Suchergebnisse

At Ifpra's World Congress in Hong Kong, the decision was taken to set up a new Scientific Task Force (STF). One of the main activities of this Task Force is to provide state-of-the-art knowledge on different aspects of parks. A major challenge is of course to find scientific proof for the benefits provided by urban parks, benefits that we often take for granted. In order to make sure that parks are part of political agendas at different levels, sound evidence of park benefits has to be provided. This need can be met by a review of existing scientific literature (best external evidence), carried out in a systematic way. By applying a systematic method the usefulness of such a document will increase, since the findings will meet the standards for evidence-based decisions.

Societal spheres in the light of history A division of society into statecraft, economy, and civil society is found in Plato's Republic. Its theoretical base is the differentiated and sometimes contradictory norms for these spheres. The mainstream of European structuration is traced from the 'two swords' - state and church - that structured western European society in the Middle Ages to the six societal spheres (or cardinal institutions) of society - the economy, government, science, religion, ethics, and art - that are visible today. Each maintain a large measure of independence (Weber's Eigengesetzlichkeit). Each is dependent on a special type of freedom: civic liberties, free trade, academic freedom, religious toleration, the right to follow one's conscience, artistic license. The paper pauses in this differentiation process at special junctures: the English revolution, the emergence of the Latin American and North American societies, the evolution of modem society as an underpinning of democracy, the emergence of the European Union, and the post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe. ; Sociologisk Forsknings digitala arkiv

Strindberg's strategies of commitment, disengagement and new commitment across the border between literature and politics represent an intriguing intellectual adventure we can follow throughout his life as a writer. My article focuses on Strindberg's dilemma as it took form in the first half of the 1880s, and observes it through his fundamental and controversial relationship with the Swedish journalist, literary critic and Social-democratic political leader Hjalmar Branting, with the Danish playwright, literary critic, journalist and radical liberal politician Edvard Brandes, and with the Norwegian writer, politically engaged intellectual and nasjonalskald Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson. For a period they all experienced, along with Strindberg, the ambivalence of working in a social field where art and politics were intertwined, and were to a certain extent involved in the same project, each with his own interpretation. For Strindberg the writer, defending his autonomy from the political field in the end became crucial. What did his colleagues expect from his work? How did Strindberg react to their expectations? What is his legacy today with respect to stances such as intellectual autonomy from power, democratic rule, pacifism and critique of civilization, but also anti-feminism and anti-Semitism? Strindberg's unruly genius illustrates that it is at times difficult to draw the dividing line between radicalism and reaction, and that the great modernists were often also great anti-modernists.

Bergslagen in south-central Sweden is an informal region with a long history of intensive land use. The legacies of than 2000 years of integrated use of ore, forests and water major national and international economic importance now involve several challenges for the maintenance of landscapes. This includes sustainability of rural and urban communities, of green infrastructures for natural capital and human well-being as well as of forests, river basins and mining. In response to this cross-sectoral integration necessary at multiple levels of public, private and civil as well as academia and schools. Landscapes need thus to be viewed as integrated socio-ecological systems. Collaboration and continuous learning among actors and stakeholders are needed for sustainable use and management of landscapes' goods, services and values. To support this requires (1) data, monitoring and assessment of different aspects of sustainability, (2) continuous knowledge production about material and immaterial landscape values relevant for the management of ecological, economic, social and cultural dimensions, (3) information and communication using both traditional media, as well as (4) through art and culture. the vision to contribute to satisfying these requirements Sustainable Bergslagen initiative emerged gradually since 2004 as a multi-level partnership for sustainable landscapes (www.bergslagen.org). By joining the International Model Forest Network (IMFN), and the network for Long Term Socio-Economic and Ecological Research (LTSER), actors and stakeholders can learn from other regions' sustainable development processes, and make Bergslagen more visible internationally.

