An ethical turn in African mining: voluntary regulation through fair trade

In recent decades there has been an ethical turn in expectations of how African mineral production and trade should be conducted. Good labour conditions, the absence of conflict and mining’s potential for securing economic, social and environmental benefits are being demanded in the jewellery trade. As a consequence the quality of precious and semi-precious metals and gemstones is now being judged on their ethical credentials in addition to their aesthetic and mineral qualities. Mineral production for industrial manufacture, particularly in the electronics industry, is also coming under scrutiny. Adding value through ethics is closely associated with the use of voluntary (non-state) regulation. This includes standards and associated certification and labels, which have been widely adopted by the minerals and metals sector in efforts to ensure improvements in the social and environmental conditions of production and to enable access to the profitable and expanding global ‘ethical market’. In this chapter, we focus on ethical trading schemes that incorporate voluntary regulation, by using artisanal gold mining in Tanzania and the sale of gold through international fair trade markets as an exemplar to consider the development dynamics that emerge from ethical schemes.

Governance, agricultural intensification and land sparing in tropical South America

In this paper we address two topical questions: How do the quality of governance and agricultural intensification impact on spatial expansion of agriculture? Which aspects of governance are more likely to ensure that agricultural intensification allows sparing land for nature? Using data from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, the World Database on Protected Areas, and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, we estimate a panel data model for six South American countries and quantify the effects of major determinants of agricultural land expansion, including various dimensions of governance, over the period 1970–2006. The results indicate that the effect of agricultural intensification on agricultural expansion is conditional on the quality and type of governance. When considering conventional aspects of governance, agricultural intensification leads to an expansion of agricultural area when governance scores are high. When looking specifically at environmental aspects of governance, intensification leads to a spatial contraction of agriculture when governance scores are high, signaling a sustainable intensification process.

The neolithisation of Liguria (NW Italy): an environmental archaeological and palaeoenvironmental perspective

The archaeological evidence compiled for Liguria has enabled the formulation of a comprehensive model of Neolithic social, technological and economic development (∼7800–5700 cal yrs BP). The model indicates that during the Early and Middle Neolithic (∼7800–6300 cal yrs BP; ‘Impressed Ware’ and ‘Square Mouthed’ pottery cultures) human activity mainly focussed on low (coastal) and mid-altitude areas. By the Late Neolithic (∼6300–5700 cal yrs BP; ‘Chassey’ culture) farming practices were taking place over a wider range of altitudes and involved transhumant pastoralism. Complementary environmental archaeological and palaeoecological records from caves, open-air sites, lakes and mires indicate that human activities had a more significant impact on the environment than previously thought. This included clearance, especially Abies, Ulmus, Fraxinus and Tilia, and woodland utilisation and management (e.g. leaf foddering), as well as cereal cultivation and animal husbandry. The influence of Middle Holocene climatic changes, especially from ∼7800 cal yrs BP, on the direction of vegetation changes and socio-economic developments during the Neolithic remain uncertain.

Progress report on longitudinal and cross-sectional study of carbon disclosure strategies: evidence from UK listed companies

Global warming has attracted attention from all over the world and led to the concern about carbon emission. Kyoto Protocol, as the first major international regulatory emission trading scheme, was introduced in 1997 and outlined the strategies for reducing carbon emission (Ratnatunga et al., 2011). As the increased interest in carbon reduction the Protocol came into force in 2005, currently there are already 191 nations ratifying the Protocol(UNFCCC, 2012). Under the cap-and-trade schemes, each company has its carbon emission target. When company’s carbon emission exceeds the target the company will either face fines or buy emission allowance from other companies. Thus unlike most of the other social and environmental issues carbon emission could trigger cost for companies in introducing low-emission equipment and systems and also emission allowance cost when they emit more than their targets. Despite the importance of carbon emission to companies, carbon emission reporting is still operating under unregulated environment and companies are only required to disclose when it is material either in value or in substances (Miller, 2005, Deegan and Rankin, 1997). Even though there is still an increase in the volume of carbon emission disclosures in company’s financial reports and stand-alone social and environmental reports to show their concern of the environment and also their social responsibility (Peters and Romi, 2009), the motivations behind corporate carbon emission disclosures and whether carbon disclosures have impact on corporate environmental reputation and financial performance have not yet to explore. The problems with carbon emission lie on both the financial side and non-financial side of corporate governance. On one hand corporate needs to spend money in reducing carbon emission or paying penalties when they emit more than allowed. On the other hand as the public are more interested in environmental issues than before carbon emission could also impact on the image of corporate regarding to its environmental performance. The importance of carbon emission issue are beginning to be recognized by companies from different industries as one of the critical issues in supply chain management (Lee, 2011) and 80% of companies analysed are facing carbon risks resulting from emissions in the companies’ supply chain as shown in a study conducted by the Investor Responsibility Research Centre Institute for Corporate Responsibility (IRRCI) and over 80% of the companies analysed found that the majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission are from electricity and other direct suppliers (Trucost, 2009). The review of extant literature shows the increased importance of carbon emission issues and the gap in the study of carbon reporting and disclosures and also the study which links corporate environmental reputation and corporate financial performance with carbon reporting (Lohmann, 2009a, Ratnatunga and Balachandran, 2009, Bebbington and Larrinaga-Gonzalez, 2008). This study would focus on investigating the current status of UK carbon emission disclosures, the determinant factors of corporate carbon disclosure, and the relationship between carbon emission disclosures and corporate environmental reputation and financial performance of UK listed companies from 2004-2012 and explore the explanatory power of classical disclosure theories.

