Suchergebnisse

This article proposes that the work of the French sociologist of science, Bruno Latour, that conceptualises the political process in a highly pluralist society, can provide a useful starting point for a discussion on the politics of reconciliation. It is especially Latour's suggestion of an object-oriented politics that will be explored and applied to the South African situation. Subsequently, however, it is argued that Latour's politics of "reassembling" should be complemented by a politics of remembering. The latter notion is understood in a Platonic-Augustinian fashion – following the interpretation of the contemporary philosophical-theological movement of Radical Orthodoxy – as a diffuse recognition of the other within the self, whereby the politics of reconciliation is, in an important sense, broadened to encompass the interior, psychic and, ultimately, spiritual aspects of the relation between the self and the other. The paper concludes with some remarks on the role of the church as the narrative embodiment of reconciliation conceived as reassembling ánd remembering.

This article proposes that the work of the French sociologist of science, Bruno Latour, that conceptualises the political process in a highly pluralist society, can provide a useful starting point for a discussion on the politics of reconciliation. It is especially Latour's suggestion of an object-oriented politics that will be explored and applied to the South African situation. Subsequently, however, it is argued that Latour's politics of "reassembling" should be complemented by a politics of remembering. The latter notion is understood in a Platonic-Augustinian fashion - following the interpretation of the contemporary philosophical-theological movement of Radical Orthodoxy - as a diffuse recognition of the other within the self, whereby the politics of reconciliation is, in an important sense, broadened to encompass the interior, psychic and, ultimately, spiritual aspects of the relation between the self and the other. The paper concludes with some remarks on the role of the church as the narrative embodiment of reconciliation conceived as reassembling ánd remembering.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which strategic intelligence is utilised within the South African long‐term insurance industry and whether it could be used to identify opportunities or threats within the global environment to remain competitive, create greater innovation, and corporate advantage.Design/methodology/approachThe approach of this paper is to obtain the qualitative views and opinions of strategic decision makers, on an executive managerial level within the South African long‐term insurance industry, on their organizations' use of strategic intelligence.FindingsThere are marked differences in the conformity and usage of strategic intelligence and its components between the organizations surveyed, with a measurable difference between large and small organizations, however, it is generally viewed that the use of a strategic intelligence framework could greatly enhance decision making.Research limitations/implicationsData collection was limited to the 82 long‐term insurance companies which were registered with the South African Financial Services Board, with a focus on the organizations listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange within the Life Assurance Sector, within which a final response rate of 36.1 per cent was achieved, including the 100 per cent response rate from the six listed organizations.Practical implicationsThe paper identifies the extent to which strategic intelligence is utilised in the South African long‐term insurance industry, and identifies the benefits or problems that are experienced by implementing and using strategic intelligence as an input to the strategic management process and what value strategic intelligence adds in the decision‐making process.Originality/valueThe identification and utilisation of the most important factors of a strategic intelligence framework will greatly enhance global corporate decision making and result in competitive advantage and constant innovation within the South African business environment.

Aerial surveys have been used in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, to count large ungulates since the late 1970s. After 1998, aerial line-transect sampling using fixed-wing aircraft and Distance analyses replaced the 'total' counting method. This paper investigates these methods and three sampling intensities for estimating the densities of nine large ungulate species in Kruger National Park. Estimates suitable for the detection of population trends and making management decisions were decided by examination of coefficients of variation (set <20%, a priori). Despite the likely violation of some key assumptions of Distance sampling methods, analyses gave population estimates with adequate coefficients of variation for monitoring trends in impala, giraffe, zebra, kudu, white rhinoceros, and elephant bull populations. Significant improvements in precision were obtained at higher sampling intensities for kudu, giraffe, bull elephants and white rhinoceros, but these species already had sufficiently precise population estimates for the detection of trends at the lowest sampling intensity (15%). The estimates for warthog, wildebeest and waterbuck populations were, however, insufficiently precise for assessing population trends. Increasing sampling intensity to 22% and higher did not significantly increase the precision of the Distance estimates for these species. Shortcomings in interpretation of the data caused by violations of critical assumptions of analyses are identified and discussed.

