Browsing by Author "Gatzweiler, Franz W."

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8

Analysing Institutions, Policies, and Farming Systems for Sustainable Agriculture in Central and Eastern European Countries in Transition
(2001) Gatzweiler, Franz W.; Backman, Stefan; Sipilainen, Timo; Zellei, Anett
"The aim of this paper is to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework for the analysis of institutions, policies and farming systems for agri-environmental sustainability in Central and Eastern European countries in transition. The basic unit of analysis is the 'agri-environmental action scenario'. The action scenario consists of a set of components which together shape the outcomes of an agri-environnmental action situation. The framework consists of 1) the environmental effects of transition, 2) policies, institutions, and 4) farming systems. We aim at characterising these key elements of the framework, their relationship and interactions, and their role in achieving sustainability at the interface between agriculture and the environment. Environmental areas of concern are: water, soil and biodiversity. The paper intends to create a common understanding of basic concepts and a shared conceptual model among the members of the Central and Eastern European Sustainable Agriculture (CEESA) Network. The framework will be adapted according to new insights and findings during the course of research activities of the CEESA research project."
Beyond Economic Efficiency and Towards Coping with Complexity in Biodiversity Conservation
(2006) Gatzweiler, Franz W.; Volkmann, Jörg
"This paper aims to explain why it is important to move from economic efficiency to complexity-led approaches for the purpose of biodiversity conservation. Economic values of biodiversity are not a sufficient reason for deciding to conserve biodiversity. Achieving economic efficiency requires the internalization of values of biodiversity which are outside the economic system and a rational choice among conservation alternatives in favor of those with higher net benefits. But economic valuation methods are themselves 'value articulating institutions' influencing the outcome of the valuation exercise. As biodiversity conservation confronts us with very complex social-ecological systems, the choice of the 'value articulating institutions' needs to consider their various features and functions. The choice of conserving biodiversity or not can not be made on the grounds of economic valuation alone because that choice itself requires addressing a second-order problem: the choice of a valuation method. Methods are required which help to understand systems' behavior, that are able to bring together multiple stakeholders and initiate deliberative, social processes of choice-making. The choice of valuation and decision making tools needs to match the complex nature of the task. Therefore, the question involved in successful biodiversity conservation is not only which conservation strategy is economically preferred but also which method should be used to articulate and account for people's biodiversity values. This involves a choice of the type of rationality and the type of social process applied in the decision-making process. Institutions and governance structures at all scales are needed to conserve biodiversity. This process begins with the choice of an adequate mix of valuation methods ranging from balancing costs and benefits to processes of awareness building, communication and negotiation. The Vester Sensitivity Model was used to model the socio-ecological system 'coffee forest' with stakeholders in Ethiopia, and facilitate first steps in a participatory and deliberative process towards biodiversity conservation."
The Evolution of Institutions in Transition
(2001) Gatzweiler, Franz W.; Hagedorn, Konrad
"This paper aims at explaining the role and importance of the evolution of institutions for sustainable agri-environments during the transition process by referring to examples of agri-environmental problems faced in Central and Eastern European countries. It is often stated that the replacement of institutional structures in post socialist countries would bring a unique opportunity to implement new policies and institutions needed to ensure that economic growth is environmentally sustainable. This idea stems from the assumption that the breakdown of the socialist system resembles that (of the Schumpeterian1 type) of creative destruction--a process that incessantly revolutionizes economic structures from within. However, not all kinds of institutions, especially at local level, can simply be implemented, and even more, not incessantly. Instead, they evolve as a response to ecosystem and social system characteristics, and this is a rather slow process. A central question therefore is whether the required institutional arrangements for achieving sustainability in the area of agri-environmental resource management can be built more easily in periods of transition as they fill institutional gaps, or whether processes of transition make institution building a more difficult and far more time consuming task than previously thought. Above all, we want to find out, how these two processes of institution building at different scales affect the sustainable management of resources such as water and biodiversity in agriculture? It will become clear that the agri-environmental problem areas faced during transition are complex and dynamic and require adequate institutions both by political design and from the grassroots, to be developed by the respective actors involved. Transition from centrally planned to pluralistic systems has to be considered as a particular and in some respect non-typical process of institutional change. Popular theories of institutional change do not necessarily apply. The privatisation experience from many CEE countries will serve as an example. Finally, we will provide some examples of missing or insufficient interaction between political actors or agencies and people in CEE countries. Substantial investments into social and human capital, particularly regarding informal institutions are needed for institutions of sustainability to evolve."
Forest Governance Reforms in Eastern Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional, Livelihood and Forest Sustainability Outcomes
(2011) Banana, Abwoli Y.; Ongugo, Paul; Gombya-Ssembajjwe, William S.; Tadesse, W. G.; Senbeta, Feyera; Namaalwa, J.; Luoga, E. J.; Bahati, Joseph; Mbwambo, L. A.; Gatzweiler, Franz W.