Effects of agricultural management practices on earthworm populations and crop yield: validation and application of a mechanistic modelling approach

There is little consensus on how agriculture will meet future food demands sustainably. Soils and their biota play a crucial role by mediating ecosystem services that support agricultural productivity. However, a multitude of site-specific environmental factors and management practices interact to affect the ability of soil biota to perform vital functions, confounding the interpretation of results from experimental approaches. Insights can be gained through models, which integrate the physiological, biological and ecological mechanisms underpinning soil functions. We present a powerful modelling approach for predicting how agricultural management practices (pesticide applications and tillage) affect soil functioning through earthworm populations. By combining energy budgets and individual-based simulation models, and integrating key behavioural and ecological drivers, we accurately predict population responses to pesticide applications in different climatic conditions. We use the model to analyse the ecological consequences of different weed management practices. Our results demonstrate that an important link between agricultural management (herbicide applications and zero, reduced and conventional tillage) and earthworms is the maintenance of soil organic matter (SOM). We show how zero and reduced tillage practices can increase crop yields while preserving natural ecosystem functions. This demonstrates how management practices which aim to sustain agricultural productivity should account for their effects on earthworm populations, as their proliferation stimulates agricultural productivity. Synthesis and applications. Our results indicate that conventional tillage practices have longer term effects on soil biota than pesticide control, if the pesticide has a short dissipation time. The risk of earthworm populations becoming exposed to toxic pesticides will be reduced under dry soil conditions. Similarly, an increase in soil organic matter could increase the recovery rate of earthworm populations. However, effects are not necessarily additive and the impact of different management practices on earthworms depends on their timing and the prevailing environmental conditions. Our model can be used to determine which combinations of crop management practices and climatic conditions pose least overall risk to earthworm populations. Linking our model mechanistically to crop yield models would aid the optimization of crop management systems by exploring the trade-off between different ecosystem services.

Aspects of designing and evaluating seasonal-to-interannual Arctic sea-ice prediction systems

Using lessons from idealised predictability experiments, we discuss some issues and perspectives on the design of operational seasonal to inter-annual Arctic sea-ice prediction systems. We first review the opportunities to use a hierarchy of different types of experiment to learn about the predictability of Arctic climate. We also examine key issues for ensemble system design, such as: measuring skill, the role of ensemble size and generation of ensemble members. When assessing the potential skill of a set of prediction experiments, using more than one metric is essential as different choices can significantly alter conclusions about the presence or lack of skill. We find that increasing both the number of hindcasts and ensemble size is important for reliably assessing the correlation and expected error in forecasts. For other metrics, such as dispersion, increasing ensemble size is most important. Probabilistic measures of skill can also provide useful information about the reliability of forecasts. In addition, various methods for generating the different ensemble members are tested. The range of techniques can produce surprisingly different ensemble spread characteristics. The lessons learnt should help inform the design of future operational prediction systems.