This deliverable analyses the relationships between the various policy packages involved in soil sustainable management, and the soil management practices they foster or restrict, at the European level and in eight Member States. Soil processes are at the interface between agricultural production and ecosystem services provision, and making sure that these processes work properly is a matter of multi-layered policies and actors, in an uncertain environment. To analyse the policy context, we have built a method that grouped together two different frameworks. Using these two frameworks together, we have designed a grid in which each relevant policy measure favours (or hampers) the adoption of each BMP, with which objectives, and whether they are implemented on a mandatory way, or with incentives, or even in a voluntary way. Soil protection is at the interface of three major policy packages: Agricultural and rural policies, where soil is considered as a production mean that needs sometimes to be preserved, environmental policies where the soil is considered as a medium towards air, water or biodiversity protection, and urban policies where forest or agricultural soils have to be preserved from urban sprawl. Since the last twenty years, soils are also a matter of policy packages related to climate change, mostly under the Kyoto protocol. The immediate consequence of soils being at the interface is the existence of a bundle of soil-related policy measures, with expected direct or indirect effects on soils: in 2008 for instance, Kutter et al. (2011) accounted for 410 different soil conservation measures in the European Member states, while Eurostat breakdown of agri-environmental measures (AEM) considered in 2008 that 8 % of the EU-27 agricultural area under AEM benefit from actions to conserve soils. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive has been initiated in 2006 with the objective of simplifying the way soils stakes are considered in policies and initiating comprehensive legislation on soil protection. This Directive was unfortunately withdrawn in May 20141. Since this withdrawal, the Soil Thematic Strategy takes actions to integrate soil stakes into all relevant policies when renewed. The main consequences on the Soil Thematic Strategy lie on the expected impacts on the region oriented approach led by the new CAP on decentralized effects which may, in turn, affect existing political and institutional relationships. There is a balance between the freedom of regions to design a variety of instruments to protect soil, directly or indirectly, and administrative burden linked to the new governance schemes where changes have to occur. Limited budgets for environmental protection in a context of economic crisis also require improving the cost-effectiveness of policy measures, which results, depending on the region and country, on putting less emphasis on soils protection objectives, or on combining measures so as to protect soils by side effects of promoted practices. The analysis of the wide range of policy packages and their instruments implemented in the Catch-C partner countries highlights that soil stakes are embedded to different degrees in these countries. Building on this embeddedness and on the focus of each country on coherence between the various instruments they use towards soil, we have found three different strategies (see also fig below): - Some have designed for long a comprehensive strategy towards soil protection; they consider that soil provides multiple functions, from habitats to raw material extraction through production of food and building materials. For these countries, raising concern about soil protection at EU level enforces national and regional policies, sometimes permits to design harmonized policy packages at national level (more coordination from regional initiatives). This is the case for Germany, and to a lower extent Austria. Belgium has an intermediate strategy with the next group. - Some countries took the opportunity of implementing EU strategy to design some placebased policies to deal with local soil issues, mostly erosion (Italy, Spain and Poland). - Last set of countries (France and The Netherlands) relies more on side-effect of already existing measures to ensure a minimum soil protection, and instead focus on other stakes like biodiversity or water protection

