scholarly journals Private Sponsorship: Complementary or Conflicting Interests?

Refuge ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shauna Labman

Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program commenced before the Indochinese refugee flow began, and it has continued for almost 40 years since it subsided. Although conceived of as a complementary partnership, private sponsorship plays out more as a tug-of-war between the conflicting interests of government and sponsors over selection control and numbers. While guided by additionality, sponsors have been confronted with administrative and regulatory changes that challenge them to do more with less, and the fear that overall Canadian resettlement will reduce if their efforts are not expanded. A federal election and change of government in October 2015 may have reset government-sponsor relations but highlights the vulnerability and interpretative malleability of the program. With the pillars of the Indochinese and now Syrian resettlement efforts bookending the analysis, the article provides a historical and contextual understanding of recent changes to private sponsorship and the tensions and conflicting interests in maintaining a voluntary program premised on the resettlement of additional refugees.

Refuge ◽  
1982 ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
. Refuge Editor

A Summary of some findings of Employment and Immigration Canada's Evaluation of the Indochinese Refugee Movement, 1979-80


Refuge ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Molloy ◽  
James C. Simeon

Introduction to 32.2: Special IssueThe Indochinese Refugee Movement and the Launch of Canada’s Private Sponsorship ProgramGuest Editors: Michael J. Molloy and James C. Simeon


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Salehi ◽  
Lesley Strawderman ◽  
Yunchen Huang ◽  
Shaheen Ahmed ◽  
Kari Babski-Reeves

EDIS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesscia A. Lepper ◽  
Aswathy Sreedharan ◽  
Renée Goodrich Schneider ◽  
Keith R. Schneider

Good agricultural practices (GAPs) and good handling practices (GHPs) encompass the general procedures that growers, packers and processors of fresh fruits and vegetables should follow to ensure the safety of their product. GAPs usually deal with preharvest practices (i.e., in the field), while GHPs cover postharvest practices, including packing, storage and shipping. This factsheet covers GAPs relating to packing operation sanitation. There are seven other Florida Cooperative Extension factsheets in the ‘Food Safety on the Farm’ series that focus on specific aspects of the GAPs program and how they relate to Florida crops and practices. Under the new Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), GAPs are a foundation of the Produce Safety Rule (PSR). Other than for round tomatoes in Florida (T-GAPs regulation), GAPs have mainly been a voluntary program. Additionally the PSR mandates all non-exempt operations to follow these new FSMA federal guidelines (6), but all exempt commodities and for those producers exporting to foreign countries, GAPs may still be required. Both the mandatory PSR and GAPs aim to reduce the foodborne illness burden associated with produce.


2016 ◽  
Vol 167 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Zabel ◽  
Eva Lieberherr

Advancement of the Swiss Forest Policy 2020 from stakeholders' perspectives In light of the ending of the Swiss “ Forest Policy 2020”, this article assesses the goals, challenges and concerns of Swiss forest stakeholders in relation to forest policy post 2020. The data were collected through expert interviews and an online survey. The results show that securing an economically sustainable forest management and economically viable silvicultural businesses are key concerns for many stakeholders. Apart from these issues, several further and sometimes conflicting interests were mentioned. The study concludes that a debate on an adjustment of the weights given to goals in the Swiss Forest Policy 2020 may be commendable. However, there does not appear to be need for a complete change of course in order to address the stakeholders' needs and concerns. In terms of policy process, most stakeholders positively evaluated the past planning and development process of the Swiss Forest Policy 2020, but also provided suggestions for improvements. Finally, a network analysis revealed that the Swiss Federal Agency for the Environment, the Swiss Forest Owners Association and the Conference of Cantonal Foresters played a central role in the amendment of the Swiss Federal Forest Act. The analysis also showed that more stakeholders find each other as important than actually work together in a legislative process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document