| 1. |
-
Unraveling the logics of landscape
- 2014
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Despite conceptual oscillations through times, the concept of landscape remains highly subjective, whereupon unraveling its 'logics' opens up to a plurality of interpretations. Accordingly, by focusing on the interconnections present in the non-haphazard production of landscape, this publication elaborates on how the rural landscape is valued, monitored, changed, harbored, used and misused, be it through actions, representations or metaphors. This book covers a broad range of topics, with contributions from scholars from more than 30 countries.
|
|
| 2. |
- Almered Olsson, Gunilla, 1951, et al.
(författare)
-
Food systems sustainability: For whom and by whom? – An examination of different 'food system change' viewpoints
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Development Research Conference 2018: “Rethinking development”, 22–23 August 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The United Nations identifies the food crisis as one of the primary overarching challenges facing the international community. Different stakeholders in the food system have widely different perspectives and interests, and challenging structural issues, such as the power differentials among them, remain largely unexamined. These challenges make rational discourse among food system actors from different disciplines, sectors and levels difficult. These challenges can often prevent them from working together effectively to find innovative ways to respond to food security challenges. This means that finding solutions to intractable and stuck issues, such as the food crisis often stall, not at implementation, but at the point of problem identification. Food system sustainability means very different things to different food system actors. These differences in no way undermine or discount the work carried out by these players. However, making these differences explicit is an essential activity that would serve to deepen theoretical and normative project outcomes. Would the impact and reach of different food projects differ if these differences were made explicit? The purpose of this initial part of a wider food system research project is not to search for difference or divergence, with the aim of critique, but rather to argue that by making these differences explicit, the overall food system project engagement will be made more robust, more inclusive and more encompassing. This paper starts with some discussion on the different food system perspectives, across scales, regions and sectors but focuses primarily on the design of processes used to understand these divergent and at times contradictory views of what a sustainable food system may be. This paper draws on ongoing work within the Mistra Urban Futures project, using the food system projects in cities as diverse as Cape Town, Manchester, Gothenburg and Kisumu as sites for this enquiry.
|
|
| 3. |
- kaiser, matthias, et al.
(författare)
-
Food ethics: a Wide Field in Need of Dialogue
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Food Ethics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2364-6853 .- 2364-6861. ; 1:1, s. 1-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are a few things which are obviously a central part of everyone’s life, at all times, and all over the globe, and which are crucial for our wellbeing. Food is, like sex, such an essential ingredient of our life, an ingredient of what we expect of a good life. What is on our plates is always a result of nature and culture, to the extent that it may seem hard to find commonalities in our global diet. As academics we have asked different questions about food. For a long time these questions have been dominated by the quest to secure enough food and to improve what we have got. It is, however, noteworthy that we also always have asked the normative questions in relation to food: Is it right to eat this kind of food? Do we produce our food the right way? Is there injustice and bad power in the way we distribute the food? Are we lied to in regard to what is on our plate? When we enter the normative realm, we enter the realm of ethics, understood in a wide and comprehensive way. As all normative questions, we need to be well informed by knowledge about how the world is, and what is at stake and for whom. We call this food ethics. Food ethics raises issues and asks questions in relation to food all along the value chains. It also puts things into relation with each other. At the same time it disentangles complex heaps of factors and pieces of knowledge, and looks for guidance. It is issue driven, rather than interest driven. It unites scholars with farmers and fishermen, chefs with industry, consumers with lawyers, and food citizens with authorities. As a young field within academia it is important to guard against efforts to appropriate the field for narrow interests, and instead to combine the natural and social sciences in analysing and addressing the challenges. We do not necessarily call for the grand ethical theory that explains it all, but rather start with the simple things in a very complex overall picture. We want to draw attention to ethically significant facts, discuss problematic developments, point to genuine dilemmas, learn about food relevant contexts and history, and look for individual, professional and institutional responses to ethical challenges and issues. Thus, one of the missions of this new journal Food Ethics, is to widen the scope and the discussion on the topic, and to be inclusive in terms of who has something to contribute to the field. There is no escaping from confronting very complex issues when it comes to managing one of the most basic needs we all have, food. As editors of this new journal we maintain that food ethics deserves special and inter-disciplinary attention by researchers, that it is not sufficiently dealt with by what is currently known as bioethics, that it is intrinsically connected with the so-called grand societal challenges of our time, that it is a globally important field which demands particular attention to complexities and uncertainties, as much as it needs to be explicit about what values are at stake and for whom, and which normative principles it touches upon.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Almered Olsson, Gunilla, 1951, et al.
