Why financial incentives can destroy economically valuable biodiversity in Ethiopia

Ethiopian montane rainforests are economically valuable repositories of biodiversity, especially of wild Coffea arabica populations, and they are vanishing at accelerating rates. Our research results confirm theory which explains biodiversity loss by diverging private and social net benefits from land conversion. Poor farmers basically live from hand-to-mouth and manage resources with very short term planning horizons. In such circumstances they cannot afford to carry the cost burden of conservation from which the broader national and global society benefits. Society, on the other hand, highly values the biodiversity of Ethiopia’s montane rainforests, but has not managed to put mechanisms in place which enable to pay for the conservation of these values and conservation policies are in place but are not implemented. While it is economically rational for the farmer to convert forests into agricultural land and thereby improve his income (the financial incentive we refer to here), it is economically irrational for national and global society not to pay for conservation. The core reasons for such divergence is that institutions for conservation and sustainable use are not in place. We identify the most important ones and recommend changes for the Ethiopian case

COVID-19, A Global Health Concern Requiring Science-Based Solutions

Scientifically-based concrete action points to reduce the spread, lessen the impact, reduce the concerns of the wider population, and avoid further outbreaks for governments, organizations, and individuals are neededFinal Published versio

Lessons from complexity science for urban health and well-being

From a complexity science perspective, urban health and well-being challenges emerge due to the complexity of urban systems. Adverse urban health outcomes emerge from failing to respond to that complexity by taking a systems approach in knowledge and action which would open opportunity spaces for human agents to create benefits which in turn would generate salutogenic health and well-being outcomes. Lessons learned from complexity science suggest that adverse urban health outcomes emerge from a poor understanding of their complexity and from not engaging with them in a transdisciplinary, integrated fashion. A conceptual framework is presented which combines systems models from the natural and social sciences and explains how opportunities for advancing health and well-being can be co-created. The framework demonstrates that taking a systems approach is a necessary cognitive response from learning the lessons of complexity science and from understanding that humans are an inextricable part of the systems they aim at understanding and managing. Such response is at the core of systems intelligence. The implications are far reaching for the science of urban health and well-being

Resilience Management for Healthy Cities in a Changing Climate

Cities are experiencing multiple impacts from global environmental change, and the degree to which they will need to cope with and adapt to these challenges will continue to increase. We argue that a ‘complex systems and resilience management’ view may significantly help guide future urban development through innovative integration of, for example, grey, blue and green infrastructure embedded in flexible institutions (both formal and informal) for multi-functionality and improved health. For instance, the urban heat island effect will further increase city-centre temperatures during projected more frequent and intense heat waves. The elderly and people with chronic cardiovascular and respiratory diseases are particularly vulnerable to heat. Integrating vegetation and especially trees in the urban infrastructure helps reduce temperatures by shading and evapotranspiration. Great complexity and uncertainty of urban social-ecological systems are behind this heatwave-health nexus, and they need to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. We argue that a systems perspective can lead to innovative designs of new urban infrastructure and the redesign of existing structures. Particularly to promoting the integration of grey, green and blue infrastructure in urban planning through institutional innovation and structural reorganization of knowledge-action systems may significantly enhance prospects for improved urban health and greater resilience under various scenarios of climate change.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Mapping Marginality Hotspots: Geographical Targeting for Poverty Reduction

This mapping approach aims to make the marginalized and poor visible by identifying areas with difficult biophysical and socio-economic conditions. Mapping using different data sources and data types gives deeper insight into possible causal interlinkages and offers the opportunity for comprehensive analysis. The maps highlight areas where different dimensions of marginality overlap - the marginality hotspots - based on proxies for marginality dimensions representing different spheres of life. Furthermore, overlaying the marginality hotspots with the number of poor shows where most of the poor could be reached to help them to escape the spiral of poverty. Marginality hotspots can be found in particular in India and Nepal as well as in several countries in Central and Eastern Africa, such as Eritrea, Mozambique, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Northern Sudan and large parts of Niger. Maps showing the overlap between marginality and poverty highlight that the largest number of marginalized poor are located in India and Bangladesh, as well as in Ethiopia, Southeastern Africa and some parts of Western Africa

Innovative Business Approaches for the Reduction of Extreme Poverty and Marginality?

