Published Date November 2005, Vol.7(6):831–847,doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.04.001 Author Sten Nilsson, Forestry Project, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, Laxenburg, Austria Received 26 August 2003. Revised 27 February 2004. Accepted 20 April 2004. Available online 14 July 2004. Abstract A long range of studies are found on forest and forest sector policies although nearly all of them deal with the policy instruments in a descriptive way. Policy instruments are just one necessary element in the framework for efficient policy setting in the forest sector. Very few studies deal with this framework. This study attempts to define a generic framework for policy reform towards sustainable development of the forest sector based on analyses and experiences of policy work in different countries. However, it should be stressed that there is no clear-cut generic framework that exists which is applicable for every country. Any generic framework developed leads to generalizations and invites justifiable criticism. However, analysis of generic frameworks in countries with economies in transition and in developing countries shows that elements of the policy framework are missing and that different elements of the policy frameworks are disconnected, incoherent, and thereby the policies implemented do not lead to the desired outcome. Keywords
iARGE Naturschutzforschung und angewandte Vegetationsökologie, Österreichisches Netzwerk Umweltforschung, Netzknoten, Biodiversität: Theobaldgasse 16/4, A-1060 Wien, Austria
jCEH/BioForum, Fons v.d. Heydenstraat 57, NL-5534 AT Netersel, The Netherlands
kDCEA-FCT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, PT-2825-516 Campus de Caparica, Portugal
lDipartimento di Scienze dell'Ambiente Forestale e delle sue Risorso (DISAFRI), Università della Tuscia, Via S. Camillo de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
mPlant Research International, Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 16, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
nForest Enterprise Agency, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT UK
oInstitute of Zoology and Botany, Estonian Agricultural University, Riia 181, Tartu, 51014 Estonia
Received 13 October 2003. Revised 19 March 2004. Accepted 20 April 2004. Available online 14 July 2004.
Abstract
In this paper, circumstances where various human activities and interests clash with the conservation of forest biodiversity are examined, with particular focus on the drivers behind the conflicts. After identifying past and current human-related threats potentially leading to conflicts in forests, the paper will focus on conflict management and monitoring, with an emphasis on inclusionary stakeholder networks and a range of approaches towards sustainable land use. Three dimensions of conflicts are examined: substance (‘how things are’), procedure (‘how things are done’), and relationships (‘how people behave’). These relations will relate to three conflict management approaches: (1) technical, which may contribute to reduce or solve the conflict acting on the ‘substance’ dimension, (2) political, which may influence the ‘procedure’ dimension of the conflict establishing principles or rules, and (3) cultural, which may affect the ‘relationship’ dimension of the conflict. Finally, a general model of adaptive conflict management emphasising communication among the parties and a participatory approach that involves monitoring of the conflict resolution outcomes is proposed. The recognition that strong perceptions among stakeholders have the potential to aggravate conflicts is central to the concept of a inclusionary conflict management framework, improved communication between all stakeholders, and better awareness of the context of the conflicts is emphasised.
Published Date September 2015, Vol.191:197–204,doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.015 Author
Luca Corno a
Roberto Pilu b
Fulvia Tambone a
Barbara Scaglia a
Fabrizio Adani a,,
aDi.S.A.A. – Gruppo Ricicla – Biomass and Bioenergy Laboratory – DiSAA, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milan, Italy
bDi.S.A.A. – Gruppo Ricicla – Genetic Laboratory – DiSAA, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milan, Italy
Received 31 March 2015. Revised 7 May 2015. Accepted 8 May 2015. Available online 13 May 2015.
Highlights
Giant cane is a promising energy crop producing biogas.
•
Biogas lab-scale tests compared giant cane and corn.
•
Because of high biomass production, giant cane produced much more biogas than corn Ha−1.
•
The use of giant cane allows the strong reduction of cost in producing electricity or biomethane.
Abstract
Giant cane is a promising non-food crop for biogas production. Giant cane and corn silages coming from full-scale fields were tested, in mixtures with pig slurry, for biomethane production by a continuous stirred tank lab-scale-reactor (CSTR) approach. Results indicated that giant cane produced less biomethane than corn, i.e. 174 ± 10 N m3CH4Mg−1TS−1and 245 ± 26 N m3CH4Mg−1TS−1, respectively. On the other hand, because of its high field biomass production, the biogas obtainable per Ha was higher for giant cane than for corn, i.e. 12,292 N m3CH4Ha−1and 4549 N m3CH4Ha−1, respectively. Low energetic and agronomic inputs for giant cane cultivation led to a considerable reduction in the costs of producing both electricity and biomethane, i.e. 0.50 € Nm−3CH4−1and 0.81 € Nm−3CH4−1, and 0.10 € kW hEE−1and 0.19 € kW hEE−1for biomethane and electricity production, and for giant cane and corn mixtures respectively.