Suchergebnisse

Agricultural environmental schemes (AES) have been implemented in twenty-eight countries in Europe. In 2013 the agricultural area under agri-environmental schemes was 26.3 % of the utilised agricultural area in the twenty-eight countries (Eurostat, 2017). There is however still mixed evidence about their effectiveness and efficiency (Kleijn, Berendse, Smit, & Gilissen, 2001; Kleijn, Rundlöf, Scheper, Smith, & Tscharntke, 2011; Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003; RLI, 2013). Over the past ten years different directions of enhancing a more effective and efficient AES have been conducted. One of these directions is the collaboration between farmers, government and other organizations. The new EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2015-2020 made it possible for collectives of farmers and other land users to be applicant and final beneficiary of subsidies. The Dutch Government decided on the renewal of the agri-environment scheme (AES). In this new system new farmer collectives have the role of final beneficiary for the AES. This should lead to higher effectiveness of nature management and lower implementation costs. One of the ambitions in the new system of AES is working with ''professional'' farmer collectives (Kamerbrief 390202a3 Nieuwe Stelsel Agrarisch Natuurbeheer, 2013). In 2013 the government and the agriculture associations started an extensive process of development, design and implementation of the new system. In 2015 a countrywide network of 40 new farmer collectives was established. (Snoo et al. 2016). Depending on the results of this period of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the next period of CAP 2021-2026 the farmer collectives will have again the role of final beneficiary for the AES. There has not been research about the current professionalization of the farmer collectives. As part of my PhD thesis to gain insight in the professionalization process of the farmer collectives in the new system of AES and the contribution to a more effective and efficient AES. The research question of this paper is: How to conceptualize professionalization of farmer collectives with an assignment for a government task? What are the essential key-elements in the professionalization? Professionalisation is a process by which individuals, organizations and systems in close collaboration become a professional association (Dowling et al., 2014). The first results of this research is a theoretical framework for professionalization checked by farmer collectives. In my presentation I will discuss this framework with examples of the farmer collectives. ; peerReviewed

What's so smart about smart governance?
Wicked problems ask for new, smart forms of governance beyond a singular focus on hierarchy, market or community. Based on the case studies presented in the individual articles of this special issue, this concluding article describes what smart governance could entail and discusses its strengths and weaknesses, both as a concept and a practical tool.

The dynamics of smart governance for sustainable value chains
Traditional state-centered governance systems have failed to effectively tackle the transnational problem of the sustainability of global value chains (GVCs). To fill this 'institutional void', industry and NGOs established a series of global partnerships that designed standards and certification schemes for global commodities. This paper uses different theoretical lenses to address the question as to what extent these arrangements can be evaluated as smart, and for what and for whom they are smart? Despite their relative success, these partnerships face some serious challenges. Consequently, smart governance also requires adaptiveness and the prevention of path dependencies.

The aim of this article is to explain and compare the changes in climate policy paradigms (CPPs) of Bangladesh and Nepal. Climate policies are shaped by the underlying CPPs that refer to a dominant set of prevailing and institutionalized ideas and strategies to reduce the impacts of climate change. We focus the analysis on the timeframe between 1997 and 2016, using policy documents (n = 46) and semi-structured interviews (n = 43) with key policy actors. We find that in both countries several CPPs have emerged: disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, mainstreaming, and localized action for adaptation. In Bangladesh, specific policy goals and instruments for each CPP have emerged, whereas in Nepal the government has been struggling to develop specific policy instruments to implement the paradigms. We conclude that competing CPPs currently exist which creates diversified policy responses to climate change impacts in both countries. This 'layering' of different CPPs can be attributed to drivers such as unstable political situation, lack of financial support, influence of national and international non-governmental organizations and global policy frameworks. The findings in our study are relevant to further discussions on how to design future climate policy responses to adapt to climate change.

In our current society, governments face complex societal issues that cannot be tackled through traditional governance arrangements. Therefore, governments increasingly come up with smart hybrid arrangements that transcend the boundaries of policy domains and jurisdictions, combine governance mechanisms (state, market, networks and self-governance), and foster new forms of collaboration. This book provides an overview of what smart hybridity entails and of its potentials and challenges. It includes empirical analyses of hybrid arrangements in five policy domains, and reflections upon these studies by internationally renowned governance scholars. They show that the smartness of the new hybrid arrangements does not lie in realizing quick fixes, but in participants' capacities to learn, adapt and arrive at sustainable and legitimate solutions that balance various public values

AbstractThis paper addresses the role performance information plays in the accountability regimes of international climate change financing institutions and how this can be improved. It has been argued that the quality of the performance information of projects financed by public and private sources, as well as how that information is used, influences decisions made by the various actors in the accountability regimes, including the ability to hold actors to account. A theory‐based framework is developed to analyze and enable the improvement of the information produced and used in climate finance accountability regimes. The framework is tested by applying it to the Green Climate Fund via document analysis and key informant interviews. With the help of the framework, gaps are identified, and improvements are suggested so that account holders and account givers can better fulfill their respective roles in the given accountability regime.