Search results

Objectives This systematic review identifies and reviews both peer-reviewed and 'grey' literature, across a range of disciplines and from diverse sources, relating to the condition of children living in mountain communities in low- and middle-income countries. Findings The literature on poverty in these communities does not generally focus on the particular vulnerabilities of children or the impact of intersecting vulnerabilities on the most marginalised members of communities. However, this literature does contribute analyses of the broader context and variety of factors impacting on human development in mountainous areas. The literature on other areas of children's lives—health, nutrition, child mortality, education, and child labour—focuses more specifically on children's particular vulnerabilities or experiences. However, it sometimes lacks the broader analysis of the many interrelated characteristics of a mountainous environment which impact on children's situations. Themes Nevertheless, certain themes recur across many disciplines and types of literature, and point to some general conclusions: mountain poverty is influenced by the very local specificities of the physical environment; mountain communities are often politically and economically marginalised, particularly for the most vulnerable within these communities, including children; and mountain communities themselves are an important locus for challenging and interrupting cycles of increasing inequality and disadvantage. While this broad-scale review represents a modest first step, its findings provide the basis for further investigation.

The institutionalization of mountain regions in Europe, Regional Studies. Since the 1990s, many `project regions¿ have emerged in Europe, a trend deriving from the tendency to adopt ad hoc institutions for specific spatial and environmental issues and the empowerment of diverse stakeholders who compete with the dominant role of states. This article addresses the building of institutionalized mountain regions in Europe, analysing how the specificity of mountain areas was considered in policies by states and the European Union, and later for transnational mountain ranges. Environmental and trans-boundary issues have been major driving forces for new institutional arrangements combining a territorial and environmental focus and complex networks of stakeholders.

Their specific potentials and opportunities of mountain areas need to be considered as much as their challenges. Mountain areas are too diverse to elaborate an integrated European strategy. However, a framework for development strategies in mountain areas can be developed, taking into account the specific challenges and importance of mountain farming, the high levels of biodiversity in mountain areas, and their specific exposure to climate change. Cohesion policy could use such a framework to better address the demographic challenges of many mountain areas and to promote their economic and social development more efficiently with an enhanced sustainable development perspective. This also presupposes more flexible multi-level governance arrangements.

In Scotland, there are no restrictions on how much land a single individual can own, and a concentrated pattern of large-scale private land ownership exists, particularly in rural areas. The Scottish Government has made it clear that it believes there is a need for change, stating that its vision is for a fairer – or wider and more equitable – distribution of land in Scotland, where communities and individuals have access to land and there is greater diversity of land ownership. This study was commissioned to enable the Scottish Land Commission to learn from international experience of imposing limits on who can own land and/or how much land any single individual or entity can own. The research identified and described restrictions on land ownership in 22 countries (18 in the EU/EEA). The countries were selected using a set of criteria to ensure lessons were learned from countries with a similar legislative context and characterised by strong regulation, governance and transaction processes, low levels of perceived corruption, and a strong property rights regime. Desk-based research identified the range of interventions in the countries, and findings were cross-checked with country experts to ensure accuracy. Interventions in the countries include restrictions that relate to: foreign ownership of land; ownership approval processes; upper and lower area limits; owner characteristics and land use requirements; pre-emptive rights to buy land; and measures to reduce land fragmentation. A range of motivations underpin the implementation of interventions to achieve policy objectives related to land ownership in the various countries. Analysis of the motivations and the interventions allowed countries to be grouped according to the following typology, which identifies 'foreign interest limiters', 'land use stipulators' and 'land consolidators' (Figure in text). In 18 of the countries considered in the study, some form of approval exists in relation to who can own land. Twelve countries require foreign land acquisitions to be approved prior to completion; processes of this nature exist to check the public interest impacts related to land purchase by a non-citizen. Approval processes are not limited to land acquisitions by foreigners: six countries require the relevant authority to approve all purchases of agricultural land. Underlying concerns tend to include: the local residence of the land owner; protection of agriculture; and the avoidance of land fragmentation. A formal approval process related to the purchase of land or property does not exist in Scotland. Based on the experience in other countries, developing such a framework would not be unusual and may present an opportunity to consolidate what is in the public interest, in terms of who can own land. While the ownership of land by foreign interests is subject to regulatory restrictions in nine of the countries, outright bans on foreign ownership are not common (and EU law prevents EU Member States from restricting land purchases by EU citizens). Policy objectives associated with such restrictions generally include: preventing foreign-based speculation in land; controlling the amount and direction of direct foreign investment; ensuring local control over food production; and indirectly controlling immigration. In Scotland, motivations to restrict foreign ownership of large land parcels may be linked to the negative implications of a foreign land owner not being resident on the land, with purchases predominantly for recreational and/or speculative purposes. Where similar concerns have been raised in other countries, approval processes exist to restrict land purchases (regardless of the origin of the purchaser) that may lead to these concerns becoming a reality. In the countries studied, the implementation of restrictions on land ownership was more commonly driven by land speculation than by the intention to limit concentration of ownership. Only a few examples were identified of upper limits to the amount of land that any one individual or entity can own. Where such limits exist, they tend to be targeted at foreign land acquisitions and/or used as planning control mechanisms, rather than being used to restrict ownership rights or as mechanisms for redistribution.

Biosphere reserves (BR) balance biodiversity protection and sustainable use through different management restrictions in three zones: core areas, buffer zones, and transition areas. Information about the links between zoning and ecosystem services (ES) is lacking, particularly in terms of the relative roles of natural contributions (ecosystem properties and functions) and anthropogenic contributions (human inputs such as technology and infrastructure) in coproducing ES. This study aimed to: (1) analyse how coproduction of four ES (crop production, grazing, timber production, recreation) differs across the three zones of BRs; and (2) understand which predictors (zoning, natural and anthropogenic contributions, other environmental characteristics) best explain ES provision within BRs. To do this, we collected spatial data on 137 terrestrial BRs in the European Union and on 16 indicators of ES coproduction. We used non-parametric pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests to calculate differences in indicators between zones. We used model selection and multiple linear regression to identify predictors of ES provision patterns. Anthropogenic contributions showed most differences between zones, with contributions generally increasing from buffer zones to transition areas. Natural contributions did not, on average, differ between zones, however, for recreation and crop production they decreased from buffer zones to transition areas. ES provision differed between zones only for crop production and grazing, which increased from buffer zones to transition areas. Regression analysis showed that natural contributions are the best predictors of ES provision for all four services. Our results indicate that zoning of BRs has implications for ES coproduction.