Search

Pancreatic cancer has the worst prognosis among common tumors which is attributed to its aggressive phenotype, diagnosis at advanced, inoperable stages, and resistance to systemic therapy. Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) such as microRNAs, long non-coding RNAs, and circular RNAs have been established as important regulators of gene expression and their deregulation has been implicated in multiple diseases and foremost cancer. In the tumor microenvironment, non-coding RNAs can be distributed among cancer cells, stromal cells, and immune cells via small extracellular vesicles (sEVs), thereby facilitating intercellular communication and influencing major cancer hallmarks such as angiogenesis, evasion of the immune system, and metastatic dissemination. Furthermore, sEV-ncRNAs have shown promising potential as liquid biopsies with diagnostic and prognostic significance. In this review, we summarize the role of sEVs as carriers of ncRNAs and underlying molecular mechanisms in pancreatic cancer. Moreover, we review the potential of sEV-ncRNAs as biomarkers and highlight the suitability of sEVs as delivery vehicles for ncRNA-based cancer therapy.

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) obliges EU Member States to achieve good ecological status in all surface waters by 2027 at the latest. In many regions, this implies fundamental transformation from engineered water landscapes back to near-natural structures. By example of the German State of Lower Saxony it is shown how this transformation of water landscapes essentially requires a transformation of the institutional foundations of water management, too. It is argued from a legal perspective that certain general, justiciable minimum requirements are to be deduced from the WFD as to (1) planning and enforcement of restoration measures, (2) land acquisition, (3) organisation and (4) finance which delimit the ample margins Member States enjoy in designing the institutional substructure. With regard to Lower Saxony, it is explained why this State is clearly failing to meet the minimum requirements and how it needs to transform its institutional arrangements to make them fit for purpose. The article concludes that WFD enforcement should pay more attention to the institutional underpinning and it submits that examples and benchmarks should be further explored by comparative research.

Urban sprawl and infrastructure pose a major sustainability challenge. It is therefore extremely important for countries to implement advanced land use planning and steering instruments that are designed to mitigate urban sprawl and to enforce thrift development within a coherent legal framework of sustainable land use governance. The following article presents the results of a comparative legal assessment that looks at how this major challenge is tackled in certain countries (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland). The assessment is placed within a broader analytic framework based upon four key requirements of sustainable land use regulation which are also important precondition to successful mitigation of urban sprawl. These key requirements of sustainable land use regulation are described in the first part of the article. In the second part we present the results of the comparative assessment and describe how the key requirements are implemented in the land use regimes of the countries assessed, with a special focus on the mitigation of open space consumption. The evaluation shows the extent to which Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland have advanced in adjusting their environmental and planning laws to the demands of sustainability and how, despite this, diverse opportunities for improvement remain. One important conclusion relates to the key requirement of setting clear sustainability targets and implementing regulatory mechanisms relating to those targets. In this regard a major deficiency of the existing national approaches lies in the fact that, so far, only two countries have set clear political targets: Germany has set a target to reduce land take for human settlements and transport infrastructure to a maximum of 30 ha a day and Switzerland has set a target of limiting land consumption for residential purposes at 400 m2 per capita. But even there, there is no effective regime in place to ensure that the targets are met. Another conclusion relates to the key requirement of integrated and responsive steering and points to the importance of formal planning and assessment regimes in ensuring that shared environmental interests are properly integrated and that spatial planning and zoning are regularly monitored and reviewed. In this regard, we see that all the countries assessed have implemented monitoring systems and formal Environmental Assessments (EA) for land use and construction plans. However, the way these EAs are designed differs considerably, and therefore the national implementation is sometimes ineffective.

This chapter discusses the distribution of powers in environmental policy, with emphasis on vertical—rather than horizontal—division of powers. The goal is to identify prominent model approaches and important differences in power distribution, as well as the pros and cons, and to derive lessons for future governance reforms. The chapter begins with an analysis of the distribution of powers in multilevel environmental governance, taking into account the distinction between federal and unitary systems; the role of administrative regulation and of executive competences; fiscal, taxing, and spending competences; and the role of local community governments and self-governing bodies. The most relevant normative concepts of vertical power distribution are then examined, with a particular focus on how centralization or decentralization of government powers is motivated or could be motivated. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the ‘telic’ approach of cooperative steering for functional distribution of powers.

Urban water systems will not be developed and managed in a sustainable way unless this is ensured through adequate regulation, organization, and finance, or in short “governance.” The following sections of this volume aim to explore the different government arrangements in China and in Germany with a view to identifying options for improvement and governance innovation in and beyond these countries. The present chapter is aimed at providing some groundwork for this comparative assessment including an overview of the major factual challenges and differences of urban water governance in China and Germany, a conceptual frame for comparative assessment, a synthesis of the key benchmarks of “good” and “sustainable” governance, and a brief outlook to the highlights presented in the following contributions.

In the pursuit of a liveable urban environment, water infrastructures have always played an essential role. The development of safe sewage and drinking water supply systems since the mid-nineteenth century has ended the ages of severe pestilence and created the hygienic preconditions for the exponential growth of cities in the decades of industrialization and urbanization. In the future quest for sustainable urban transformation, too, water infrastructures will remain an essential factor, even though the factual challenges have changed and transformation of the historic infrastructure systems seems to be necessary, in multiple regards: In many cities around the globe, water infrastructures are facing major challenges. Demographic change, climate change, aging infrastructure, and more stringent water pollution control standards are placing the “blue infrastructure” under pressure. Scenarios involving re-orientation and system transformation – e.g., shifting the emphasis towards semi-central and closed-loop technologies – are being discussed (see, e.g., the contribution of Nivala et al. Chap. 9, in this volume). In this context, there is also a growing focus on the governance of urban water infrastructures, and it is questioned whether existing laws and organizational settings are adequate for meeting the above-mentioned challenges.

Der Klimawandel wird auch in Europa und Deutschland zu spurbaren Umweltveranderungen fuhren und Anpassungen erforderlich machen – an eine zunehmend gefahrdete, aber auch gefahrlichere Umwelt. Rechtlich bedeutet dies vor allem, dass einschlagige Vorsorgeanforderungen auf ihre „Klimafolgenfestigkeit“ uberpruft und erforderlichenfalls justiert werden mussen. Neben vielfaltigen sektoralen Anpassungsfragen stellen sich dabei auch ubergreifende, konzeptionelle Herausforderungen an das Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, und zwar insbesondere in Bezug auf die Ermittlung und Darstellung der Klimafolgerisiken, deren Berucksichtigung durch die Raumplanung, die Anpassung von Umweltqualitatszielen und die Anpassung des Nutzungsbestands. Der Beitrag erlautert diese konzeptionellen Steuerungserfordernisse zur Klimaanpassung und untersucht, inwieweit das Umwelt- und Planungsrecht dafur noch besser gerustet werden konnte. Dargelegt wird, dass es vor den Herausforderungen der Klimaanpassung vor allem erforderlich erscheint, das raumbezogene Umweltrecht um spezifische Risikoprufungs- und Revisionspflichten zu erganzen und ihm insgesamt eine starkere „risikoverwaltungsrechtliche“ Ausrichtung zu geben, wie sie bisher vorwiegend aus dem Stoffrecht gelaufig ist. Regelungsoptionen dazu werden dargestellt.