Institutional capacity and implementation issues in farmers' rights

Armed with the ‘equity’ and ‘conservation’ arguments that have a deep resonance with farming communities, developing countries are crafting a range of measures designed to protect farmers’ access to innovations, reward their contributions to the conservation and enhancement of plant genetic resources and provide incentives for sustained on-farm conservation. These measures range from the commericialization of farmers’ varieties to the conferment of a set of legally enforceable rights on farming communities – the exercise of which is expected to provide economic rewards to those responsible for on-farm conservation and innovation. The rights-based approach has been the cornerstone of legislative provision for implementing farmers’ rights in most developing countries. In drawing up these measures, developing countries do not appear to have systematically examined or provided for the substantial institutional capacity required for the effective implementation of farmers’ rights provisions. The lack of institutional capacity threatens to undermine any prospect of serious implementation of these provisions. More importantly, the expectation that significant incentives for on-farm conservation and innovation will flow from these ‘rights’ may be based on a flawed understanding of the economics of intellectual property rights. While farmers’ rights may provide only limited rewards for conservation, they may still have the effect of diluting the incentives for innovative institutional breeding programs – with the private sector increasingly relying on non-IPR instruments to profit from innovation. The focus on a rights-based approach may also draw attention away from alternative stewardship-based approaches to the realization of farmers’ rights objectives.

Aligning asset allocation and real estate investment: some lessons from the last cycle

Asset allocation is concerned with the development of multi--‐asset portfolio strategies that are likely to meet an investor’s objectives based on the interaction of expected returns, risk, correlation and implementation from a range of distinct asset classes or beta sources. Challenges associated with the discipline are often particularly significant in private markets. Specifically, composition differences between the ‘index’ or ‘benchmark’ universe and the investible universe mean that there can often be substantial and meaningful deviations between the investment characteristics implied in asset allocation decisions and those delivered by investment teams. For example, while allocation decisions are often based on relatively low--‐risk diversified real estate ‘equity’ exposure, implementation decisions frequently include exposure to higher risk forms of the asset class as well as investments in debt based instruments. These differences can have a meaningful impact on the contribution of the asset class to the overall portfolio and, therefore, lead to a potential misalignment between asset allocation decisions and implementation. Despite this, the key conclusion from this paper is not that real estate investors should become slaves to a narrowly defined mandate based on IPD / NCREIF or other forms of benchmark replication. The discussion suggests that such an approach would likely lead to the underutilization of real estate in multi--‐asset portfolio strategies. Instead, it is that to achieve asset allocation alignment, real estate exposure should be divided into multiple pools representing distinct forms of the asset class. In addition, the paper suggests that associated investment guidelines and processes should be collaborative and reflect the portfolio wide asset allocation objectives of each pool. Further, where appropriate they should specifically target potential for ‘additional’ beta or, more marginally, ‘alpha’.

Does watershed development implemented through public private partnership empower women? A case review from Rajasthan, Western India

This paper critically examines the impact of the ‘Guidelines for Hariyali’ – a rural watershed development policy launched in Rajasthan, Western India which has been implemented through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) – for local communities. In 2003, the Government of India launched the ‘Guidelines’ (a comprehensive Integrated Wastelands Development Programme and Drought Prone Areas Programme and Desert Development Programme), the purpose of which is to restore ecological balance by harnessing, conserving and developing natural resources in drought-prone and arid rural areas for the benefit of villages. In the particular case-study area, the policy has been implemented through institutional linkages between a corporation and the government with the aim of sharing responsibilities for finances, planning, implementation and monitoring, the end goal being to enhance the livelihoods of rural households. The analysis focuses specifically on how the ‘Guidelines’ have affected the livelihoods of Rajasthani women, drawing upon findings from focus groups with men and women in the project catchment area, as well as interviews with key actors at public and private sector institutions. Findings reveal that there are significant gaps between policy objectives and the realities on the ground, particularly in the context of women's accessibilities and entitlements. The paper also broadens understanding of how PPPs, if implemented properly, could empower women in the area of watershed management across rural South Asia.

