Grassroots scalar politics: Insights from peasant water struggles in the Ecuadorian and Peruvian Andes
Hoogesteger van Dijk, J.D. ; Verzijl, A. - \ 2015
Geoforum 62 (2015). - ISSN 0016-7185 - p. 13 - 23.
irrigation system - user organizations - latin-america - governance - ecology - bolivia - justice - rights - construction - reflections
Based on insights from peasant and indigenous communities’ struggles for water in Andean Peru and Ecuador, in this article we argue that the defense of grassroots interests -and with it the advancement of more equitable governance- greatly hinges on the capacity of these groups to engage in grassroots scalar politics. With increasing pressure on water resources in the Andes, the access to water of many rural peasant and indigenous communities is being threatened. The growing realization that their access to water and related interests are embedded in broader regional and national politics, legal frameworks and water policies, has led many communities and peasant water user associations to engage in networks and create alliances with other water users, governmental institutions and non-governmental actors. To better understand these (and other) grassroots struggles and strategies, in this contribution we develop the concept of grassroots scalar politics, which we use as a lens to analyze two case studies. In Ecuador we present how water users of the province of Chimborazo have defended their interests through the consolidation of the Provincial Water Users Associations’ Federation Interjuntas-Chimborazo and its networks. Then we focus on how with the support of Interjuntas-Chimborazo the Water Users Association of the Chambo irrigation system defended their historical water allocation. In Peru we analyze the conformation and achievements of the federative Water Users Association of Ayacucho (JUDRA) and present how the community of Ccharhuancho in the region of Huancavelica, managed to defend its waters and territory against the coastal irrigation sector of Ica
“How can I help you?” Perceived service orientation of tax authorities and tax compliance
Gangl, K. ; Muehlbacher, S. ; Groot, M. de; Goslinga, S. ; Hofmann, E. ; Kogler, C. ; Antonides, G. ; Kirchler, E. - \ 2013
FinanzArchiv 69 (2013)4. - ISSN 0015-2218 - p. 487 - 510.
slippery slope framework - trust - evasion - justice - cooperation - morale - satisfaction - governance - indicators - behavior
Research on tax behavior has recognized the necessity of changing tax authorities’ approach from enforcement to service orientation. However, empirical investigations of the impact of perceived service orientation on tax compliance are scarce. The present study draws conclusions from survey data of representative samples of 807 Dutch private taxpayers and 1377 entrepreneurs. Perceived service orientation was found strongly related to tax compliance. Furthermore, the link between perceived service orientation and tax compliance is mediated by perceived trustworthiness of authorities. We are confident that taxpayers who perceive a greater service orientation will be more willing to contribute their taxes.
|Aguas Robadas: despojo hídrico y movilización social
Arroyo, A. ; Boelens, R.A. - \ 2013
Quito : Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) (Agua y sociedad : Sección justicia hídrica 19) - ISBN 9789942091543 - 391
waterbeheer - waterbeleid - recht - waterrechten - politieke bewegingen - duurzame ontwikkeling - justitie - wetgeving - latijns-amerika - ontwikkelingslanden - wereld - water management - water policy - law - water rights - political movements - sustainable development - justice - legislation - latin america - developing countries - world
Life sciences, intellectual property regimes and global justice
Timmermann, C.A. - \ 2013
Wageningen University. Promotor(en): Michiel Korthals, co-promotor(en): Henk van den Belt. - S.l. : s.n. - ISBN 9789461737540 - 212
intellectuele eigendomsrechten - ethiek - levenswetenschappen - justitie - innovaties - filosofie - intellectual property rights - ethics - life sciences - justice - innovations - philosophy
In this thesis we have examined the complex interaction between intellectual property rights, life sciences and global justice. Science and the innovations developed in its wake have an enormous effect on our daily lives, providing countless opportunities but also raising numerous problems of justice. The complexity of a problem however does not liberate society as a whole from moral responsibilities. Our intellectual property regimes clash at various points with human rights law and commonly held notions of justice.
CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe
Gandiwa, E. ; Heitkonig, I.M.A. ; Lokhorst, A.M. ; Prins, H.H.T. ; Leeuwis, C. - \ 2013
Ecology and Society 18 (2013)4. - ISSN 1708-3087 - 15 p.
health-promotion - psychology - dimensions - framework - ecosystem - justice - science - life
Human-wildlife conflicts are a global problem, and are occurring in many countries where human and wildlife requirements overlap. Conflicts are particularly common near protected areas where societal unrest is large. To ease conflict, integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) have been implemented. The Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) is an example of an ICDP. We hypothesized that (i) a higher perceived effectiveness of CAMPFIRE would be associated with a decline in human-wildlife conflicts, and (ii) local communities with higher perceived effectiveness of CAMPFIRE programs would have more favorable attitudes towards problematic wild animals. Four focus group discussions and interviews with 236 respondents were conducted in four local communities adjacent to northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe from December 2010 to August 2011. Moreover, we included data on recorded incidences of human-wildlife conflicts and CAMPFIRE financial returns to study communities between 2000 and 2010. Our results indicate that local communities showed considerable differences in how CAMPFIRE effectiveness was perceived. Local communities with higher ratings of CAMPFIRE effectiveness generally perceived a decline in human-wildlife conflicts, although some people had experienced problems with wild animals. Attitudes towards main problematic wild animals varied across the study communities and were partly associated with perceived CAMPFIRE effectiveness. Our findings partly support both of our study hypotheses. Contextual factors across the four local communities seemed to influence the perceived effectiveness of CAMPFIRE programs and attitudes towards problematic wildlife species. We recommend that decisions and actions regarding the control of problem animals be devolved to the community level in order to help reduce human-wildlife conflicts in community-based natural resources management programs.
What is Fair and Equitable Benefit-sharing?
Jonge, B. de - \ 2011
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2011)2. - ISSN 1187-7863 - p. 127 - 146.
intellectual property - genetic-resources - biodiversity - justice - time
"Fair and equitable benefit-sharing" is one of the objectives of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. In essence, benefit-sharing holds that countries, farmers, and indigenous communities that grant access to their plant genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge should share in the benefits that users derive from these resources. But what exactly is understood by "fair" and "equitable" in this context? Neither term is defined in the international treaties. A complicating factor, furthermore, is that different motivations and perspectives exist with respect to the notion of benefit-sharing itself. This paper looks at six different approaches to benefit-sharing that can be extracted from the current debates on "Access and Benefit-Sharing." These approaches form the basis of a philosophical reflection in which the different connotations of "fair and equitable" are considered, by analyzing the main principles of justice involved. Finally, the various principles are brought together in order to draw some conclusions as to how a fair and equitable benefit-sharing mechanism might best be realized. This results in several recommendations for policymakers.
|Justicia Hídrica: acumulación, conflicto y acción social
Boelens, R.A. ; Cremers, L. ; Zwarteveen, M.Z. - \ 2011
Impreso en Perú : Justicia Hídrica, IEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Fondo Editorial PUCP (Serie Agua y sociedad : Sección justicia hidrica ) - ISBN 9789972513121 - 476
watervoorraden - toegangsrecht - water - conflict - sociologie - waterbeheer - overheidsbeleid - liberalisatie - justitie - maatschappelijk middenveld - latijns-amerika - water resources - right of access - water - conflict - sociology - water management - government policy - liberalization - justice - civil society - latin america
Perceiving Pure Evil: The Influence of Cognitive Load and Prototypical Evilness on Demonizing
Prooijen, J.W. van; Veer, E. van de - \ 2010
Social Justice Research 23 (2010)4. - ISSN 0885-7466 - p. 259 - 271.
