Time filter

Source Type

Nesheim I.,Center for Development and the Environment | Halvorsen R.,University of Oslo
Journal of Sustainable Forestry | Year: 2011

This study explores the regeneration of 12 selected timber species within an area of selective logging in a neotropical rainforest in Guatemala. A part of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, in which timber harvest is performed by the cooperative Unión Maya Itzá, makes up the study area. We report the results of an inventory of 12 species over an area of 300 ha and detailed recording of saplings and seedlings for 10 selected timber species in five 1-ha plots. In the latter, characteristics of gaps (gap size and location, and vegetation cover) were also recorded. The recorded density of timber seedlings and saplings in the study area was low. The low present density of future harvestable timber species suggests that the total volume of harvested trees will decline from harvest to harvest in the future if an interval between subsequent logging events of 25 yr is used and if the logging intensity prescribed by the current management plan is upheld. Measures needed for forestry in this region to be sustainable are discussed. © 2011 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Ottersen O.P.,University of Oslo | Dasgupta J.,University of Oslo | Blouin C.,Institute National Of Sante Publique | Buss P.,Oswaldo Cruz Foundation | And 20 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2014

Despite large gains in health over the past few decades, the distribution of health risks worldwide remains extremely and unacceptably uneven. Although the health sector has a crucial role in addressing health inequalities, its efforts often come into conflict with powerful global actors in pursuit of other interests such as protection of national security, safeguarding of sovereignty, or economic goals. This is the starting point of The Lancet-University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health. With globalisation, health inequity increasingly results from transnational activities that involve actors with different interests and degrees of power: states, transnational corporations, civil society, and others. The decisions, policies, and actions of such actors are, in turn, founded on global social norms. Their actions are not designed to harm health, but can have negative side-effects that create health inequities. The norms, policies, and practices that arise from global political interaction across all sectors that affect health are what we call global political determinants of health. The Commission argues that global political determinants that unfavourably affect the health of some groups of people relative to others are unfair, and that at least some harms could be avoided by improving how global governance works. There is an urgent need to understand how public health can be better protected and promoted in the realm of global governance, but this issue is a complex and politically sensitive one. Global governance processes involve the distribution of economic, intellectual, normative, and political resources, and to assess their effect on health requires an analysis of power. This report examines power disparities and dynamics across a range of policy areas that aff ect health and that require improved global governance: economic crises and austerity measures, knowledge and intellectual property, foreign investment treaties, food security, transnational corporate activity, irregular migration, and violent conflict. The case analyses show that in the contemporary global governance landscape, power asymmetries between actors with conflicting interests shape political determinants of health. We identified five dysfunctions of the global governance system that allow adverse eff ects of global political determinants of health to persist. First, participation and representation of some actors, such as civil society, health experts, and marginalised groups, are insufficient in decision-making processes (democratic deficit). Second, inadequate means to constrain power and poor transparency make it difficult to hold actors to account for their actions (weak accountability mechanisms). Third, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures are often impervious to changing needs and can sustain entrenched power disparities, with adverse eff ects on the distribution of health (institutional stickiness). Fourth, inadequate means exist at both national and global levels to protect health in global policy-making arenas outside of the health sector, such that health can be subordinated under other objectives (inadequate policy space for health). Lastly, in a range of policy-making areas, there is a total or near absence of international institutions (eg, treaties, funds, courts, and softer forms of regulation such as norms and guidelines) to protect and promote health (missing or nascent institutions). Recognising that major drivers of ill health lie beyond the control of national governments and, in many instances, also outside of the health sector, we assert that some of the root causes of health inequity must be addressed within global governance processes. For the continued success of the global health system, its initiatives must not be thwarted by political decisions in other arenas. Rather, global governance processes outside the health arena must be made to work better for health. The Commission calls for stronger cross-sectoral global action for health. We propose for consideration a Multistakeholder Platform on Governance for Health, which would serve as a policy forum to provide space for diverse stakeholders to frame issues, set agendas, examine and debate policies in the making that would have an eff ect on health and health equity, and identify barriers and propose solutions for concrete policy processes. Additionally, we call for the independent monitoring of how global governance processes aff ect health equity to be institutionalised through an Independent Scientific Monitoring Panel and mandated health equity impact assessments within international organisations. The Commission also calls for measures to better harness the global political determinants of health. We call for strengthened use of human rights instruments for health, such as the Special Rapporteurs, and stronger sanctions against a broader range of violations by nonstate actors through the international judicial system. We recognise that global governance for health must be rooted in commitments to global solidarity and shared responsibility through rights-based approaches and new frameworks for international financing that go beyond traditional development assistance, such as for research and social protection. We want to send a strong message to the international community and to all actors that exert influence in processes of global governance: we must no longer regard health only as a technical biomedical issue, but acknowledge the need for global cross-sectoral action and justice in our eff orts to address health inequity.

Reidsma P.,Wageningen University | Konig H.,Leibniz Center for Agricultural Landscape Research | Feng S.,College of Public Administration | Bezlepkina I.,LEI | And 7 more authors.
Land Use Policy | Year: 2011

For stimulating sustainable development in developing countries, land use patterns and land use changes are considered critical, and therefore effective and efficient land use policies are needed. In this paper we present a methodological framework that has been developed in a joint European and developing countries project (LUPIS - Land Use Policies and Sustainable Development in Developing Countries), to assess the impact of land use policies on sustainable development in developing countries. An illustrative application is presented for a case study in China, where water pollution due to agriculture in Taihu Basin is a major problem.We argue that an integrated assessment is required, considering multiple drivers and indicators that determine the objectives and constraints of the stakeholders involved. Therefore, the sustainability impact assessment (SIA) is based on the concept of Land Use Functions (LUFs), and impacts on these LUFs are discussed with stakeholders based on a multi-criteria analysis. LUFs comprise economic, environmental and social indicators relevant for stakeholders at multiple scales. Instead of focusing only on the indicators that determine the problem (e.g., nutrient leaching in the Chinese case study), we take a broader perspective (considering also social, economic and institutional objectives and constraints), such that feasible policy options can be recommended. Stakeholders have a large role in discussing the selection of indicators and policies (pre-modelling), evaluating the impacts on indicators (modelling), and the weighing of indicators and LUFs (post-modelling). For the assessment of impacts on indicators (modelling), quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined. We present and discuss an impact assessment of policy options in Taihu Basin, for the current situation and towards 2015. The methodological framework as presented here proved to be useful to guide a sustainability impact assessment in China and six other case study regions. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

Loading Center for Development and the Environment collaborators
Loading Center for Development and the Environment collaborators