Education and training futures in horticulture and horticultural science

Horticultural knowledge and skills training have been with humankind for some 10,000 to 20,000 years. With permanent settlement and rising wealth and trade, horticulture products and services became a source of fresh food for daily consumption, and a source of plant material in developing a quality environment and lifestyle. The knowledge of horticulture and the skills of its practitioners have been demonstrated through the advancing civilizations in both eastern and western countries. With the rise of the Agricultural Revolutions in Great Britain, and more widely across Continental Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as the move towards colonisation and early migration to the New Worlds, many westernised countries established the early institutions that would provide education and training in agriculture and horticulture. Today many of these colleges and universities provide undergraduate, postgraduate and vocational and technical training that specifically targets horticulture and/or horticultural science with some research and teaching institutions also providing extension and advisory services to industry. The objective of this chapter is to describe the wider pedagogic and educational context in which those concerned with horticulture operate, the institutional structures that target horticulture and horticultural science education and training internationally; examine changing educational formats, especially distance education; and consider strategies for attracting and retaining young people in the delivery of world-class horticultural education. In this chapter we set the context by investigating the horticultural education and training options available, the constraints that prevent young people entering horticulture, and suggest strategies that would attract and retain these students. We suggest that effective strategies and partnerships be put in place by the institution, the government and most importantly the industry to provide for undergraduate and postgraduate education in horticulture and horticultural science; that educational and vocational training institutions, government, and industry need to work more effectively together to improve communication about horticulture and horticultural science in order to attract enrolments of more and talented students; and that the horticulture curriculum be continuously evaluated and revised so that it remains relevant to future challenges facing the industries of horticulture in the production, environmental and social spheres. These strategies can be used as a means to develop successful programs and case studies that would provide better information to high school career counsellors, improve the image of horticulture and encourage greater involvement from alumni and the industries in recruitment, provide opportunities to improve career aspirations, ensure improved levels of remuneration, and promote the social features of the profession and greater awareness and recognition of the profession in the wider community. A successful career in horticulture demands intellectual capacities which are capable of drawing knowledge from a wide field of basic sciences, economics and the humanities and integrating this into academic scholarship and practical technologies.

CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

Using ecological niche modelling to infer past, present and future environmental suitability for Leiopelma hochstetteri, an endangered New Zealand native frog

Leiopelma hochstetteri is an endangered New Zealand frog now confined to isolated populations scattered across the North Island. A better understanding of its past, current and predicted future environmental suitability will contribute to its conservation which is in jeopardy due to human activities, feral predators, disease and climate change. Here we use ecological niche modelling with all known occurrence data (N = 1708) and six determinant environmental variables to elucidate current, pre-human and future environmental suitability of this species. Comparison among independent runs, subfossil records and a clamping method allow validation of models. Many areas identified as currently suitable do not host any known populations. This apparent discrepancy could be explained by several non exclusive hypotheses: the areas have not been adequately surveyed and undiscovered populations still remain, the model is over simplistic; the species` sensitivity to fragmentation and small population size; biotic interactions; historical events. An additional outcome is that apparently suitable, but frog-less areas could be targeted for future translocations. Surprisingly, pre-human conditions do not differ markedly highlighting the possibility that the range of the species was broadly fragmented before human arrival. Nevertheless, some populations, particularly on the west of the North Island may have disappeared as a result of human mediated habitat modification. Future conditions are marked with higher temperatures, which are predicted to be favourable to the species. However, such virtual gain in suitable range will probably not benefit the species given the highly fragmented nature of existing habitat and the low dispersal ability of this species. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Acoustic Design in Urban Development : analysis of urban soundscapes and acoustic ecology research in New York City

The world is urbanizing rapidly with more than half of the global population now living in cities. Improving urban environments for the well-being of the increasing number of urban citizens is becoming one of the most important challenges of the 21st century. Even though it is common that city planners have visions of a ’good urban milieu’, those visions are concerning visual aesthetics or practical matters. The qualitative perspective of sound, such as sonic diversity and acoustic ecology are neglected aspects in architectural design. Urban planners and politicians are therefore largely unaware of the importance of sounds for the intrinsic quality of a place. Whenever environmental acoustics is on the agenda, the topic is noise abatement or noise legislation – a quantitative attenuation of sounds. Some architects may involve acoustical aspects in their work but sound design or acoustic design has yet to develop to a distinct discipline and be incorporated in urban planning.My aim was to investigate to what extent the urban soundscape is likely to improve if modern architectural techniques merge with principles of acoustics. This is an important, yet unexplored, research area. My study explores and analyses the acoustical aspects in urban development and includes interviews with practitioners in the field of urban acoustics, situated in New York City. My conclusion is that to achieve a better understanding of the human living conditions in mega-cities, there is a need to include sonic components into the holistic sense of urban development.

The impact of big-boxes on local retail : What happens when IKEA comes to town?

