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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Elements of good practice in stakeholder engagementA number of recent studies have identified problems experienced in the management andcommunication of research to inform policy-making and regulation (see, for example Holmesand Clark, 2008; Holmes and Savgard, 2008; Bielak et al., 2009). These studies have alsoidentified elements of good practice in respect of the planning and execution of research, thecommunication of results and the evaluation of uptake and impact which are now discussedbriefly. In addition, the Overseas Development Institution’s ‘Research and Policy inDevelopment Programme’ (RAPID) has published a wide range of practical frameworks andtools for researchers, policy-makers and intermediary organizations, which are targeted atdeveloping countries (ODI, 2009).Given the importance of research influence on policy for actually making change happen,how can research-policy interactions best be enhanced? Bammer (Bammer, 2008a; Bammeret al., 2010) presents six checklists which illustrate complementary facets of this complexprocess:1. Barriers to cooperation between policy-makers and researchers (Gregrich, 2003);2. Different emphases of policy-makers and researchers (Heyman, 2000);3. ‘Irrefutability’ of the evidence versus the ‘immutability’ of policy (Gibson, 2003b);4. Five indicators of policy-maker responsiveness to research (Gibson, 2003a);5. Questions for researchers to think strategically about their interactions with policy-makers(Jones and Seelig, 2004);6. Questions and suggestions for researchers on how to influence policy and practice (Courtand Young, 2006; and see Table 1, slightly modified from the original).As highlighted above, research is more likely to be successful in informing regional policymakingor regulation if it involves the decision-makers mandated to work at this spatial level(and/or their advisors) in the planning stages of research projects and programmes. Where thenature of the issue requires it (contested issues, complex systems and uncertain science asdiscussed above) a broader range of stakeholders should be involved. Each player may seethe issue differently, reflecting what might well be their different ‘world views’: researchersthrough their disciplinary lenses; policy-makers and regulators as conditioned by theconstraints and pressures they are working to; and other stakeholders influenced by theirparticular concerns and experiences of the issue.If the answers generated by the research are to be meaningful to these different players, aframing of the research question needs to be arrived at through discussion that reflects theirvarious viewpoints. Framing issues and consequent research questions based on this isinevitably selective, and hence it is important to engage with as many different kinds ofproblem formulation as possible (Becker, 2003; Shove, 2006).78
It is important too that these interactions are sustained through the conduct of the research. Ifnot, then as the questions faced by regional policy-makers evolve, and the research pathdevelops according to the practicalities and consequences of discovery, the questions and theanswers may drift apart. If well managed, researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholderswill share ownership of the resulting knowledge and system understanding, which willimprove the chances that consequent decisions are widely supported.With regard to communicating the findings of research, the approach needs to use a set ofcommunication forms and channels tailored to the audience and the circumstances.Communication through written media should be complemented with face-to-face interactionbetween researchers and stakeholders, allowing confidence in results to be tested andimplications for decision-making to be explored.The communication strategy needs to be well thought through and planned in advance, and aview developed on the intended impact of the communication. However, the context forcommunication can change quickly: it is important to anticipate changes where possible andto respond flexibly. Wherever possible, good relationships and understanding betweenresearch and user communities should be developed as a helpful precursor to researchdissemination. As an example, a high-level briefing to policy-makers, funders and seniorscientists from the Indo-Gangetic Plain organized to present GECAFS research findings wasthe more valuable as the good working relationships developed over the project lifefacilitated a full and frank discussion on the value of the research.Increasingly, the benefits of, and necessity for, two-way communication with a broad rangeof stakeholders is recognized. In part, this reflects a shift from a top-down, directive approachto securing societal change to one which centres on encouraging shifts in behaviour of themany individual agents who collectively can achieve the desired outcome.A further dimension of good practice concerns the characteristics of ‘robust’ evidence. Clarket al. (2002) consider how institutions mediate the impacts of scientific assessments on globalenvironmental affairs and conclude that the most influential assessments are those that areperceived by a broad range of actors as having three attributes:salience: whether an actor perceives the assessment to be addressing questions relevant totheir policy or behavioural choices;credibility: whether an actor perceives the assessment’s arguments to meet standards ofscientific plausibility and technical adequacy; andlegitimacy: whether an actor perceives the assessment as unbiased and meeting standardsof political fairness.An additional point, and one that been particularly important in relation to the recent‘climate-gate’ issue, concerns transparency: whether the research process is seen assufficiently open.79
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 84 and 85: Figure 2: Organizing and understand
Page 86 and 87: organizations made up of numerous n
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?