Under 2021 genomförde sekretariatet för selektivt fiske, vid institutionen för akvatiska resurser (SLU Aqua) tillsammans med svenskt yrkesfiske, ett projekt inom ramen för regeringens satsning på selektivt fiske. Den övergripande målsättningen för alla projekt inom selektivt fiske är att underlätta införandet av den landningsskyldighet som sedan 2015 införts i och med reformen av EU:s gemensamma fiskeripolitik, samt att utveckla mer skonsamma och rovdjursäkra fiskemetoder. Projektet som genomfördes under 2021 syftade till testa en ny typ av redskapslösning, "The Excluder", för reduktion av oönskad fångst i det pelagiska trålfisket. Excludern består av ett förlängningsstycke med en inre tunnel konstruerad av ett selektionsnät. Tanken är att målarten, som är av mindre storlek, passerar genom maskorna i denna tunnel och ut i förlängningsstycket för att sedan fångas upp i trålpåsen. Oönskade arter, som är av större storlek än målarten, kommer inte passera genom maskorna i den inre tunneln utan leds ut utanför trålen via ett hål i botten av förlängningsstycket vid tunnelns slut. Excludern testades i industrifisket efter tobis i Nordsjön via alternerande hal, dvs. fångstens storlek och sammansättning i en trål med en Excluder monterad jämfördes med fångstens storlek och sammansättning i en trål utan en Excluder monterad. För att bekräfta att redskapet bibehöll avsedd form under fisket och för att visuellt kunna observera fiskens beteende i de olika delarna av Excludern användes även undervattensvideo under redskapsförsöket. Resultaten tyder på att Excludern fungerade som tänkt i fisket efter tobis med avseende på fångsteffektivitet, selektion av fångst och redskapets symmetri under trålning. Jämförelse av fångst per ansträngning visade att Excludern reducerade mängden oönskad fångst av större fisk med 96 % i vikt. Resultaten från detta projekt tyder även på att selektiviteten av fisk av mindre storlek kan förbättras ytterligare och att det finns potential för att denna tekniska lösning kan nyttjas i andra typer av kommersiellt fiske.

With the industrial revolution, the human utilization of the forest took a new turn as wood became a commercial product (Östlund & Zackrisson 2000). Since then, economical considerations have pervaded the public perspective on forest and forestry. However, the awareness of the need for sustainability in the use of the forest resource has also grown, and during the last decades other values have entered the discussion and the practice of forestry. Today, sustainable forest management (SFM) where economical, ecological and social values are all satisfied, is a core element in the development of acceptable forest management practices. Public participation is strongly related to SFM. In some industrialized countries, e.g. Canada, demands for participation in natural resource management have subsequently been incorporated into the legislation (Chambers and Beckley 2003), but in most countries there is no legal demand for participation. In Sweden for example, the only demand for participation in the Forestry Act is consultation before clear cutting in certain areas of reindeer herding. Forest certification, which is now covering extensive areas in several countries, plays an interesting role in the promotion of SFM. However, its main purpose is not public participation and the integration of social values into forestry (Angelstam et al. 2004). Internationally, there is the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. This convention has been ratified by Sweden amongst other countries, but it is difficult to make a strict interpretation of it. New approaches and methods are obviously needed in forest management planning to incorporate forest values other than timber production and to help solve conflicts of interest. There have been some attempts made by different types of projects. The Canadian Model Forest concept promotes participation in the work for SFM, and has been tried out in Sweden in the Vilhelmina Model Forest project (Svensson et al. 2004). Some of the LIFE projects sponsored by the European Union are also applications of participation with SFM as the objective; the project "Local Participation in Sustainable Forest Management based on Landscape Analysis" is a Swedish example of a LIFE project sponsored by the European Union (http://www.svo.se/minskog/templates/svo_se_vanlig.asp?id=8001, 2007-01-12). A potentially powerful tool in the work for sustainable forest management (SFM) and participation is multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), an approach which can make it possible to handle complex decision situations involving conflicting interests and several stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to clarify concepts related to participation and present methods that are applicable in participatory planning. More specifically the following questions will be dealt with: • What is meant by participation? What methods and techniques are available to participatory planning processes? • What is MCDA and what phases do this approach require? In order to illuminate the state of art of participatory planning in forestry, an analysis of a number of case studies is presented.