The development of large discount retailers, or big-boxes as they are sometimes referred to, are often subject to heated debate and their entry on a market is greeted with either great enthusiasm or dread. For instance, the world’s largest retailer Wal-Mart (Forbes 2014) has a number of anti- and pro-groups dedicated to its being and the event of a Wal-Mart entry tends to be met with protests and campaigns (Decamme 2013) but also welcomed by, for instance, consumers (Davis & DeBonis 2013). Also in Sweden, the entry of a big box is a hot topic and before IKEA’s opening i Borlänge 2013, the first in Sweden in more than five years, great expectations were mixed with worry (Västerbottens-Kuriren 2011).The presence of large scale discount retailers is not, however, a novel phenomenon but a part of a long-term change in retailing that has taken place globally over the past couple of decades (Taylor & Smalling, 2005). As noted by Dawson (2006), the trend in Europe has over the past few decades gone towards an increasing concentration of large firms along with a decrease of smaller firms.This trend is also detectable in the Swedish retail industry. Over the past decade, the retailing industry in Sweden has increased by around 190 Billion SEK, and its share of GDP has risen from 2,7% to 2,9%, while the number of employees have increased from 200 000 to 250 000 (HUI 2013). This growth, however, has not been distributed evenly but rather it has been oriented mainly towards out-of-town retail clusters. Parallel to this development, the number of large retailers has risen at the expense of market shares of smaller independent firms (Rämme et al 2010). Thereby, the presence of large scale retailers is simply part of a changing retail landscape.The effects of this development, where large scale retailing agents relocate shopping to out-of-town shopping areas, have been heavily debated. On the one hand, the big-boxes are accused of displacing independent small retail businesses in the city-centers and the residential areas, resulting in, to some extent, reduced employment opportunities and less availability for the consumers - especially the elderly (Ljungberg et al 2006). In addition, as access to shopping now tends to require some sort of a motorized vehicle, environmental aspects to the discussion have emerged. Ultimately these types of concerns have resulted in calls for regulations against this development (Olsson 2010). On the other hand, the proponents of the new shopping landscape argue that this evolution implies productivity gains, the benefits of lower prices and an increased variety of products (Maican & Orth 2012). Moreover it is argued that it leads to, for instance, better services (such as longer opening hours) and a creative destruction transformation pressure on retailers, which brings about a renewal of city-centerIIretail and services, increasing their attractivity (Bergström 2010). The belief in benefits of a big box entry can be exemplified by the attractivity of IKEA, and the fact that municipalities are prepared to commit to expenses amounting up to hundreds of millions in order to attract the entry of this big-box. Borlänge municipality, for instance, agreed to expenses of about 350 million SEK in order to secure the entry of IKEA, which opened in 2013 (Blomgren 2009).Against this backdrop, the overall effects of large discount retailers become important: Are the economic benefits enough to warrant subsidies or are there, on the contrary, some very compelling grounds for regulations against these types of establishments? In other words; how is overall retail in a region where a store like IKEA enters affected? And how are local retail firms affected?In order to answer these questions, the purpose of this thesis is to study how entry of a big-box retailer affects the entry region. The object of this study is IKEA - one of the world’s largest retailers, with 345 stores, active in over 40 countries and with profits of about 3.3 billion (IKEA 2013; IKEA 2014). By studying the effects of IKEA-entry, both on an aggregated level and on firm level, this thesis intends to find indications of how large discount retail establishments in general can be expected to affect the economic development both in a region overall, but also on the local firm level, something which is of interest to both policymakers as well as the retailing industry in general.The first paper examines the effects of IKEA on retail revenues and employment in the municipalities that IKEA chose to enter between 2000 and 2011; Gothenburg, Haparanda, Kalmar and Karlstad. By means of a matching method we first identify non-entry municipalities that have a similar probability of IKEA entry as the true entry municipalities. Then, using these non-entry municipalities as a control group, the causal effects of IKEA entry can be estimated using a treatment-control approach. We also extend the analysis to examine the spatial impact of IKEA by estimating the effects on retail in neighboring municipalities. It is found that a new IKEA store increases revenues in durable goods trade with 20% in the entry municipality and the number of employees with 17%. Only small, and in most cases statistically insignificant, negative effects were found in neighboring municipalities.It appears that there is a positive net effect on durables retail sales and employment in the entry municipality. However, the analysis is based on data on an aggregated municipality level and thereby it remains unclear if and how the effects vary within the entry municipalities. In addition, the data used in the first study includes the sales and employment of IKEA itself, which could account for the majority of the increases in employment and retail. Thereby the potential spillover effects on incumbent retailers in the entry municipalities cannot be discerned in the first study.IIITo examine effects of IKEA entry on incumbent retail firms, the second paper in this thesis analyses how IKEA entry affects the revenues and employment of local retail firms in three municipalities; Haparanda, Kalmar and Karlstad, which experienced entry by IKEA between 2000 and 2010. In this second study, we exclude Gothenburg due to the fact that big-box entry appears to have weaker effects in metropolitan areas (as indicated by Artz & Stone 2006). By excluding Gothenburg we aim to reduce the geographical heterogeneity in our study. We obtain control municipalities that are as similar as possible to the three entry municipalities using the same method as in the previous study, but including a slightly different set of variables in the selection equation. Using similar retail firms in the control municipalities as our comparison group, we estimate the impact of IKEA entry on revenues and employment for retail firms located at varying distances from the IKEA entry site.The results generated in this study imply that entry by IKEA increases revenues in incumbent retail firms by, on average, 11% in the entry municipalities. In addition, we do not find any significant impact on retail revenues in the city centers of the entry municipalities. However, we do find that retail firms within 1 km of the IKEA experience increases in revenues of about 26%, which indicates large spillover effects in the area nearby the entry site. As expected, this impact decreases as we expand the buffer zone: firms located between 0-2 km experiences a 14% increase and firms in 2-5 km experiences an increase of 10%. We do not find any significant impacts on retail employment.