social categorizations - punishment - judgment - justice
The present research sought to investigate the psychological dynamics underlying demonizing, that is, the tendency to see others as personifications of pure evilness. Building on an integrative theoretical framework, it is hypothesized that the extent to which a perpetrator matches prototypical expectations of evilness shapes demonizing responses to offenders particularly when cognitive resources are impaired. In two experiments, participants were asked to memorize either a difficult or an easy telephone number (cognitive load vs. control), and were then asked to evaluate a perpetrator who murdered a young woman (Experiment 1) or who kidnapped a child (Experiment 2). Results revealed that the extent to which the description of the perpetrator was consistent with a prototypical evilness scheme influenced demonizing particularly under conditions of cognitive load. It is concluded that impairment of cognitive resources increases the influence of prototypical evilness on demonizing
Plants, genes and justice : an inquiry into fair and equitable benefit-sharing
Jonge, B. de - \ 2009
Wageningen University. Promotor(en): Michiel Korthals, co-promotor(en): Niels Louwaars. - [S.l. : S.n. - ISBN 9789085854722 - 251
biotechnologie - voedselbiotechnologie - genetische bronnen van plantensoorten - intellectuele eigendomsrechten - nuttig gebruik - efficiëntie - morele waarden - ethiek - plantenbiotechnologie - benefit sharing - justitie - moraal - sociale ethiek - biotechnology - food biotechnology - plant genetic resources - intellectual property rights - utilization - efficiency - moral values - ethics - plant biotechnology - benefit sharing - justice - moral - social ethics
Since the advent of biotechnology, plant genetic resources have become more valuable as possible sources for new products and inventions. With knowledge about the genetic make-up and functioning of a plant, biotechnologists can identify and isolate genes with interesting traits which, after long research trajectories, may result in new medicines, improved crops or other products. The initial leads towards such new products are sometimes provided by the traditional knowledge that local and indigenous communities have acquired about their natural environment over centuries. At the other site of the spectrum, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) play an important role in stimulating the research and development process of new biotechnologies and products, by providing innovators with time-limited exclusive rights to exploit their inventions. Altogether, the biotechnology industry has grown rapidly over the last decades. The question, however, is whether also we have all benefited from it.
Unfortunately, we have to conclude that, as with most other new industries and technologies, biotechnology has not provided many benefits to the poor up to now. Notwithstanding the repeated promises that biotechnology can – and will – improve global health and food security, almost all research to date has focused on the development of medicinal and food products for commercial markets, mostly in the developed world, with very few serious investments having been made in order to tackle the major diseases and improve crops in the poorer parts of the world. This is despite the fact that many of the genetic traits that are used in new products and biotechnologies find their origin in the enormous biodiversity of developing countries, and/or the rich knowledge of this diversity of local communities in these countries. For this reason, developing countries and indigenous communities have become increasingly vocal in demanding compensation for the use of their plant resources in the new biotechnology industry.
This demand became backed by international law in 1992, as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) declared that access to genetic resources is subject to “sharing in a fair and equitable way the results of research and development and the benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic resources with the Contracting Party providing such resources.” (Article 15.7). With respect to the knowledge, innovations and practices of traditional communities, the CBD also proclaims that each country, subject to its national legislation, shall “encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices” (Article 8j). Since then, a total of 191 countries have become signatories to the Convention and committed themselves to these objectives. Few of these, however, have implemented this legislation effectively in such a way as to actually enable and facilitate the sharing of substantial benefits. Furthermore, the negotiations on an International Regime on Access and Benefit-Sharing, which was called for by the Parties to the CBD in 2002, are progressing very slowly.
What are the reasons for this lack of progress in the national implementation and international negotiations on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS)? This question has been subject of discussion in a growing number of studies that aim to analyze the legal, practical, or socio-political difficulties involved in current ABS regulations and agreements. Very few studies, however, have focused on the ethical problems and challenges. Even though questions about who decides which benefits are to be shared with whom and in what way are obviously ethical concerns, the current problems with ABS have rarely been approached from an ethical perspective. This research project aims to improve this situation by investigating and initiating debate on some of the ethical dimensions of benefit-sharing in the field of plant genetic resources, related knowledge and IPRs, with special attention given to the agricultural and public research sector.