"As forests continue to decline globally and more so in the East African region, decentralization reforms that aim to improve rural livelihoods and conserve forests by transferring management powers to local communities and governments have occurred in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Unlike Tanzania, where decentralization reforms have been implemented for over a decade, the reforms in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda are still in their infancy. As a result, there is still little empirical understanding of its impacts on livelihoods, governance and forest conditions. Limited studies carried out in the region indicate that decentralization of the forest sector in the region has taken many different forms; from partial devolution of management responsibility to more profound devolution of ownership to communities. Similarly, the outcomes from these reform efforts also vary within and between countries. Livelihood outcomes are limited in areas where CFM, JFM and PFM are practiced and positive where CBFM is practiced. The outcomes of forest conditions under CFM, JFM and PFM are also mixed within and across the countries. Some forests have shown some improvements while others are continuing to be degraded. More forests under CBFM are showing improvement than the forests under JFM, PFM or CFM. Improvement in forest condition and livelihoods under CBFM may be due to improved enforcement of forest rules by the local communities because of strong security of tenure and better benefits that accrue to the communities that have CBFM arrangements."
Institutional Economics for Sustaining Biodiversity
(2004) Gatzweiler, Franz W.
"Sustaining biodiversity requires economizing at multiple levels of social analysis. The multiplicity refers to social and ecological system attributes and needs to be reflected by a diversity of institutions at multiple scales. This paper identifies key attributes of social and ecological systems which need to be taken into account in order to design institutions for sustaining biodiversity. Design principles are suggested to achieve systems match and different governance regimes for sustaining biodiversity are discussed. The message of this paper is that social and institutional diversity is required for governing biological diversity. The crucial point is that with increasing institutional diversity we are able to better economize on the multiple dimensions related to the sustainable use of biodiversity."
Institutionalizing Biodiversity Conservation
(2005) Gatzweiler, Franz W.
"The predominant notion on institutionalising biodiversity conservation is that as a result of the features and functions of biodiversity as well as the attributes of the actors, institutional diversity and multi-level governance are required. Institutional diversity per se, however, is not a panacea for successful biodiversity conservation and even less useful for identifying starting points for action. The Ethiopian case demonstrates what happens when--according to theory--the government steps aside and the market works its wonders. After recognising the importance of institutional diversity, the challenge is to shape its context-specific patterns by identifying starting points for action. This requires guidance, mediation, and facilitation. The attempt to conserve Ethiopian coffee forests illustrates that the government, NGOs, local communities as well as private companies have their individual interests but also share a common vision to conserve forests. Well coordinated collective action is identified as a necessary consequence of institutional diversity."
Patterns of Institutional Change for Sustainability in Central and Eastern European Agriculture
(2003) Gatzweiler, Franz W.
"In this paper, the author discusses two different beliefs of how institutional change towards sustainability in agriculture and environment works: the institutional view and the evolutionary view. Both perspectives are studied in the context of restructuring the agricultural sectors and rural environments in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs). The specific nature of the agri-environmental problem calls for specific institutions and may require a specific building process. Case study results are presented showing the effect of EU accession on institutional change towards sustainability in several CEECs. The results provide evidence that the quality of institutional change required for sustainability goes beyond the building of legislative frameworks and requires more time than was envisaged by the roadmap to accession. Finally, the paper explores the role of social and human capital stocks in rural areas of CEECs outlining a number of differences in environmental governance in the agricultural sectors between various CEECs."
People, Institutions and Agroecosystems in Transition
(2002) Gatzweiler, Franz W.; Hagedorn, Konrad; Sikor, Thomas
"This paper aims at explaining the role and importance of the evolution of institutions for sustainable agrienvironments during the transition process by referring to examples of agri-environmental problems faced in Central and Eastern European countries. It is often stated that the replacement of institutional structures in post socialist countries would bring a unique opportunity to implement new policies and institutions needed to ensure that economic growth is environmentally sustainable. This idea stems from the assumption that the breakdown of the socialist system resembles that (of the Schumpeterian type) of creative destruction - a process that incessantly revolutionizes economic structures from within. However, not all kinds of institutions, especially at local level, can simply be implemented, and even more, not incessantly. Instead, they evolve as a response to ecosystem and social system characteristics, and this is a rather slow process. A central question therefore is whether the required institutional arrangements for achieving sustainability in the area of agri-environmental resource management can be built more easily in periods of transition as they fill institutional gaps, or whether processes of transition make institution building a more difficult and far more time consuming task than previously thought. Above all, we want to find out, how these two processes of institution building at different scales affect the sustainable management of resources such as water and biodiversity in agriculture? It will become clear that the agrienvironmental problem areas faced during transition are complex and dynamic and require adequate institutions both by political design and from the grassroots, to be developed by the respective actors involved. Transition from centrally planned to pluralistic systems has to be considered as a particular and in some respect non-typical process of institutional change. Popular theories of institutional change do not necessarily apply. The privatisation experience from many CEE countries will serve as an example. Finally, we will provide some examples of missing or insufficient interaction between political actors or agencies and people in CEE countries."