This deliverable analyses the relationships between the various policy packages involved in soil sustainable management, and the soil management practices they foster or restrict, at the European level and in eight Member States. Soil processes are at the interface between agricultural production and ecosystem services provision, and making sure that these processes work properly is a matter of multi-layered policies and actors, in an uncertain environment. To analyse the policy context, we have built a method that grouped together two different frameworks. Using these two frameworks together, we have designed a grid in which each relevant policy measure favours (or hampers) the adoption of each BMP, with which objectives, and whether they are implemented on a mandatory way, or with incentives, or even in a voluntary way. Soil protection is at the interface of three major policy packages: Agricultural and rural policies, where soil is considered as a production mean that needs sometimes to be preserved, environmental policies where the soil is considered as a medium towards air, water or biodiversity protection, and urban policies where forest or agricultural soils have to be preserved from urban sprawl. Since the last twenty years, soils are also a matter of policy packages related to climate change, mostly under the Kyoto protocol. The immediate consequence of soils being at the interface is the existence of a bundle of soil-related policy measures, with expected direct or indirect effects on soils: in 2008 for instance, Kutter et al. (2011) accounted for 410 different soil conservation measures in the European Member states, while Eurostat breakdown of agri-environmental measures (AEM) considered in 2008 that 8 % of the EU-27 agricultural area under AEM benefit from actions to conserve soils. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive has been initiated in 2006 with the objective of simplifying the way soils stakes are considered in policies and initiating comprehensive legislation on soil protection. This Directive was unfortunately withdrawn in May 20141. Since this withdrawal, the Soil Thematic Strategy takes actions to integrate soil stakes into all relevant policies when renewed. The main consequences on the Soil Thematic Strategy lie on the expected impacts on the region oriented approach led by the new CAP on decentralized effects which may, in turn, affect existing political and institutional relationships. There is a balance between the freedom of regions to design a variety of instruments to protect soil, directly or indirectly, and administrative burden linked to the new governance schemes where changes have to occur. Limited budgets for environmental protection in a context of economic crisis also require improving the cost-effectiveness of policy measures, which results, depending on the region and country, on putting less emphasis on soils protection objectives, or on combining measures so as to protect soils by side effects of promoted practices. The analysis of the wide range of policy packages and their instruments implemented in the Catch-C partner countries highlights that soil stakes are embedded to different degrees in these countries. Building on this embeddedness and on the focus of each country on coherence between the various instruments they use towards soil, we have found three different strategies (see also fig below): - Some have designed for long a comprehensive strategy towards soil protection; they consider that soil provides multiple functions, from habitats to raw material extraction through production of food and building materials. For these countries, raising concern about soil protection at EU level enforces national and regional policies, sometimes permits to design harmonized policy packages at national level (more coordination from regional initiatives). This is the case for Germany, and to a lower extent Austria. Belgium has an intermediate strategy with the next group. - Some countries took the opportunity of implementing EU strategy to design some placebased policies to deal with local soil issues, mostly erosion (Italy, Spain and Poland). - Last set of countries (France and The Netherlands) relies more on side-effect of already existing measures to ensure a minimum soil protection, and instead focus on other stakes like biodiversity or water protection

This deliverable analyses the relationships between the various policy packages involved in soil sustainable management, and the soil management practices they foster or restrict, at the European level and in eight Member States. Soil processes are at the interface between agricultural production and ecosystem services provision, and making sure that these processes work properly is a matter of multi-layered policies and actors, in an uncertain environment. To analyse the policy context, we have built a method that grouped together two different frameworks. Using these two frameworks together, we have designed a grid in which each relevant policy measure favours (or hampers) the adoption of each BMP, with which objectives, and whether they are implemented on a mandatory way, or with incentives, or even in a voluntary way. Soil protection is at the interface of three major policy packages: Agricultural and rural policies, where soil is considered as a production mean that needs sometimes to be preserved, environmental policies where the soil is considered as a medium towards air, water or biodiversity protection, and urban policies where forest or agricultural soils have to be preserved from urban sprawl. Since the last twenty years, soils are also a matter of policy packages related to climate change, mostly under the Kyoto protocol. The immediate consequence of soils being at the interface is the existence of a bundle of soil-related policy measures, with expected direct or indirect effects on soils: in 2008 for instance, Kutter et al. (2011) accounted for 410 different soil conservation measures in the European Member states, while Eurostat breakdown of agri-environmental measures (AEM) considered in 2008 that 8 % of the EU-27 agricultural area under AEM benefit from actions to conserve soils. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive has been initiated in 2006 with the objective of simplifying the way soils stakes are considered in policies and initiating comprehensive legislation on soil protection. This ...