Taking a pragmatist ethics point of view, this research project focuses primarily on analyzing the normative positions and argumentations within the current debates on benefit-sharing, and reflecting on the meaning of, and possibilities for, fair and equitable benefit-sharing. Direction and guidance for the project are facilitated through research questions focusing attention on: the origination of the concept and purpose of benefit-sharing; the major difficulties complicating the present situation in respect of benefit-sharing policies; the normative positions and objectives incorporated in international legislation, organizational policies and stakeholders’ perceptions of benefit-sharing; the relationship between benefit-sharing and intellectual property rights; and the question of fair and equitable benefit-sharing itself.
The research is based on extensive literature studies, complemented with over 75 semi-structured interviews in Kenya, Peru and the Netherlands, and visits to meetings of the CBD, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and international workshops on ABS in Germany and India. Furthermore, an international conference was organized in the Netherlands to examine and discuss with relevant stakeholders the impact of IPRs on the possibilities for public research institutes sited in developed countries to share their knowledge and technologies with partners in poorer countries. Altogether, this has resulted in five articles that have been either published in or submitted to peer-reviewed journals, and two conference documents, which together with an introductory and concluding chapter are presented in this thesis.
Vicissitudes of benefit-sharing of crop genetic resources: Downstream and upstream
Following an introductory first chapter, Chapter 2 sets out with a historic overview of the origin and development of the concept of benefit-sharing in international law. We see that benefit-sharing was initially included in international treaties on the moon (1979) and the sea (1982), in which it was linked to the notion of a common heritage of humankind and referred to equitable distribution – i.e. distributive justice. Because the resources of the moon and deep seabed were considered not to be the property of any State or individual, it was decided that the benefits that are derived from those resources should be shared with humankind as a whole. With its introduction in the CBD, however, benefit-sharing has mainly become an instrument of compensation and refers to the idea of commutative justice – i.e. justice in exchange. Based on the principle that countries have sovereign rights over their own biological resources, States can regulate access to their resources and negotiate the accompanying benefit-sharing conditions. It is shown, however, that this model does not suit most plant genetic resources – and certainly not crop genetic resources. On the contrary, it has had harmful effects on the agricultural sector insofar as it has functioned to obstruct the international transfer of genetic resources on which the agricultural sector historically depends.
In order to better meet the needs of the agricultural sector, the FAO developed a Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing, which was introduced in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR) in 2001. In line with the general objectives of the ITPGR, but also of the CBD, we argue that benefit-sharing should not be based merely on the idea of justice in exchange, but rather on a broader model, one that is grounded also in the concept of distributive justice. This has repercussions for the application of benefit-sharing. By distinguishing between ‘downstream’ models of benefit-sharing, in which benefits are shared at the end of the research and development pipeline, and models where ‘upstream’ in the research process stakeholders try to balance their interests with respect to the benefits that will be shared later on, we show that benefit-sharing may well be a tool to contribute to world food security and global justice.
A diversity of approaches to benefit-sharing
Chapter 3 provides an overview of, in total, seven fundamentally different approaches to the issue of benefit-sharing in the field of plant genetic resources. The approaches portray the different ideas that exist about benefit-sharing, about its underlying principles, its goals and the preferred mechanisms to reach these goals. These different approaches are based on the following perceptions, or motivations:
- The South-North imbalance in resource allocation and exploitation
- The need to conserve biodiversity
- Biopiracy and the imbalance in intellectual property rights
- A shared interest in food security
- An imbalance between IP protection and the public interest
- Protecting the cultural identity of traditional communities
- Protecting the interests of the biotechnology industry in ABS negotiations.
By comparing the different approaches in the second part of this chapter, the major stumbling blocks in the current ABS negotiations (at both national and international levels) become apparent. This comparative analysis shows that the variety of motivations leads to widely differing mechanisms for benefit-sharing and significantly different expectations of the nature and value of the benefits to be shared. A further complicating factor in this is that the different approaches cannot be simply translated one-to-one into stakeholder positions. Stakeholders often assume to employ a combination of two or more different approaches. However, by explicating the different approaches, the article aims to increase insight into the different viewpoints that people and institutions adopt, in order to contribute to a better informed and more balanced debate in which policy-makers and other stakeholders have a raised awareness of the various interests involved and issues at stake.
What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing?