Illegal hunting has constituted an expression of contested legitimacy of wildlife regulation across the world for centuries. In the following report, we critically engage with the state of the art on the illegal hunting phenomenon. We do so to reveal emerging scholarly perspectives on the crime. Specifically, we aim to capture the complexity of illegal hunting as a socio-political phenomenon rather than an economically motivated crime. To do so, we adopt a critical perspective that pays particular attention to the societal processes that contribute to the criminalization of historically accepted hunting practices. To capture perspectives on illegal hunting, fifteen researchers from various countries participated in an illegal hunting workshop in Copenhagen 16-17th June 2014. A primary contribution of the research workshop was to bring together criminologists, sociologists, anthropologists and geographers, each equipped with their own research perspective, to engage in a critical and interdisciplinary discussion on how to apprehend and constructively address the challenges of illegal hunting in contemporary society. A majority of those that attended were primarily based in the Nordic and the UK context, which motivated a strong focus on the illegal hunting that currently takes places in these countries. Similar trends of illegal hunting were identified across Europe, many of which traced from EU legislation on the reintroduction of large carnivores or other controversial wildlife conservation projects. In the workshop, proceedings took the form of individual presentations, plenary discussions and group work. Common themes that emerged from these presentations were: illegal hunting as communicating socio-political resistance; the targeting of specific species based on its symbolism or environmental history; illegal hunting as symptom of class struggles; the role of rewilding and domestication of nature on wildlife regulation; corruption, complicity and conflicts of loyalty in enforcement, and discrepancies and discontinuities in legality. These themes were framed in an understanding of illegal hunting as a complex, multifaceted expression that transgresses livelihood based motivation. Critical discussions conceptualised illegal hunting as a crime of dissent. This meant situating crimes as everyday forms of resistance against the regulatory regime. In so doing, the relationship between hunters and public authorities was highlighted as a potential source of disenfranchisement. In this interactionist perspective, illegal hunting tells us not just about the rationales of the offenders. It also elucidates the broader context in which non-compliance with regulation serves as symptoms of democratic and legitimacy deficits on the state level. Erratic transitions in legislation and a subsequent discord between legal, cultural and moral norms in society were identified as factors that contribute to the conflict. Crucially, the research workshop and the report contribute with three perspectives. First, it emphasizes the need to uncover the grey areas of complicity in wildlife crime. Previously corruption, bribery and selective law enforcement have been associated with wildlife trafficking in the global south, but this understanding is too blunt for the complicity that exists in many other contexts. Here conflicts of loyalty exist across several strata of society and differ in degrees. In highlighting this fact, we show a more opaque and contingent climate of complicity around illegal hunting in Northern Europe and elsewhere. Second, as crimes of dissent seeking to publicise injustices, illegal hunting and its associated resistance tactics are counterproductive by constituting a 'dialogue of the dead'. With this is mean that such communication is prone to distortion, misunderstanding and exaggeration and does no favors to hunters. There is consequently a need to move to a clarity of messages, as in institutionalised diogue processes. Third, hunting regulation cannot be seen in isolation to the broader differences in society in terms of values, economic factors and development. Research questions for future scholarship concluded the workshop and are summarized in the report. In terms of illuminating the junctures at which additional research is needed, these questions may provide important guidance. Above all, the report is intended as help for policy-makers, wildlife managers and law enforcement in better understanding and responding to the complexities of illegal hunting. We hope this will lead to more long-term preventative measures that address the core of the issue rather than proximate causes. The workshop was organized by the Environmental Communication Division of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. The event constituted a part of the FORMAS funded research project Confronting challenges to political legitimacy of the natural resource management regulatory regime in Sweden - the case of illegal hunting in Sweden whose members include Erica von Essen, Dr. Hans Peter Hansen and Dr. Helena Nordström Källström from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Professor Tarla R. Peterson from Texas A&M University and Dr. Nils Peterson from North Carolina State University.

