Suchergebnisse

Regardless of the crucial role of civil society in social innovation, European Union (EU) social innovation concepts emphasized market-economic features rather than social by prioritizing social business over social movements. By emphasizing the economic features of social innovation, social enterprises, as ventures with both social and economic goals, are frequently associated with social innovation, especially in the developed economies. As an EU member country, Slovenia needed to adjust its policies to the EU social innovation concepts. Bearing in mind the EU interpretation of social innovation and the significance of state policies for its development, our aim is to investigate the policy framework conditions for the development of forestry-based social innovation initiatives in Slovenia. We found out that the prevalent economic understanding of social innovation reflects in Slovenian policy documents by equating social innovation with social enterprise. In this sense, the view of social innovation as both growth engine and a way for solving societal problems translates into explicit statements on social innovation in cohesion policy documents and progresses by operationalization of social innovation through indicators solely on social enterprise. Within the regulatory framework on social entrepreneurship, social enterprise is defined strictly with respect to legal forms, activities, profit sharing and governance, imposing barriers to the registration and development. Similarly to cohesion policy, the Rural Development Programme embraces a market-oriented understanding of social innovation and focuses explicitly on social enterprise. Forest policy documents do not explicitly mention social innovation or social enterprise. This is reasonable for documents adopted before 2011 when social innovation and social enterprises became a part of the prevailing discourse in Slovenia. However, newly adopted forest policy documents also do not integrate either social innovation or social enterprise. As forestry-based ...

This book addresses the role of social capital in promoting rural and local development. The recent financial and economic crises have exposed the European Union (EU) to an increased risk of social exclusion and poverty, which are now at the heart of its economic, employment and social agenda with explicit reference to rural and marginal areas (Europe 2020). The authors' work from the notion that rural development is not imposed from the 'outside', but depends also on endogenous factors, namely local cultural and ecological amenities, eco-system services, and economic links with urban areas which expand rural opportunities for innovation, competitiveness, employment and sustainable development. Social capital is of paramount importance because it helps build networks and trusting relations among local stakeholders in the public and private spheres, and supporting the enhancement of governance of natural resources in rural areas

"This book addresses the role of social capital in promoting rural and local development. The recent financial and economic crises have exposed the European Union (EU) to an increased risk of social exclusion and poverty, which are now at the heart of its economic, employment and social agenda with explicit reference to rural and marginal areas (Europe 2020). The authors' work from the notion that rural development is not imposed from the 'outside', but depends also on endogenous factors, namely local cultural and ecological amenities, eco-system services, and economic links with urban areas which expand rural opportunities for innovation, competitiveness, employment and sustainable development. Social capital is of paramount importance because it helps build networks and trusting relations among local stakeholders in the public and private spheres, and supporting the enhancement of governance of natural resources in rural areas"--

