10 pages., Via online journal., Forest ownership is changing in Europe. Reasons include recent institutional changes in Eastern Europe, changing lifestyles of non-agricultural owners and afforestation. At present, there is little comparative analysis across Europe, and the implications that these changes have for forest management and for the fulfilment and redefinition of policy objectives have not been addressed systematically. This paper has been developed in the framework of a European research network on forest ownership change, based on conceptual work, literature reviews and empirical evidence from 28 European countries. It aims to provide an overview of the state of knowledge, to discuss relevant issues and provide conceptual and practical foundations for future research, forest management approaches, and policy making. In particular, it discusses possible approaches for classifying forest ownership types and understandings of “new” forest ownership. One important insight is that the division into public and private forests is not as clear as often assumed and that an additional category of semi-public (or semi-private) forms of forest ownership would be desirable. Another recommendation is that the concepts of “new forest owners” vs. “new forest owner types” should be differentiated more consciously. We observe that, in research and policy practice, the mutual relations between forest ownership structure and policies are often neglected, for instance, how policies may directly and indirectly influence ownership development, and what different ownership categories mean for the fulfilment of policy goals. Finally, we propose that better support should be provided for the development of new, adapted forest management approaches for emerging forest owner types. Forest ownership deserves greater attention in studies dealing with forest policy or forest management.
6 pages., Gene editing (GE) and gene modification (GM) technologies demonstrate noticeable differences. GE technologies introduce changes in DNA, which are intrinsic to the species, while GM technologies incorporate changes from foreign species. The potential benefits of GE have been highlighted in a number of recent scientific studies, pointing to the opportunities that are opening up in addressing the food availability problems as a result of the growing world population. However, the implementation of GE technology in food production would rely on public awareness, acceptance, and attitudes toward genetically modified and genetically edited food products. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we surveyed Lithuanian consumers, farmers, and producers for their awareness, attitudes, and behavioural intentions towards GM and GE food. The 251 consumers, 50 farmers, and 56 food producers participated in the survey. Consistent across all samples (consumers, farmers, and producers, respectively), GM technology-related products’ self-assed awareness was significantly higher than the level of self-assed awareness of GE products. Awareness of GEO in all samples is relatively low. The level of support for GMO and GEO is also low in all groups of respondents. All groups – consumers, farmers, and producers – are less negative about food produced from GE than from GM raw materials. There was a statistically significantly higher overall likelihood for future use of GEO than the GMO. Producers would be less likely than consumers and farmers to use GMOs in the future. The same inclinations are observed with regard to GEO, with statistically significant differences in the sample of consumers, farmers, and producers.
Online from publication. 3 pages., Report of a conversation with Hugo Hays, global director of compliance and food safety for international banana firm, Fyffes.
20 pages., This study was conducted to examine Florida consumers’ stance on legalizing the growing and processing of hemp, recently redefined as an agricultural commodity. Factors were explored that may explain their stance to provide insight into the communication needs in the early stages of the U.S. hemp industry revival. Results indicated that respondents who had more favorable attitudes toward legalizing hemp were also more likely to fall within the category of being overall “for legalizing hemp” when offered a binary choice. Further, attitude toward legalizing hemp was predicted by respondents’ objective knowledge of hemp topics, attitude toward legalizing marijuana, and perceived personal relevance of legalized hemp cultivation and production. A strong association between hemp and marijuana was also observed in both the quantitative and qualitative findings, and respondents indicated some confusion regarding the mind-altering properties of marijuana compared to hemp. As such, a key recommendation is that early communication messages and strategies be tailored toward educating the public on differences in the uses and psychoactive properties of hemp and marijuana. Future research is needed to identify other key messages needed to enhance public understanding of hemp, as well as the best methods of delivering such. Future research should be conducted with other hemp stakeholders, including policymakers, hemp license-holders, and other farmers and industry members to reconcile potential differences in key stakeholder perceptions and enhance the future viability of the industrial hemp market.
Available online at www.centmapress.org, Results showed that depending on expressed meta-values, respondents had different specific information sources and needs. Online sources were rarely mentioned, the majority of consumers referred to brochures, flyers and interpersonal contacts.