In this report we aim to analyse the economic and environmental impacts of Pillar I direct payments, and to demonstrate alternative instruments that are better suited to achieve CAP objectives. The instruments—a targeted payment to land at risk of abandonment and a tax on mineral fertilisers—were selected on the basis of the Polluter Pays and Provider Gets Principles. We do this using two state‐of‐the‐art agricultural economic simulation models. The first model, CAPRI, is used to quantify the large‐scale or aggregate impacts for individual countries, the EU and the world. The other model, AgriPoliS, is used to quantify the fine‐scale or farm and field level impacts in a selection of contrasting agricultural regions, to consider the potential influence of the large spatial variability in agricultural and environmental conditions across the EU. The results show that direct payments are keeping more farms in the sector and more land in agricultural use than would otherwise be the case, and thus avoiding land abandonment, principally in marginal regions. Particularly the area of grassland is substantially higher, because it is generally less productive than arable land and hence more dependent on direct payments for keeping it in agricultural use. The magnitudes of the impacts of direct payments on land use therefore vary strongly across regions due to spatial variability in productivity: marginal regions with large areas of less productive land are heavily influenced by direct payments, while regions with large areas of relatively productive land are hardly affected, because this land would be farmed in any case. By keeping more farmers in the sector longer, direct payments are slowing structural change, which can hamper agricultural development. However the potential benefits of faster structural change vary considerably among our study regions. In relatively productive regions direct payments are hindering development, because too many farmers are staying in the sector and preventing the consolidation of land in larger farms, which would improve their competitiveness and increase farm profits. On the contrary, the mass departure of farms that is currently avoided, will not lead to the same general benefits in marginal regions. Instead of freed land being absorbed by remaining farms, large areas of relatively unproductive land are abandoned without payments. This land is unprofitable to maintain in agricultural land use, even if integrated into larger farms, because current market prices are too low to motivate farming it. Consequently direct payments pose a serious goal conflict: the avoidance of land abandonment on the one hand, which can have negative impacts on public goods, and restricting agricultural development on the other hand. Once again this goal conflict is rooted in the spatial variability of agricultural conditions in the EU. Maintaining extensively managed farmland, particularly semi‐natural pastures, is central for conservation of biodiversity and preservation of the cultural landscape. Therefore direct payments are contributing to the provisioning of these public goods, but principally in marginal areas. Further, abandonment of land can reduce its agricultural productivity due to erosion or afforestation. Thus, direct payments are contributing to food security by preserving the productive potential of land for the future, but only marginal land since relatively productive land is farmed in any case. Production of agricultural commodities is affected to a lesser degree by direct payments than land use per se. Nevertheless, food exports from the EU are higher and imports lower as a consequence of direct payments. However, the additional supply generated by direct payments also lowers output prices, which reduces the profitability of commodity production; thereby partially offsetting the additional revenues from direct payments. The higher agricultural output brought about by direct payments causes higher levels of environmentally damaging greenhouse‐gas emissions, nutrient surpluses and pesticide use. The higher greenhouse‐gas emissions for the EU are, to some extent, moderated by lower emissions in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the net effect of direct payments is higher global emissions of greenhouse gases. The environmental impacts of higher nutrient surpluses and pesticide inputs are less conclusive, since these depend also on spatial factors, i.e., where the emissions occur. Although EU‐scale and regional emissions are higher due to direct payments, agricultural production is less intensive generally, on account of the lower output prices. Analysing the net effects of these two opposing forces requires additional biophysical modelling at relevant spatial scales, such as watersheds or landscapes, which is beyond the scope of this study. Pillar I direct payments generate a significant transfer of income to farmers and land owners who are not necessarily farmers; 40 billion euro annually. Of this transfer a substantial proportion goes to farmers in relatively productive regions and, further, to a minority of farmers that need them least. In relatively productive regions payments are not needed for continued agricultural production and preservation of farmland, but instead rather fuel higher land and rental prices, which hampers structural change. On the contrary, the need for support is greatest in marginal regions, because some form of payment to marginal land is needed to avoid its abandonment and the loss of associated public goods. Finally, the direct payments even come at the cost of lower market returns for farmers due to slower structural change (smaller and less competitive farms) and lower output prices (due to greater EU output). On the other hand the lower output prices lead to somewhat lower food prices, but at the greater cost of financing the direct payments. Our main conclusion is that Pillar I direct payments are generating serious goal conflicts due to spatial variability in conditions across the EU. On the one hand these payments are contributing to the provisioning of public goods by preserving marginal agricultural land. On the other hand they are hampering agricultural development, primarily in relatively productive regions. Payments to relatively productive land that would be farmed any way not only inflate land values (capitalisation) but also slow structural change, which are both likely to hinder agricultural development and hence the competitiveness of the EU on the global market. The direct payments also increase environmental pressure; by subsidising land use generally and the associated production, they are incapable of controlling environmentally damaging emissions, which is also in conflict with broad CAP objectives. The goal conflict arises because direct payments are universal, a payment principal that does not consider spatial variability in the EU and the associated trade‐offs in regard to development and environmental effectiveness. Our analysis considered two alternative policy instruments that have the potential to curb the identified goal conflicts associated with direct payments, by applying the Polluter Pays and Provider (of public goods) Gets Principles at appropriate spatial scales. Replacing direct payments with a payment targeted on marginal land (and associated public goods) prevents land abandonment at a lower cost, by avoiding payments to relatively productive land that is farmed in any case. This also allows surviving farms in regions with relatively productive land to compensate for lost direct payments through expansion and associated scale economies, as well as higher output prices. This instrument therefore finances the provisioning of public goods without adverse effects on development and the efficiency of agricultural production. The EU‐wide tax on mineral fertiliser demonstrates that this instrument has the potential to reduce nutrient surpluses. Since direct payments cause higher levels of polluting emissions, policy instruments targeting emissions at relevant spatial scales are needed to achieve cost‐effective abatement. Overall we find that Pillar I direct payments are not addressing the diversity of challenges facing European agriculture. In fact our quantitative analysis indicates that the potential for the current system to meet these challenges is seriously impaired by goal conflicts and spatial variability across the EU. A better policy requires that instruments are targeted on desired outcomes and designed according to sound principles, specifically the Polluter Pays and Provider Gets Principles. These principles would ensure that farmers are provided with appropriate incentives to i) generate public goods that otherwise would be underprovided; ii) mitigate environmentally damaging emissions at the lowest possible cost to society; and iii) continually strive to improve environmental performance. Such instruments are also fairer and promote a more competitive or viable agricultural sector by not obstructing structural change and hence agricultural development.