Suchergebnisse

Includes bibliographical references. ; Presented at the Building resilience of Mongolian rangelands: a trans-disciplinary research conference held on June 9-10, 2015 in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. ; Mongolia's socio-ecological rangeland systems face a number of critical, contemporary challenges. Climatic change, persistent poverty and growing land use conflicts, especially around mining, pose complex problems both for herders and policy-makers. Furthermore, there is renewed emphasis on meeting Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Aichi targets, following the publication of Mongolia's 5th National CBD report in March 2014, and the development of a new National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan. (E)valuation of the contributions of rangeland ecosystem services (ES) to biodiversity and livelihoods/wellbeing are highlighted as priorities for future planning therein. ES thinking, valuation and commodification are becoming increasingly influential in other contemporary policy initiatives, not least through the development of the national REDD+ roadmap, Business and Biodiversity offset programmes and Government commitments to the 'Green Economy'. Nonetheless critical questions remain about the ES paradigm itself, values/ valuation of ES and how these may be enacted and supported through policy. Here we report on a three year Darwin-Initiative funded project, which aimed to 'generate policy and practice relevant knowledge of values of ecosystem services (ES) in Mongolia, and test the efficacy of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, in order to enhance biodiversity and livelihoods'. Aims were realised through i) participatory mapping and analysis of ES, including cultural ES, with 300 herder households across four case study sites, and the development of innovative methods for non-economic valuation; ii) co-development and implementation of a novel rangeland payment for ES (PES) scheme at the four sites, through the Plan Vivo standard; iii) analysis of the impacts ES and of the PES scheme on biodiversity and livelihoods. Methods used included deliberative valuation approaches, mapping, ranking and choice modelling to examine group and individual values and trade-offs between ES across ecologically contrasting areas. We also applied the SOLVES (Social Values of ES) GIS model to highlight spatial, place-specific dimensions of ES values, as part of a series of wider biodiversity, livelihoods and ES assessments. Results highlight spatial and temporal diversities in ES values, importance of cultural ES for wellbeing, and the potential of carefully designed PES schemes to contribute to more resilient socio-ecological rangeland systems in the future.

Summary: The governance at the national level has commonly been measured as poor or good governance by researchers in the area of public sector reforms. They have rarely attempted the numeric estimation of the concept but used different socioeconomic indicators as proxies. Governance is a multidimensional concept that cannot be accurately elaborated by a single indicator. In the literature there exists a gap for gauging the governance in the form of an index. The current study has attempted to ameliorate different dimensions of governance by including forty two social, political, economic, demographic and environmental indicators. These indicators are firstly merged into thirteen sub-dimensions and then into five dimensions. The dimensions have been transformed in to governance index. The trend of the index shows that governance has not only progressed very slowly but it remained desperate in the study period. The contribution of this study is to provide governance index named KU index for Pakistan in annual time series for the years 1980-81 to 2010-2011. The index explained the level of governance in different eras and is ultimately connected with public sector reforms. It can be used by researchers as an explanatory factor for various political, socioeconomic and regional strategic phenomenon. Furthermore, the criterion of estimation of governance may be adopted for other economies and comparative analysis may be done.Рeзимe: Упрaвљaњe нa нaциoнaлнoм нивoу je oбичнo oцjeњивaнo oд стрaнe истрaживaчa у oблaсти рeфoрми jaвнoг сeктoрa кao дoбрo или лoшe. Oни су риjeткo пoкушaвaли нумeричку прoцjeну кoнцeптa, вeћ су кoристили рaзличитe сoциo-eкoнoмскe пoкaзaтeљe кao приближнe вриjeднoсти. Упрaвљaњe je мултидимeнзиoнaлни кoнцeпт кojи сe нe мoжe прeцизнo oбjaснити сaмo jeдним индикaтoрoм. У литeрaтури пoстojи jaз у мjeрeњу упрaвљaњa у oблику индeксa. Tрeнутнa студиja je пoкушaлa ублaжити рaзличитe димeнзиje упрaвљaњa укључуjући чeтрдeсeт двa друштвeнa, пoлитичкa, eкoнoмскa, дeмoгрaфскa и eкoлoшкa пoкaзaтeљa. Oви пoкaзaтeљи су првo спojeни у тринaeст пoддимeнзиja и oндa у пeт димeнзиja. Димeнзиje су прeтвoрeнe у индeкс упрaвљaњa. Tрeнд индeксa пoкaзуje дa je упрaвљaњe нe сaмo нaпрeдoвaлo врлo спoрo, вeћ je билo лoшe у пoсмaтрaнoм пeриoду. Дoпринoс oвe студиje je oмoгућити индeкс упрaвљaњa пoд нaзивoм KU индeкс Пaкистaнa зa гoдишњe пeриoдe: 1980-1981. и 2010-2011. Индeкс je oбjaсниo нивoe упрaвљaњa у рaзличитим пeриoдимa, тe je пoвeзaн с рeфoрмaмa jaвнoг сeктoрa. Moжe сe кoристити oд стрaнe истрaживaчa кao oбjaшњaвajући фaктoр зa рaзнe пoлитичкe, друштвeнo-eкoнoмскe и рeгиoнaлнe стрaтeшкe фeнoмeнe. Нaдaљe, критeриjум прoцjeнe упрaвљaњa мoжe бити усвojeн зa другe eкoнoмиje и мoгу сe урaдити кoмпaрaтивнe aнaлизe.