Social innovation is an emerging topic, identified in the EU Strategy 2020 as one of the crucial, intangible factors required to promote smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. It provides society with a renovated role by considering it – in a time of major public budgetary constraints - an effective way of responding to social challenges through the mobilisation of people's creativity, the promotion of an innovative and learning society and the creation of the social dynamics behind technological innovations (BEPA, 2011: 7). Although it initially focused on addressing social disadvantage and exclusion in a wide range of contexts, urban more often than rural, an unambiguous definition of social innovation has not been agreed on yet (Moulaert et al. 2005; MacCallum et al. 2009). Likewise, so far only a few scholars have proposed how to interpret the concept in the rural arena (e.g. Neumeier, 2012; Bosworth et al. 2016; Bock et al. 2016). A recent proposed definition of social innovation in relation to rural areas with specific limitations in terms of geographical location and/or socio-economic conditions, comes from a 4-year research project named SIMRA (Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas) and funded under the EU Horizon2020 Programme. Such proposed definition by Polman et al. (2017) states that social innovation is "the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors". To date, a catalogue of more than 50 examples of social innovation that have been identified according to this definition, in the sectors of agriculture, forestry and rural development in marginalised rural areas in EU and extra-EU Mediterranean countries (Bryce et al. 2017), has been compiled and published online. The catalogue is neither fix nor comprehensive, rather it provides an initial overview on how large the variety of social innovation cases already implemented can be. On the one hand, social innovation is probably more widespread than reported by scientific literature and perceived by practitioners today. This may be because the concept refers de facto to a wide range of initiatives dealing with different societal challenges: from the new social uses of agricultural and forestry activities (e.g., social horticulture or social farming, nursery services in forests, forest therapy), to the creation of new networks based on public-private partnerships for the production, transformation and commercialisation of new agricultural products and services, to the involvement of migrants and refugees in the management of peri-urban green areas, to several others. On the other hand, our knowledge and understanding of social innovation and related socio-economic dynamics remains very limited. It has been already stated that a commonly accepted definition and theoretical conceptualisation are under construction. Besides, specific policy instruments are still lacking, and a method to comprehensively evaluate social innovation in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and impacts on society, economy, environment and institutions is also not available yet. According to the SIMRA project proposal, key elements of social innovation to be evaluated are: the "trigger"; the "perceived context"; the "agency/actors" acting for change; the "reconfiguring" process of social practices (included networks, governance arrangements and attitudes); the "reconfigured" new situation that brings about a social innovation project; the "activities", "outputs" and "outcomes/impacts" of the social innovation project; the feedback loops interpreted as "learning processes". Information on these complex and multifaceted aspects can be collected at the local level by means of semi-structured and structured interviews and participatory-based events (focus groups). Both quantitative and qualitative approaches and instruments are hence combined, and this is applicable for data collection as well as for the analysis of results and reporting of findings. Accordingly, the data can then be analysed and interpreted through indicators and other advanced instruments like the Social Network Analysis. Our proposed SIMRA evaluation method is currently being tested in 10 different case studies in various EU and extra-EU Mediterranean countries. Preliminary results in terms of calculated indicators for social innovation elements are expected by January 2019. Given the current stage of the study within SIMRA, this contribution intends to stimulate the scientific discourse and the debate between the world of science and that of the stakeholders. It does this by providing ideas and opportunity for discussion, alongside possible practical solutions for an evaluation approach and a specific evaluation framework for the capturing of the multifaceted aspects of social innovation. The latter two will be explained by directly applying them to a few/three selected Italian examples that most probably will be chosen among "Cooperativa Cadore", with its SIMBIorti project (Belluno); the national network "Montagnaterapia", with its activities with disabled people; "Cooperativa di Comunità Briganti del Cerreto" (Reggio Emilia), with its multiple services to slow and rural tourism; "Rural Hub" (Frosinone), with its activity of migrants' inclusion. Despite the various methodological challenges and the high diversification and complexity of the topics to be evaluated (social innovation's process, project and impacts), we believe that our scheme paves the way for building an innovative set of methods that considers "social factors" important role in EU's future 'Rural Development Programs' and 'Agricultural research and Innovation Agenda'.

An agreed and well-consolidated evaluation framework for the assessment of social innovation (SI) and its impacts has not been developed yet, despite tentative made by scholars (e.g., Nicholls et al. 2015). The EU funded H2020 project SIMRA – Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (www.simra-h2020.eu) – aims to conceptualize an evaluation framework for SI initiatives in disadvantaged rural areas of Europe and non-EU Mediterranean countries. Within SIMRA, SI is defined as "the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors" (Polman et al., 2017). The evaluation framework has been co-constructed with project partners and a panel of international stakeholders in the fields of agriculture, forestry and rural development (Nijnik et al. 2019). It is structured into dimensions and sub-dimensions. It follows the phases of a SI initiative, from the trigger that generates the idea, to the reconfiguring process, and to its impacts. Eight tools for data collection have been developed, tested in pilot cases, and applied in 11 case studies. Empirical results allowed to set 166 indicators: 73 indicators describe the SI dimensions; 63 indicators analyse the process, the project and the whole SI initiative by following relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability evaluation criteria (OECD, 1991 and 2010); 30 indicators focus on the key aspects of the SI SIMRA definition. Social Network Analysis helps in visualizing the increasing collaborative network of actors involved in the SI process, from core group composed by innovators and followers, to the reconfigured network with new project partners. The approach integrates qualitative-pure methods (e.g., focus group) with quantitative ones. The proposed evaluation framework would like to contribute to current debates, both within the scientific and practitioners' communities, on evidence-based policy and self-evaluation by rural development agencies.

