From Food Production to Food Security - Global Environmental ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Paper 5: Engaging Stakeholders at the Regional LevelAdapted from:Ingram, JSI, J Andersson, G Bammer, M Brown, K Giller, T Henrichs, J Holmes, JW Jones, RSchilpzand and J Young. 2010. Engaging stakeholders at the regional level. pp 169-197 In: Food Security and Global Environmental Change. JSI Ingram, PJ Ericksenand DM Liverman (Eds). Earthscan, London.IntroductionFood security in the face of global environmental change (GEC) is one of the most complexissues facing the research community at large. Although most policy-makers, scientists andfunding agencies recognize the need for additional knowledge about how the various foodsystem activities interact and how these interactions affect food security, research that iscapable of adequately addressing the problem is hard to find. This is because not only arethere large uncertainties in many aspects of the debate, but the debate involves a bewilderingrange of interested parties, or ‘stakeholders’. A further complication is that food systemsinvolve critical interactions at a number of levels on a range of scales (e.g. spatial, temporal,jurisdictional, institutional, management) (Cash et al., 2006), each of which has its own groupor groups of stakeholders. Research on the interactions between GEC and food securitytherefore has to recognize, and engage with, a wide range of stakeholders. This is in contrastto research on crop improvement, for instance, where the range of stakeholders is muchnarrower, and may remain predominantly within the research community itself. Whileconsiderable effort has been spent in improving understanding of food system-GECinteractions at the local or household level, research at the regional (sub-continental) level isfar less well developed, but offers important insights into food system adaptation strategiesand policies. This paper therefore addresses stakeholder engagement at regional level.Clearly, aligning the research agenda with stakeholder needs is crucial and this requireseffective dialogue (for example through consultancies, agenda-setting workshops and/orinformal processes). Equally important however is the uptake of research results by theintended beneficiaries that leads on to the real value of the research. This similarly dependson continued interactions between researchers and other stakeholders. However, asstakeholder involvement complicates the research process and increases costs for allconcerned, it is it important to understand its importance and the value it can bringthroughout a given project.As Kristjanson et al. (2009) summarize, it is important to see stakeholder engagement as anintegral aspect of both the conceptualization and the life of the project. They stress the valueof articulating the outcomes sought by the different stakeholders at the project outset to help64
ing the different actors toward a joint understanding of the overall project goals and comeup with innovative strategies to achieve them (see Box 1). This also serves to give interestedparties a tangible stake in the outcome. These aspects of research agenda alignment anduptake of outputs derive from what is a double aim of the stakeholder dialogue. The first aimconcerns the formal agenda-setting. If the research is to have impact it is crucial that it bothaddresses the information needs of the intended beneficiaries, and is scientifically valid. Thesecond aim is that of a social support function that helps all stakeholders feel involved andheard. While less obvious, this aspect is no less important as effective stakeholderengagement needs to be built on trust between all concerned, which will encourage uptake ofresearch outputs. This may be especially the case at the regional level as stakeholders maywell be senior individuals with specific agendas, and in these circumstances it is crucial to beclear about whether researchers are acting as advocates or honest brokers (Holmes et al.,2010). This social support aspect also allows researchers to obtain a better ‘feel’ for thecontext within which the research is to be conducted.Box 1 Seven propositions/principles for ‘linking knowledge with action’ (adapted from Kristjanson etal., 2009).1 Problem definitionProjects are more likely to succeed in linking knowledge with action when they employ processes andtools that enhance dialogue and cooperation between those (researchers, community members) whopossess or produce knowledge and those (decision-makers) who use it, with project members togetherdefining the problem they aim to solve.2 Program managementResearch is more likely to inform action if it adopts a ‘project’ orientation and organization, withleaders accountable for meeting use-driven goals and the team managing not to let ‘study of theproblem’ displace ‘creation of solutions’ as its research goal.3 Boundary spanningProjects are more likely to link knowledge with action when they include ‘boundary organizations’ or‘boundary-spanning actions’ that help bridge gaps between research and research user communities.This boundary-spanning work often involves constructing informal new arenas that foster userproducerdialogues, defining products jointly, and adopting a systems approach that countersdominance by groups committed to the status quo. Defining joint ‘rules of engagement’ in the newarena that encourage mutual respect, co-creation and innovation improves prospects for success.4 Systems integrationProjects are more likely to be successful in linking knowledge with action when they work inrecognition that scientific research is just one ‘piece of the puzzle’, apply systems-oriented strategies,and engage partners best positioned to help transform knowledge co-created by all project members65
Page 1 and 2:
From Food Production to Food Securi
Page 3 and 4:
From Food Production to Food Securi
Page 5 and 6:
Table of ContentsAbstract .........