Extreme poverty is an immense political and market failure, wasting the potential of hundreds of millions of people. Investing in the creation of markets that include the extreme poor and marginalized should thus not only be considered as a charitable activity, but promises high returns on investments - in financial and humanitarian terms. However, while the potential of innovative business approaches to target the poor that live close to the poverty line is increasingly being recognised, the question remains how far these approaches can push the margin to also include those that are extremely poor. And how can those that are marginalized from development opportunities be brought into and benefit from market-based systems to improve the quality of their lives? The impressive rise of business approaches to combating poverty stems from a long history of debates on the role of businesses in society. From an initial focus on social objectives as an external add-on, leading business thinkers have increasingly been stressing the benefits for companies of integrating social considerations into their core business strategies, for instance by targeting lowincome consumers (or 'bottom of the pyramid' markets) or strengthening supply and distribution chains through the involvement of local communities as part of inclusive business strategies. Others - most notably Muhammed Yunus along with other social entrepreneurs - are taking this argument one step further, advocating the use of business strategies primarily to address social goals rather than for financial gains. Thus, in discussions on the role of business in society, profit maximisation as the primary objective of business operations is increasingly making way for business initiatives that are guided by social objectives. This trend is also being supported by growing interest among investors in financing enterprises that promote social or environmental objectives, either as their primary aim or in parallel with seeking to generate financial returns. How suitable these different approaches are to engage the poorest and marginalized depends in part on the extent to which they are able to involve the extreme poor themselves, their flexibility to direct business objectives towards the reduction of extreme poverty and marginality, and their ability to successfully operate with non-business public and civil society partners and in sectors of particular interest to the extreme poor. Further research and action is needed to identify outcome-focused indicators and measurement tools for social value creation, examine possible government measures to support business activities for the poorest, and consider complementarities between the different business approaches. While we recognise that it is unrealistic to expect businesses to be able to reach all of the extreme poor, we believe that the boundaries of innovative business operations can be pushed much further to include a far larger number of the poorest and marginalized

Marginality: Addressing the Root Causes of Extreme Poverty

The need to address extreme poverty from the perspective of marginality arises from the frustration that the number of the poorest and hungry remains unacceptably high. This triggered the call for an innovative approach from the side of science and action. The conceptual and analytical framework developed here views marginality as a root cause of extreme poverty. We define marginality as an involuntary position and condition of an individual or group at the edge of social, economic, and ecological systems, preventing the access to resources, assets, services, restraining freedom of choice, preventing the development of capabilities, and causing extreme poverty. Causal complexes tie the marginalized poor in systems from which they want to escape or in which they want to improve their lives. The rural and agricultural context is of particular relevance here, as we assume that large segments of the extreme poor live in rural areas. The poorest themselves have described their situation, for instance, as being trapped in a 'complex knot which can lead to further knots if the wrong threads are pulled.' While poverty is objectively a matter of absolute deficiencies, we explain why the way in which poverty is perceived by the poor themselves requires looking at poverty as a relative, subjective, dynamic and systemic phenomenon. We conceptualize marginality as patterns of causal complexes in societal and spatial dimensions. These causal complexes can, for instance, comprise different types of livelihood systems or different types of poverty traps. They include proximate as well as underlying causes of extreme poverty and specifically address social exclusion, restrained access to assets, opportunities and transport, communication and public services infrastructure. An analytical framework is developed, outlining the various steps required for the analysis of marginality in a systematic, re]iterative and participatory manner, involving those affected by extreme poverty themselves. From each causal complex of marginality, leverage points can be identified which match with specific intervention packages, relevant for livelihood management, policy formulation and implementation. The approach to the investigation of extreme poverty is applied and relevant for managing change towards inclusive development. Points of entry for public and private investments are being identified

Governing of Agro-Ecosystem Services

In this paper we incorporate interdisciplinary New Institutional and Transaction Costs Economics (combining Economics, Organization, Law, Sociology, Behavioral and Political Sciences), and suggest a framework for analysis of mechanisms of governance of agro-ecosystem services. Firstly, we present a new approach for analysis and improvement of governance of agro-ecosystem services. It takes into account the role of specific institutional environment (formal and informal rules, distribution of rights, systems of enforcement); and behavioral characteristics of individual agents (preferences, bounded rationality, opportunism, risk aversion, trust); and transactions costs associated with ecosystem services and their critical factors (uncertainty, frequency, asset specificity, appropriability); and comparative efficiency of market, private, public and hybrid modes of governance. Secondly, we identify spectrum of market and private forms of governance of agro-ecosystem services (voluntary initiatives; market trade with eco-products and services; special contractual arrangements; collective actions; vertical integration), and evaluate their efficiency and potential. Next, we identify needs for public involvement in the governance of agro-ecosystem services, and assess comparative efficiency of alternative modes of public interventions (assistance, regulations, funding, taxing, provision, partnership, property right modernization). Finally, we analyze structure and efficiency of governance of agro-ecosystems services in Zapadna Stara Planina – a mountainous region in North-West Bulgaria. Post-communist transition and EU integration has brought about significant changes in the state and governance of agro-ecosystems services. Newly evolved market, private and public governance has led to significant improvement of part of agro-ecosystems services introducing modern eco-standards and public support, enhancing environmental stewardship, desintensifying production, recovering landscape and traditional productions, diversifying quality, products, and services. At the same time, novel governance is associated with some new challenges such as unsustainable exploitation, lost biodiversity, land degradation, water and air contamination. What is more, implementation of EU common policies would have no desired impact on agro-ecosystem services unless special measures are taken to improve management of public programs, and extend public support to dominating small-scale and subsistence farms