An agreed and well-consolidated evaluation framework for the assessment of social innovation (SI) and its impacts has not been developed yet, despite initial tentative made by scholars (e.g., Nicholls et al. 2015, Bock 2016). Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas – SIMRA (www.simra-h2020.eu.) is a EU funded H2020 project which aims to conceptualize and propose an evaluation framework, based on qualitative-quantitative methods to evaluate SI in disadvantaged rural areas of Europe and non-EU Mediterranean countries. Within SIMRA, SI is defined as "the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors" (Polman et al., 2017). The aim of this paper is to illustrate the framework and the related tools for data collection and analysis that we propose for evaluating SI and its impacts in rural contexts. The evaluation framework has been co-constructed with project partners and a panel of international stakeholders in the fields of agriculture, forestry, and rural development (Nijnik et al. 2019). It is structured into dimensions and sub-dimensions. It follows the phases of a SI initiative, from the trigger that generates the idea, to the reconfiguring process to its impacts. The framework envisages several interconnected quantitative and qualitative variables. Eight tools for variables collection have been developed, tested in two pilot cases, and applied in 11 case studies in the target regions. Empirical results allowed to set 166 indicators: 73 indicators describe all the dimensions of SI (e.g., idea, agency, new networks, outputs, outcomes, learning processes); 63 indicators analyse the process, the project and the whole SI initiative by following relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability evaluation criteria (OECD, 1991 and 2010); 30 indicators focus on the key descriptive of the SI SIMRA definition. The approach integrates qualitative-pure methods (e.g., focus group) with quantitative ones (e.g., Social Network Analysis). The empirically tested evaluation framework proposed in this paper would like to contribute to current debates, both within the scientific and practitioners' communities, on evidence-based policy, future strategies to support communities' creativity mobilization, and self-evaluation by rural development agencies.

Incentive schemes and payments for ecosystem services attract increasing attention as a means for aligning the interests of landowners and society by remunerating forest owners for the goods and services their forests produce. As incentive schemes expand around the world, questions related to their institutional dimensions, as well as the role of different actors and existing institutions in their initiation, design and implementation, arise. This paper seeks to gain an understanding of these issues by analysing a number of voluntary incentive schemes currently implemented in Denmark, Finland, Spain and Italy. The analysed schemes are predominantly aimed at enhancing biodiversity and improving recreation. One of the schemes is also related to preserving a variety of forest ecosystem services from forest fires. The incentive schemes are studied following a framework for the institutional analysis of PES developed by Prokofieva and Gorriz (Prokofieva, I. and Gorriz, E. 2013: Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: an assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (North-East Spain), Forest Policy and Economics, 37, 104-114.). We focus on actor and institutional interactions and outcomes that are likely to result from schemes implementation to draw conclusions regarding the factors that influence the success and the durability of these schemes. Our results show that the nature of the actors initiating the schemes has a paramount effect on their design and performance. Actors' networking capacity, consensus regarding the problem and its solution, and concordance of values are important determinants of schemes' success. Existing institutions (both at local and at an international level) on the one hand provide support for the new schemes, but on the other hand can also constraint their design and limit their applicability and implementation potential. Lack of integration with other sectoral policies creates tensions and weakens the performance of some schemes. The environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency and additionality of many schemes are highly questionable, although in some cases can be solvable by redesigning the schemes. Despite these serious shortcomings, in overall the experience with the schemes is perceived as positive with space for improvements. Yet, coordinated effort among actors at different levels is required to increase the overall governance quality of the incentive schemes. ; Incentive schemes and payments for ecosystem services attract increasing attention as a means for aligning the interests of landowners and society by remunerating forest owners for the goods and services their forests produce. As incentive schemes expand around the world, questions related to their institutional dimensions, as well as the role of different actors and existing institutions in their initiation, design and implementation, arise. This paper seeks to gain an understanding of these issues by analysing a number of voluntary incentive schemes currently implemented in Denmark, Finland, Spain and Italy. The analysed schemes are predominantly aimed at enhancing biodiversity and improving recreation. One of the schemes is also related to preserving a variety of forest ecosystem services from forest fires. The incentive schemes are studied following a framework for the institutional analysis of PES developed by Prokofieva and Gorriz (Prokofieva, I. and Gorriz, E. 2013: Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: an assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (North-East Spain), Forest Policy and Economics, 37, 104-114.). We focus on actor and institutional interactions and outcomes that are likely to result from schemes implementation to draw conclusions regarding the factors that influence the success and the durability of these schemes. Our results show that the nature of the actors initiating the schemes has a paramount effect on their design and performance. Actors' networking capacity, consensus regarding the problem and its solution, and concordance of values are important determinants of schemes' success. Existing institutions (both at local and at an international level) on the one hand provide support for the new schemes, but on the other hand can also constraint their design and limit their applicability and implementation potential. Lack of integration with other sectoral policies creates tensions and weakens the performance of some schemes. The environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency and additionality of many schemes are highly questionable, although in some cases can be solvable by redesigning the schemes. Despite these serious shortcomings, in overall the experience with the schemes is perceived as positive with space for improvements. Yet, coordinated effort among actors at different levels is required to increase the overall governance quality of the incentive schemes.