Estimation of genetic variance for macro- and micro-environmental sensitivity using double hierarchical generalized linear models

Background: Genetic variation for environmental sensitivity indicates that animals are genetically different in their response to environmental factors. Environmental factors are either identifiable (e.g. temperature) and called macro-environmental or unknown and called micro-environmental. The objectives of this study were to develop a statistical method to estimate genetic parameters for macro- and micro-environmental sensitivities simultaneously, to investigate bias and precision of resulting estimates of genetic parameters and to develop and evaluate use of Akaike’s information criterion using h-likelihood to select the best fitting model. Methods: We assumed that genetic variation in macro- and micro-environmental sensitivities is expressed as genetic variance in the slope of a linear reaction norm and environmental variance, respectively. A reaction norm model to estimate genetic variance for macro-environmental sensitivity was combined with a structural model for residual variance to estimate genetic variance for micro-environmental sensitivity using a double hierarchical generalized linear model in ASReml. Akaike’s information criterion was constructed as model selection criterion using approximated h-likelihood. Populations of sires with large half-sib offspring groups were simulated to investigate bias and precision of estimated genetic parameters. Results: Designs with 100 sires, each with at least 100 offspring, are required to have standard deviations of estimated variances lower than 50% of the true value. When the number of offspring increased, standard deviations of estimates across replicates decreased substantially, especially for genetic variances of macro- and micro-environmental sensitivities. Standard deviations of estimated genetic correlations across replicates were quite large (between 0.1 and 0.4), especially when sires had few offspring. Practically, no bias was observed for estimates of any of the parameters. Using Akaike’s information criterion the true genetic model was selected as the best statistical model in at least 90% of 100 replicates when the number of offspring per sire was 100. Application of the model to lactation milk yield in dairy cattle showed that genetic variance for micro- and macro-environmental sensitivities existed. Conclusion: The algorithm and model selection criterion presented here can contribute to better understand genetic control of macro- and micro-environmental sensitivities. Designs or datasets should have at least 100 sires each with 100 offspring.

Energy efficient and economic renovation of residential buildings with low-temperature heating and air heat recovery

With the building sector accounting for around 40% of the total energy consumption in the EU, energy efficiency in buildings is and continues to be an important issue. Great progress has been made in reducing the energy consumption in new buildings, but the large stock of existing buildings with poor energy performance is probably an even more crucial area of focus. This thesis deals with energy efficiency measures that can be suitable for renovation of existing houses, particularly low-temperature heating systems and ventilation systems with heat recovery. The energy performance, environmental impact and costs are evaluated for a range of system combinations, for small and large houses with various heating demands and for different climates in Europe. The results were derived through simulation with energy calculation tools. Low-temperature heating and air heat recovery were both found to be promising with regard to increasing energy efficiency in European houses. These solutions proved particularly effective in Northern Europe as low-temperature heating and air heat recovery have a greater impact in cold climates and on houses with high heating demands. The performance of heat pumps, both with outdoor air and exhaust air, was seen to improve with low-temperature heating. The choice between an exhaust air heat pump and a ventilation system with heat recovery is likely to depend on case specific conditions, but both choices are more cost-effective and have a lower environmental impact than systems without heat recovery. The advantage of the heat pump is that it can be used all year round, given that it produces DHW. Economic and environmental aspects of energy efficiency measures do not always harmonize. On the one hand, lower costs can sometimes mean larger environmental impact; on the other hand there can be divergence between different environmental aspects. This makes it difficult to define financial subsidies to promote energy efficiency measures.