Poverty and profit in Central American forest policies

The failure of forestry to contribute to poverty reduction in Central America is due to public policies which inhibit its profitability. Absence of public regulation of harvesting and competing subsidies to agriculture keep forestry stumpage prices artificially low. This encourages destruction of the forest resource, which damages both the environment and the potential to reduce poverty. A comparison of Costa Rica and Honduras reveals two dissimilar approaches toward forest policy. While Costa Rica attempts to raise producer and grower stumpage prices by tax credits, soft loans and differential species fees, Honduras enforces price ceilings and uses centralized authority to control forest production and export. Both countries exhibit weaknesses in the management control cycle of programming, budgeting, implementing and evaluating their forest policies. Yet the Costa Rican approach has increased stumpage prices already, which bodes well for their forest sector. By contrast, the major beneficiary of Honduran forest policy has been COHDEFOR, the state enterprise responsible for forestry management, controlling production, and running its national system of agroforestry cooperatives. Despite greater public authority and resources than the Costa Rican forest service (DGF), the Honduran forest policy is not likely to increase producer profitability or reduce poverty in the near future.     

Assessing the Credibility of Refugee Applicants: A Judicial Perspective

The principal responsibility of refugee decision makers is todetermine those to whom refugee protection is owed. The mannerin which these decisions are to be made in Australia is thesubject of ongoing debate. However, that debate is not the subjectof this paper. The focus of this paper is on the credibilityassessment of refugee applicants and its principal purpose isinstructive. It is my hope that it will enhance the credibilityof credibility assessment within existing processes. Its secondarypurpose is to provide a basis from which policy makers may considerlegislative and other procedural change. It has been suggested that the ‘devil is in the detail’in refugee decision making. Working in a common law country,Australian refugee decision makers are afforded the (often binding)benefit of extensive judicial review of the refugee determinationprocess.¹ Thus, for Australian decision makers, the ‘devilin the detail’ is often to be found in a plethora of bindinglegal precedent. Accordingly, while the first part of this paperdiscusses selected matters which have facilitated the assessmentof the credibility of refugee applicants in Australia, as oneof the most authoritative domestic sources available, the secondpart of this paper principally focuses on the expressed viewsof Australian courts after examining credibility findings indecisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal.²     

Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the New Regionalism: The Case of Louisville

This article outlines the new regionalism movement and its metropolitanagenda, reviews federal efforts to promote new regionalism underISTEA and TEA–21, considers how the new federal policieschanged the role of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)in transportation planning by examining the MPO for the Louisvillemetropolis, and assesses the MPO process in Louisville. Thelocal decision of whether to build a new bridge across the OhioRiver was a major test of the enhanced MPO process. Federaltransportation policies enhanced regional coordination and cooperationin transportation planning in the Louisville metropolis resultingin a consensus plan to build two bridges across the Ohio River.However, the MPO process did not lead to the development ofa metropolitan-wide interest or perspective. Moreover, the newregionalist agenda was not advanced because sprawl was not afactor in the decision on whether and where to build the bridges.     

The Social Conditions for Nanomedicine: Disruption, Systems, and Lock-in

Here we consider two ways that nanomedicine might be disruptive. First, low-end disruptions that are intrinsically unpredictable but limited in scope, and second, high end disruptions that involve broader societal issues but can be anticipated, allowing opportunity for ethical reflection.