A copyright exception for private copying in the United Kingdom

This paper discusses the proposed copyright exception for private copying in the UK in the aftermath of the Hargreaves Review. It explores the options by which the exception shall retain a realistic scope without significantly impacting on the interests of the rightholders and addresses the concept of possible harm that may arise due to private copying. It concludes that an exception for copying of content legally owned by an individual to another medium or device for private use corresponds to consumers’ reasonable expectations without causing more than minimal harm to the rightholders’ interests and without requiring an accompanying introduction of a fair compensation scheme.

Commercial real estate and equity market bubbles: are they contagious to REITs?

This paper uses a regime-switching approach to determine whether prices in the US stock, direct real estate and indirect real estate markets are driven by the presence of speculative bubbles. The results show significant evidence of the existence of periodically partially collapsing speculative bubbles in all three markets. A multivariate bubble model is then developed and implemented to evaluate whether the stock and real estate bubbles spill over into REITs. The underlying stock market bubble is found to be a stronger influence on the securitised real estate market bubble than that of the property market. Furthermore, the findings suggest a transmission of speculative bubbles from the direct real estate to the stock market, although this link is not present for the returns themselves.

Lessons from the private finance initiative in the UK: benefits, problems and critical success factors

Purpose – This paper summarises the main research findings from a detailed, qualitative set of structured interviews and case studies of private finance initiative (PFI) schemes in the UK, which involve the construction of built facilities. The research, which was funded by the Foundation for the Built Environment, examines the emergence of PFI in the UK. Benefits and problems in the PFI process are investigated. Best practice, the key critical factors for success, and lessons for the future are also analysed. Design/methodology/approach – The research is based around 11 semi-structured interviews conducted with stakeholders in key PFI projects in the UK. Findings – The research demonstrates that value for money and risk transfer are key success criteria. High procurement and transaction costs are a feature of PFI projects, and the large-scale nature of PFI projects frequently acts as barrier to entry. Research limitations/implications – The research is based on a limited number of in-depth case study interviews. The paper also shows that further research is needed to find better ways to measure these concepts empirically. Practical implications – The paper is important in highlighting four main areas of practical improvement in the PFI process: value for money assessment; establishing end-user needs; developing competitive markets and developing appropriate skills in the public sector. Originality/value – The paper examines the drivers, barriers and critical success factors for PFI in the UK for the first time in detail and will be of value to property investors, financiers, and others involved in the PFI process.

Private climate change reporting: an emerging discourse of risk and opportunity?

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the nature of the emerging discourse of private climate change reporting, which takes place in one-on-one meetings between institutional investors and their investee companies. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from 20 UK investment institutions to derive data which was then coded and analysed, in order to derive a picture of the emerging discourse of private climate change reporting, using an interpretive methodological approach, in addition to explorative analysis using NVivo software. Findings – The authors find that private climate change reporting is dominated by a discourse of risk and risk management. This emerging risk discourse derives from institutional investors' belief that climate change represents a material risk, that it is the most salient sustainability issue, and that their clients require them to manage climate change-related risk within their portfolio investment. It is found that institutional investors are using the private reporting process to compensate for the acknowledged inadequacies of public climate change reporting. Contrary to evidence indicating corporate capture of public sustainability reporting, these findings suggest that the emerging private climate change reporting discourse is being captured by the institutional investment community. There is also evidence of an emerging discourse of opportunity in private climate change reporting as the institutional investors are increasingly aware of a range of ways in which climate change presents material opportunities for their investee companies to exploit. Lastly, the authors find an absence of any ethical discourse, such that private climate change reporting reinforces rather than challenges the “business case” status quo. Originality/value – Although there is a wealth of sustainability reporting research, there is no academic research on private climate change reporting. This paper attempts to fill this gap by providing rich interview evidence regarding the nature of the emerging private climate change reporting discourse.

Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: insights from Erving Goffman

This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees’ utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors’ shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the ‘performers’ (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.

Impression management, fabrication and myth creation in private social and environmental reporting: insights from Erving Goffman

This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees’ utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors’ shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the ‘performers’ (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.