.

Ecological economists should not be fooled into believing the unbelievable, nor be cajoled into adopting the myth that economic growth is now the ethical way forward to a ‘new economy’ in which all poverty and oppression will be removed by spreading industrialisation and the competitive market system further than ever before. Ecological economists should remember that the concept of “inclusive sustained growth” remains the same utopian vision—rhetorically employed by a self-serving social elite—that it has always been. Amongst all the economists in the world, a foundational knowledge of biophysical reality should ground the ecological economist’s understanding and provide a firm basis for connecting the environmental crisis to the social reality of resource exploitation in a capital accumulating economy. Therein lies an important task. Ecological economists should now set to work explaining why Paris changes nothing, and what are the necessary alternatives to create a materially grounded, truly ecological and socially just economic system.

Spash, C. L. (2014). Better Growth, Helping the Paris COP-out?: Fallacies and Omissions of the New Climate Economy Report. Vienna, Institute for Environment and Regional Development. On line at https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwsre/sre-disc-2014_04.html.
Spash, C. L. (2016). The Paris Agreement to Ignore Reality. Vienna, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development. On line at http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/sre-disc/sre-disc-2016_01.pdf. Forthcoming in Globalizations vol.13 no.6.


 4. Events, jobs and publications

Call for Applications: Course on Bioeconomy

The Bioeconomy Initiative of the Czech University of South Bohemia organizes a course on Bioeconomy on May 23-28, 2016.

The course offers a multidisciplinary approach to Bioeconomy, covering a wide spectrum of topics from natural sciences, economics, business, law, and communication. It is addressed to Master, PhD. Students and experts from various backgrounds, aiming to enhance their knowledge in a challenging domain which currently is the flagship of the European Strategy in domains of Innovative Research and Technology Applications.

Deadline for applications is April 15, 2016.

More information


Call for Nomination of Experts: Global Assessment and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

IPBES (The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) invites the nomination of experts for Deliverable 2(c): Global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services and Deliverable 3(biii): Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. For more information and the application form, please click here.

Deadline for applications is May 5, 2016.

More information


Job posting: Lecturer / Associate Professor in Sustainability, Economics, and Low-Carbon Transitions

University of Leeds, School of Earth and Environment, has announced an opening as Lecturer / Associate Professor in Sustainability, Economics, and Low-Carbon Transitions.

Closing Date is April 15, 2016.

More information


Job Posting: Departmental Research Lecturer in the Economics of Environmental Change

The Environmental Change Institute (ECI) and the School of Geography of the Environment (SoGE) in Oxford are seeking to appoint a Departmental Research Lecturer.

The primary purpose of the post is to conduct research, in collaboration with the ECI’s research programmes, on the economic drivers of and responses to environmental change. To undertake this role, you must hold a doctorate in economics or a closely related field, with a focus on environmental change which might include climate, energy, biodiversity, water or food systems. This post is a full-time, 5-year appointment.

To apply for this role and for further details, including the job description and selection criteria, please click here.

The closing date is 12.00 noon on Wednesday March 30, 2016, and interviews will be held on Monday April 18, 2016.


Job posting: One post-doctoral researcher or advanced PhD candidate – Energy and the Post-Carbon Economy

The Department of Environmental Studies at the Faculty of Social Studies (FSS) of Masaryk University (MU) is inviting applications for one post-doctoral researcher, advanced PhD candidate or highly experienced research assistant.

Deadline for applications is April 4, 2016.

More information

For informal enquiries about this position please contact Martin Černý (cerny.m@mail.muni.cz) or Christian Kerschner (christian.kerschner@mail.muni.cz).


Environmental Policy and Governance: Current issue 26(1), Jan./Feb. 2016 and early view online

Environmental Policy and Governance 

The current issue 26/1, Jan/Feb 2016:

Currently in the Early View:


Latest Issue of Environmental Values now online: Vol.25, No.1, February 2016

Special Issue on The Ethics of Engineering the Climate

Recently posted articles forthcoming in future issues:

Recently posted reviews forthcoming in future issues:


Special discount for ESEE members: Handbook of Ecosystem Services

Edited by Marion Potschin, Roy Haines-Young, Robert Fish, R. Kerry Turner


Routledge has provided ESEE members with a special 20% discount code for the new book Handbook of Ecosystem Services. To place an order use code DC361 on www.routledge.com. Your discount will then be allocated.

More information


5. Students and early career

ESCP Europe Workshop

ESCP Europe invites you to submit abstracts for their workshop Agent-based modelling in Ecological Economics - A useful tool or just a fancy gadget? The workshop takes place in Berlin May 20th-21st, 2016.

Extended deadline for submission is April 1, 2016.

More information


The 11th ALTER-Net Summer School

The 11th ALTER-Net Summer School Biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable management of socio-ecosystems is now open for applications. The Summer School takes place on 7-17 September 2016 in Peyresq, Haute-de-Provence, France

Deadline for applications is April 29, 2016 (18:00 CET).

More information


MSc in Environmental Management and Sustainability

The MSc in Environmental Management and Sustainability programme is designed to offer recent graduates a thorough understanding of theory and practice in the areas of sustainable development. The programme provides graduates with a key set of skills and the real-world knowledge crucial to achieving success in their chosen career.

Specialization Streams: Environmental Management - Sustainable Tourism Management)

Next intake: October 2016

More information


MSc in Energy Law, Business, Regulation and Policy

The IHU "Master of Science in Energy Law, Business, Regulation and Policy" has as its objective the provision of postgraduate level studies, specialization and experience in Energy Law, Βusiness, Energy Policy, and Geostrategy, as well as the general regulatory intervention in the area of the energy sector as a whole. It offers a highly flexible qualification suitable for a wide range of career opportunities in many sectors.

Next intake: October 2016

More information


New MSc in Ecological Economics

The University of Leeds is pleased to announce its new MSc in Ecological Economics programme, with applications now being taken for September 2016 entry.  On this programme, students will develop an understanding of how economic activity gives rise to environmental and social problems, and be introduced to the main tools to tackle them. The programme provides a comprehensive education in ecological, environmental, and heterodox economics, and students are encouraged to work with a partner organisation on a real-world problem for their dissertation. The MSc is open to all students with an interest in economic issues, and does not require a previous degree in economics. 

Apply at apply-masters@see.leeds.ac.uk

More information