Page 7 and 8:
Paper 6: Undertaking Research at th
Page 9:
AbstractFood security is a conditio
Page 12 and 13:
2010 about 925 million people had t
Page 14 and 15:
water) are used, and reduce negativ
Page 16 and 17:
While the flow of the argument abou
Page 18 and 19:
determine interactions along and be
Page 20 and 21:
Paper 3: A Food Systems Approach to
Page 23: From Food Production to Food Securi
Page 26 and 27: concerns and are now issues that mu
Page 28 and 29: the relationships between GEC and f
Page 30 and 31: Theme 2 aims to understand how comm
Page 32 and 33: GEC and the Food System of the Indo
Page 34 and 35: Paper 2: The role of agronomic rese
Page 36 and 37: These advances have resulted from a
Page 38 and 39: Crop selection to determine mechani
Page 40 and 41: Agronomic science is central to imp
Page 42 and 43: Agronomic research in relation to f
Page 44 and 45: The discussion above identifies a n
Page 46 and 47: interventions and political inertia
Page 48 and 49: While research on producing food ha
Page 50 and 51: Box 1 Food system Activities and fo
Page 52 and 53: In addition to broadening the debat
Page 54 and 55: options. Examples already seen rang
Page 56 and 57: Figure 3 Outcomes for 10 variables
Page 58 and 59: Figure 4 Nine ‘planetary boundari
Page 60 and 61: Figure 5 Environmental change, food
Page 62 and 63: Table 1: Indicative analysis of the
Page 65: From Food Production to Food Securi
Page 68 and 69: Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Eur
Page 70 and 71: Parry et al., 2005). Conducting foo
Page 72 and 73: is provided in the ESF/COST Forward
Page 76 and 77: into actions (strategies, policies,
Page 78 and 79: Box 2 Engaging with stakeholders in
Page 80 and 81: Box 3 Setting the research agenda f
Page 82 and 83: Third, and of considerable practica
Page 84 and 85: Figure 2: Organizing and understand
Page 86 and 87: organizations made up of numerous n
Page 88 and 89: Elements of good practice in stakeh
Page 90 and 91: Finally, it is worth noting that fo
Page 92 and 93: development (Lee, 1999; Gunderson a
Page 94 and 95: Box 7 The GECAFS stakeholder survey
Page 96 and 97: ‘break down’ what might be a hi
Page 98 and 99: Paper 6: Undertaking Research at th
Page 100 and 101: agriculture in many parts of the wo
Page 102 and 103: gaps. The presence of a strong tech
Page 104 and 105: an average of two years to coalesce
Page 106 and 107: Institute for Meteorology and Hydro
Page 108 and 109: Identifying case study sitesResearc
Page 110 and 111: can both benefit from and contribut
Page 112 and 113: Box 5 Mapping stakeholder interests
Page 114 and 115: Holding planning meetings in locati
Page 116 and 117: This reorientation of the debate fr
Page 118 and 119: Importance of this type of research
Page 120 and 121: Integrating the food system concept
Page 122 and 123: awareness of the GEC issues within
Page 124 and 125:
pollutants were then introduced as
Page 126 and 127:
communities operating in food syste
Page 128 and 129:
Improving input-use efficiency acro
Page 130 and 131:
governance focuses on the range of
Page 132 and 133:
Developing research agendas in supp
Page 134 and 135:
The renewed approach to interdiscip
Page 136 and 137:
BIELAK, A., HOLMES, J., SAVGÅRD, J
Page 138 and 139:
EAKIN, H. 2010. What is Vulnerable?
Page 140 and 141:
GODFRAY, H. C. J., BEDDINGTON, J. R
Page 142 and 143:
INGRAM, J. S. I. & FERNANDES, E. C.
Page 144 and 145:
LYUTSE, S. 2010. The One Billion To
Page 146 and 147:
RAYNER, S. & MALONE, E. L. 1998. Hu
Page 148 and 149:
UNDP 2006. The 2006 Human Developme
Page 150 and 151:
activities “from plough to plate
Page 152 and 153:
contribution to the science agenda:
Page 154 and 155:
urgently needed, and - given the gr
Page 156 and 157:
GECAFS plannenmakerij stelde vast d
Page 158 and 159:
ieder hun eigen groep van betrokken
Page 160 and 161:
het gebied van beheer hebben betrek
Page 162:
Curriculum VitaeFollowing a BSc in
show all

From Food Production to Food Security - Global Environmental ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?