Forests and forest-relevant policies in Europe face a wide array of challenges in a rapidly changing world. Issues such as Brexit, the new European Parliament and European Commission, and the recent European Green Deal proposal are certain to affect policymaking, as are the as-yet unknown impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19). A new science-policy study from EFI provides a timely look at forest governance in Europe, and offers insights into the potential way forward. Many of the forest-relevant policies currently in place have been targeted towards 2020, and while a final evaluation of their achievements is not yet possible, a look into the future is essential. Forest products and services are increasingly an inherent and integrated element of many other sectors, ranging from energy to food production to conservation and public health. This wide range of sectors and multiple interests, at different levels, leads to a complex multi-sectoral governance system. For example, within the EU, negotiations are currently ongoing on post-2020 EU policies on agriculture and rural development, biodiversity, climate, industry, food security, circular economy and new legislation on sustainable finance. All of them, and the EU Green Deal in particular, will have an important influence on forest-related decision-making processes. A strategic and coordinated policy direction will be required after 2020, not least to support the implementation of globally agreed policy targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement and Convention on Biological Diversity. In the global policy arena, trade developments related eg to China, Russia and North America will also have important implications for the European forest sector. This report reviews significant developments in the forest governance framework including EU and international developments, and discusses how coordination in other policy areas than forests can lead to policy integration. Based on evidence from a literature review, stakeholder interviews and workshop results, it outlines several potential pathways for future forest policymaking in Europe. Study coordinator Bernhard Wolfslehner said: "The European Green Deal puts the forest-based sector in a key position in climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection, and it is therefore important to emphasize forest policy integration and strengthen its implementation."

Forests and forest-relevant policies in Europe face a wide array of challenges in a rapidly changing world. Issues such as Brexit, the new European Parliament and European Commission, and the recent European Green Deal proposal are certain to affact policymaking, as are the as-yet unknown impacts of the coronavirus /COVID-19). A new science-policy study from EFI provides a timely look at forest governance in Europe, and offers insights into the potential way forward. Many of the forest-relevant policies currently in place have been targeted towards 2020, and while a final evaluation of their achievements is not yet possible, a look into the future is essential. Forest products and services are increasingly an inherent and integrated element of many other sectors, ranging from energy to food production to conseravtion and public health. This wide range of sectors and multiple interests, at different levels, leads to a complex multi-sectoral governance system. For example, within the EU, negaotiations are currently ongoing on post-2020 EU policies on agriculture and rural development, biodiversity, climate, industry, food security, circular economy and new legislation on sustainable finance. All of them, and the EU Green Deal in particular, will have an important influence on forest-related decision-making processes. A strategic and coordinated policy direction will be required after 2020, not least to support the implementation of globally agreed policy targets such as the SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and CBD. In the global policy arena, trade developments related to eg China, Russia and Northamerica will also have important implications for the European forest sector. This report reviews significant developments in the forest governance framework including EU and international developments, and discusses how coordination in other policy areas than forests can to to policy integration. Based on evidence from a literature review, stakeholder interviews and workshop results, it outlines several potential pathways for future fore policymaking in Europe.