(författare)
-
Food systems sustainability: For whom and by whom? – An examination of different 'food system change' viewpoints
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Development Research Conference 2018: “Rethinking development”, 22–23 August 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The United Nations identifies the food crisis as one of the primary overarching challenges facing the international community. Different stakeholders in the food system have widely different perspectives and interests, and challenging structural issues, such as the power differentials among them, remain largely unexamined. These challenges make rational discourse among food system actors from different disciplines, sectors and levels difficult. These challenges can often prevent them from working together effectively to find innovative ways to respond to food security challenges. This means that finding solutions to intractable and stuck issues, such as the food crisis often stall, not at implementation, but at the point of problem identification. Food system sustainability means very different things to different food system actors. These differences in no way undermine or discount the work carried out by these players. However, making these differences explicit is an essential activity that would serve to deepen theoretical and normative project outcomes. Would the impact and reach of different food projects differ if these differences were made explicit? The purpose of this initial part of a wider food system research project is not to search for difference or divergence, with the aim of critique, but rather to argue that by making these differences explicit, the overall food system project engagement will be made more robust, more inclusive and more encompassing. This paper starts with some discussion on the different food system perspectives, across scales, regions and sectors but focuses primarily on the design of processes used to understand these divergent and at times contradictory views of what a sustainable food system may be. This paper draws on ongoing work within the Mistra Urban Futures project, using the food system projects in cities as diverse as Cape Town, Manchester, Gothenburg and Kisumu as sites for this enquiry.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Sandin, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
Technology Neutrality in European Regulation of GMOs
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ethics, Policy & Environment. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2155-0085 .- 2155-0093. ; 1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objections to the current EU regulatory system on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in terms of high cost and lack of consistency, speed and scientific underpinning have prompted proposals for a more technology-neutral system. We sketch the conceptual background of the notion of ‘technology neutrality’ and propose a refined definition of the term. The proposed definition implies that technology neutrality of a regulatory system is a gradual and multidimensional feature. We use the definition to analyze two regulatory reform proposals: One proposal from the Netherlands for improving the exemption mechanism for GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC, and one from the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, outlining a new stratified risk assessment procedure. While both proposals offer some degree of improved technology neutrality in some dimensions compared to current EU regulation, in some extents and dimensions, they do not. We conclude that proposals for more technology-neutral regulation of GMOs need, first, to make explicit to what extent and in what dimensions the proposal improves neutrality and, second, to present arguments supporting that these specific improvements constitute desirable policy change against the background of objections to current policy.
|
|
| 8. |
- Sandström, Annica, et al.
(författare)
-
Disputed policy change: the role of external events, policy learning and negotiated agreements in coastal and marine conservation planning.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Paper presented at the 2018 conference of the European Consortium for Political Research.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- What are the driving forces behind and obstacles to policy change in disputed policy processes? The general purpose of this paper is to explore and explain policy change – a major and debated issue in contemporary policy research – in the context of Swedish coastal and marine conservation planning. The paper draws on the advocacy coalition framework that accentuates the critical role of coalitions for the outcome of policy processes and identifies three primarily drivers to policy change: triggering key events, policy learning and negotiations via brokerage. Three national park planning processes, with divergent results, are mapped and analysed over 30 years time through a document- and interview study. What combination of factors in relation to policy coalitions – triggering events, policy learning and negotiated agreements – can explain divergent outcomes in the studied national park planning processes? The empirical analysis identified all three factors as important for the turnout. Triggering events, in combination with either negotiated agreements or policy learning, were the main pathways to change and our findings suggest that the type of policy beliefs around which the competing coalitions are formed influenced the specific route taken The results of the study contribute with knowledge on disputed policy change and give rise to new intriguing questions; they provide an empirical illustration of political conflicts and their solutions in nature conservation, and generate insights critical to the implementation of international and national conservation policy in multi-level governance systems.
|
|
| 9. |
- Sandin, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
Technology neutrality and regulation of agricultural biotechnology
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Professionals in food chains: ethics, rules and responsibility. EurSafe 2018, Vienna, Austria 13 – 16 June 2018 / edited by: Svenja Springer, Herwig Grimm. - Wageningen, Netherlands : Wageningen Academic Publishers. - 9789086863211
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Agricultural biotechnology, in particular genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is subject to regulation in many areas of the world, not least in the European Union (EU). A number of authors have argued that those regulatory processes are unfair, costly, and slow and that regulation therefore should move in the direction of increased ‘technology neutrality’. The issue is becoming more pressing, especially since new biotechnologies such as CRISPR increasingly blur the regulatory distinction between GMOs and non-GMOs. This paper offers a definition of technology neutrality, uses the EU GMO regulation as a starting point for exploring technology neutrality, and presents distinctions between variants of the call for technology neutral GMO regulation in the EU.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