Chapter 4 builds upon these different approaches insofar as it aims to investigate what exactly is understood by “fair” and “equitable” benefit-sharing, and how a fair and equitable benefit-sharing mechanism might best be realized. The different approaches to benefit-sharing outlined form the basis of a philosophical reflection and are discussed in parallel with the main principles of justice involved. These include the principle of commutative justice and, under the domain of distributive justice, the principles of entitlement, desert, need and equity. In addition to these criteria that may guide the allocation of benefits, the principles of procedural and cognitive justice also are discussed, as essential to the promotion of fair and equitable benefit-sharing.
An important conclusion resulting from this reflection is that the bilateral exchange model of ABS in the CBD is in need of fundamental change. At present, it is practically impossible for countries and communities to secure a fair exchange for the plant genetic resources found within their territories, or for the traditional knowledge present in their culture. As an alternative, a model is proposed in which benefit-sharing obligations are not based on the specific exchange of these resources, but on their utilization. An advantage of such model is that it emphasizes the responsibilities for benefit-sharing at the user side. This is further supported by the principle of equity, elemental to benefit-sharing, which holds that the strongest parties have the biggest responsibilities to make a fair and equitable benefit-sharing mechanism work.
Between sharing and protecting: Public research on genetic resources in the year of the potato
Chapter 5 analyses the policies and environment of two public research institutes working with potato genetic resources, the International Potato Centre (CIP) in Peru and Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) in the Netherlands. The two institutes are situated in totally different environments, but both are increasingly confronted with an array of (inter)national regulations, interests and perspectives that surround the genetic material, (traditional) knowledge and technologies with which they work. While CIP, as member of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), aims to promote the sharing of potato genetic resources throughout the world for the sake of food security, it is situated in a country that is deeply ambivalent about the sharing goal and where concerns about biopiracy proliferate. Wageningen UR, on the other hand, is concerned with supporting the Dutch potato sector but it has to make sure that its IP and valorization strategies do not impede its research for development goals.
Both institutes are continuously weighing up their own interests and those of the various stakeholders they work with in order to strike a balance between policies geared towards sharing and those aimed at protection. However, in the present context where poor but gene-rich countries and communities, as well as industrialized countries and biotechnology companies are all mainly concerned with protecting their resources in order to reap the benefits and preclude misappropriation, it is incumbent on public research institutes to dare to share. For that purpose, they have to develop new ways of sharing and protecting in order to adhere to their mission and best serve the public interest.
Reconsidering intellectual property policies in public research: A symposium
Chapter 6 contains the start document and report of the international conference on “Reconsidering Intellectual Property Policies in Public Research: Sharing the benefits of biotechnology with developing countries” organized at Wageningen UR in April 2008. The start document describes the increasing role of IPRs in biotechnology research and the difficult process that public research institutes face in seeking to obtain access to IP protected materials while working on biotechnologies destined for the poor. The problems involved range from analyzing complex IPR landscapes to negotiating free or affordable access licenses with parties that have little to gain from such deals. At the same time, however, public researchers are also increasingly stimulated to protect their own knowledge and inventions – so an important question for public research institutes is how they can (and should) go about preventing their IP policy from hampering innovation in poor countries.
These issues were discussed at the international conference, which brought stakeholders together from fields as diverse as plant sciences, social and development studies, intellectual property offices, research funding organizations, the private seed industry, and civil society. The report describes the various discussions, presentations and main findings of the conference, which also focused on possible strategies to help public research institutes to secure their freedom to operate in the field of research for development, such as patent pools, humanitarian licenses and open-source biotechnology.
Valorizing science: Whose values?
Chapter 7 is a viewpoint article that reflects further upon the current trend towards valorization, i.e. the creation of economic value, in public research. It asks, more specifically, whether the focus on economic indicators is the optimal policy for science to contribute to society, or for the advancement of science itself. Hereby, it looks back on the Wageningen conference and its central subject matter, but now with special attention given to the organization process and the difficulties of bringing different stakeholders together to discuss complex problems and their possible solutions.