The "Final Report on Cross-Case Studies Assessment of Social Innovation" provides a transversal and systematic analysis of the Case Studies of Social innovation (SI) identified in the H2020 SIMRA project (http://www.simra-h2020.eu/) using aggregated qualitative and quantitative empirical information. The cross-case analysis identifies commonalities and differences across the cases in relation to the principal issues and characteristics of social innovation processes in Marginalised Rural Areas and examines complex and situated relationships and interactions. The cross-case assessment of the main social innovation issues and characteristics was based on the investigation of important trends identified within five cross-cutting themes of enquiry: The factors that influence the emergence and development of social innovation in terms of both the context and characteristics of actors. The process of reconfiguration and the changes of social practices (e.g. new networks, new government arrangements). The model of social innovation development and the identification of trajectory of divergence. The impacts of the social innovation on dimensions of territorial capital (economy, society, environment, governance). The analysis of policy impacts on social innovation and social innovation policy implications. In addition to the analysis undertaken for each theme of enquiry, composite indicators were calculated which were based upon the methodology developed in Secco et al. (2019) to better understand Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas on a large scale. Outputs associated with the report are recommendations on factors linked to the success and failure of social innovation initiatives in relation to impacts of policies or on policies. ; Suggested citation: Ravazzoli, E., Dalla Torre, C., Streifeneder, T., Pisani, E., Da Re, R., Vicentini, K., Secco, L., Górriz-Mifsud, E., Marini Govigli, V., Melnykovych, M., Valero, D., Bryce, R., Weiß, G., Ludvig, A., Zivojinovic, I. and Lukesch, R. 2020. Final Report on ...

The political project on bioeconomy strives to address multiple societal aspirations, namely combine economic growth with environmental sustainability in some socially acceptable manner. The contradictions between the goals and the concrete plans to increase production, processing, and consumption of forest biomass in Europe have however raised sustainability concerns within and beyond its borders. While political actors articulate such contradictions differently and compete for traction for their viewpoints in the public discourse, little is known about how citizens of urban areas perceive this discourse. Conceptualising perception as a multidimensional construct, data from eight European university cities (Bordeaux, Bratislava, Freiburg, Helsinki, Padua, St. Petersburg, Uppsala, Vienna) are statistically analysed to explore its dimensions, the communities of like-minded citizens forming across those dimensions, and the traits associating with membership in each such community. Five communities across six dimensions from biocentrism through distributional aspects to adherence to political goals are identified: adherent-environmentalist, adherent-governmentalist, critical-reformist, critical-agriculturalist, and indifferent. City of residence and perceived familiarity with bioeconomy clearly interact with perception. There is however considerable variation in communities within and across the eight cities, suggesting deeper social tension beyond the public discourse. Much of the within-community variation remains unexplained, though, calling for more work locally. Implications for forest policy are derived. ; Peer reviewed

Social innovation (SI) impacts are long-term changes that affect different dimensions of territorial capital (i.e., economy, society, environment, governance) for the territory in which SI occurs. Yet, systematic empirical evidence and theoretically sound assessments of the impacts of SI are scarce. This paper aims to fill the gap and assess the different aspects of SI's impacts in European and Mediterranean areas that are characterized by marginalization processes. To assess the impacts of SI in marginalized areas, we use the evaluation framework developed within the Social Innovation in Marginalized Rural Areas (SIMRA) Horizon 2020 project and apply it to nine SI initiatives related to the fields of agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and rural development. Our findings show that SI produces cross-sectoral (societal, economic, environmental, and governmental) and multi-level impacts (on individuals, community, and society), which have improved the societal well-being, and contributed to the reduction of certain forms of marginality, mainly inside the territory in which SI occurred. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement No. 677622 (H2020 SIMRA–Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas Project).

Social innovation (SI) impacts are long-term changes that affect different dimensions of territorial capital (i.e., economy, society, environment, governance) for the territory in which SI occurs. Yet, systematic empirical evidence and theoretically sound assessments of the impacts of SI are scarce. This paper aims to fill the gap and assess the different aspects of SI's impacts in European and Mediterranean areas that are characterized by marginalization processes. To assess the impacts of SI in marginalized areas, we use the evaluation framework developed within the Social Innovation in Marginalized Rural Areas (SIMRA) Horizon 2020 project and apply it to nine SI initiatives related to the fields of agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and rural development. Our findings show that SI produces cross-sectoral (societal, economic, environmental, and governmental) and multi-level impacts (on individuals, community, and society), which have improved the societal well-being, and contributed to the reduction of certain forms of marginality, mainly inside the territory in which SI occurred. View Full-Text Keywords: social innovation; socio-economic impacts; institutional impacts; environmental impacts; societal well-being; European societal challenges; marginalization; sustainability challenges; local level