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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2: Organizing and understanding the complexity of stakeholder engagement, adapted fromBrklacich et al. (2007)While stakeholder engagement is important for research uptake, the timing, extent and natureof engagement depend on the precise situation, as illustrated by the Inter-American Institutefor Global Change Research (IAI) Collaborative Research Network Program (CRN) casestudies. These ranged from studies focused on a strictly defined scientific issue, initiallyinvolving only the GEC researchers, with stakeholder engagement coming later at thecommunication and dissemination stages. Other studies drew on a range of stakeholders fromthe outset. Across the range of IAI CRN case studies no single model emerged and no singlereason or motivation-driving stakeholder participation was apparent. The following importantpoints emerged from the IAI analysis (Brklacich et al., 2007):Stakeholders are heterogeneous groups representing multiple interests in GEC science.Stakeholders choose to participate in various stages of the scientific process, seldomparticipating in all.74
Stakeholders’ participation in GEC science needs to be founded upon a mutualunderstanding of their contributions to the project and the benefits they will derive.Stakeholders make multiple contributions to GEC science, ranging from establishing theresearch agenda to participating in data collection to capacity building.Stakeholder participation in GEC science must be in accordance with international andnational law as well as consistent with local norms for the sharing of knowledge andbenefits.Stakeholder participation needs to be a planned set of activities within the GEC scienceprocess and be based upon an adaptive research design.GEC science must avoid overtaxing stakeholders and recognize that stakeholders haveunequal capacities.The GEC science community has a responsibility to maintain and manage an environmentthat fosters long-term stakeholder participation.As noted above, stakeholders choose to participate in various stages of the scientific process,but seldom participate in all. Brklacich et al. (2007) give an example of how planningagencies both helped define a river management study in the Amazon and also then helpedcommunicate the project’s findings. Increasingly, however, there is a view that the researchprocess cannot meet stakeholder needs unless they, in fact, participate throughout theresearch process.A particular example is the concept of co-production of knowledge, which is increasinglybecoming a central feature of major research initiatives (e.g. UK’s Living withEnvironmental Change programme; LWEC, 2009). An additional example is provided by theFamine Early Warning System (FEWS NET) project of the US Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) (Box 5). A key insight to emerge from FEWS NET concerns theimportance of engaging a range of stakeholders in order to achieve consensus at the researchcommunication stage: once they agree to the nature and scope of the problem and come to thetable to discuss what to do about it, they are able to determine what actions will help relievethe most intense symptoms of the food security crisis.Box 5 Building consensus among stakeholders: A FEWS NET example.USAID designed FEWS NET in 1986 to provide information on food security of communities insemi-arid regions so that widespread climate-related food security crises do not occur. FEWS NETincludes stakeholders who work in the public, private or non-profit sectors in the region, and whoseidentities vary widely depending on the location. In some regions, the meteorological communitiesand health care workers are at the centre; in others it is nutrition experts from government and tradenetworks.The primary objective of early warning systems is to elicit an appropriate response to an identifiedproblem. Often, this requires that all stakeholders, from the various donors of food aid, regional75
Page 1 and 2:
From Food Production to Food Securi
Page 3 and 4:
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:
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 74 and 75: Paper 5: Engaging Stakeholders at t
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?