The issue of valorization in public research involves a wide variety of easily conflicting views and interests, which requires continued input and dialogue between the different stakeholders in order to come to workable solutions. It is shown that this is not always easy to accomplish, for example because stakeholders may already disagree about the problem definition itself: a problem for one group may be a triviality or even benefit for another, and this even within the same institute. But as the current valorization trend influences and impresses upon the role of public research itself, the research institutes as well as individual researchers will have to invest the necessary time and effort to reflect on their impact and (long term) implications.
Towards Justice in Benefit-Sharing
Chapter 8 is the concluding chapter that brings the major findings of this research project together. Without repeating all the conclusions of the separate chapters, it aims to give an overview by reflecting on the research questions set out at the beginning in Chapter 1 and the general conclusions that have come out of this. Given the many practical (and ethical) complexities involved, and the easily diverging interests and perspectives when it comes to the sharing and/or protection of plant genetic resources, (traditional) knowledge and intellectual property rights, we can predict that benefit-sharing will continue to arouse much discussion and debate in the years to come. In this thesis, some fundamental changes to the current exchange model in the CBD are proposed in order to move away from the current deadlock in the international ABS negotiations, and to work towards a fair and equitable outcome. It must be clear that benefit-sharing entails burden-sharing, and that a successful implementation of fair and equitable benefit-sharing requires the continued commitment of all stakeholders involved on the international, national and local levels. But with such commitment, benefit-sharing can set a new standard of justice in how countries, companies, public research institutes and indigenous communities interact with each other.
Aguas Rebeldes. Imágenes de la lucha por el agua y la justicia en los Andes
Boelens, R.A. ; Parra, R. - \ 2009
Quito : IEP & IMPREFEPP - ISBN 9789978302149 - 369
waterbeheer - recht - richtlijnen (directives) - plattelandsgemeenschappen - politiek - wetgeving - cultuur - weerstand - collectieve overeenkomsten - ecuador - peru - bolivia - chili - watervoorraden - waterrechten - inheemse volkeren - identiteit - politieke bewegingen - justitie - andes - water management - law - directives - rural communities - politics - legislation - culture - resistance - collective agreements - ecuador - peru - bolivia - chile - water resources - water rights - indigenous people - identity - political movements - justice - andes
Fed up with the right to food? : The Netherlands' policies and practices regarding the human right to adequate food
Hospes, O. ; Meulen, B.M.J. van der - \ 2009
Wageningen : Wageningen Academic Publishers (European Institute for Food Law series no. 3) - ISBN 9789086861071 - 192
voedselvoorziening - voedsel - voedselconsumptie - mensenrechten - morele waarden - ethiek - overheidsbeleid - beleid inzake voedsel - nederland - justitie - moraal - sociale ethiek - food supply - food - food consumption - human rights - moral values - ethics - government policy - food policy - netherlands - justice - moral - social ethics
There is no one in this world who would deny the importance of access to adequate food for every human being. In fact, access to food has been declared a human right in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In spite of the right to food to be more than half a century old, many are not aware, misunderstand or even marginalize this human right. This book serves two purposes and many audiences. First, it is meant for those who want to get a better understanding of the right to food and how this right has been developed in international law. Second, it also explains why this human right has been marginalized by one of the richest countries in the world: the Netherlands. As such this unique collection of articles provides an exciting view on the making of law and policy, with contributions from lawyers, sociologists and human rights defenders
Fairness judgments in household decision making
Antonides, G. ; Kroft, M. - \ 2005
Journal of Economic Psychology 26 (2005)6. - ISSN 0167-4870 - p. 902 - 913.
perceptions - preferences - justice
The behavioral economic study of fairness was applied to household decision making. A sample of household partners judged the fairness of a number of hypothetical decisions of a household partner, varying in the context of the decision. Decisions made by the partner to make a large personal expenditure or to reduce time spent on household chores were considered by the subjects as more fair if the outcome was framed as a forgone gain then if it was framed as a straight loss. Partners¿ decisions to reduce household chores were also considered as more fair in the case of overtime work than when the partner received a salary increase or windfall income. We conclude that asymmetric valuation of losses and forgone gains, and (behavioral) costs as compared with income increase of the partner, influenced the fairness judgments concerning the partner¿s behavior