Integrating contested aspirations, processes and policy: development as hanging in, stepping up and stepping out

There are continuing disagreements regarding aspirations and processes in development and appropriate policies for promoting these. This paper proposes a dialogue around a conceptualisation of development as involving three complementary processes: ‘hanging in’, ‘stepping up’ and ‘stepping out’. It argues that these can describe different types of structural change operating at different scales and affecting national and sub-national societies and economies, different sectors within these economies, and people’s evolving livelihoods. The simplicity of this conceptualisation and its strong theoretical, empirical and experiential content make it a powerful framework both for inter-disciplinary, inter-sectoral, multi-scale analysis of dynamic development processes, and for structuring dialogue about contested aspirations, assumptions, modalities and constraints among development analysts and stakeholders with different interests and paradigms

Co-design with aligned and non-aligned knowledge partners: implications for research and coproduction of sustainable food systems

We discuss two different strategies to initiate a process of identifying a focused sustainability challenge, and co-defining and co-designing alternative pathways to more sustainable food systems. One strategy was based on working with a relatively closely aligned network of private sector, civil society and academic organisations, whilst the other involved working with a more plural, non-aligned group, ranging from representatives of agricultural social movements, through to the domestic seed industry and government officials, to academic agronomists. This paper reflects on the distinct benefits and challenges involved in each strateg

Integrated assessment of renewable energy potential:Approach and application in rural South Africa

This paper presents the development and application of the Integrated Renewable Energy Potential Assessment (IREPA), employing a three-pronged approach: (i) literature review of renewable energy potential assessment methodologies, renewable energy technology (RET) selection factors and impact assessment methods; (ii) discussions with academic peers from natural and social sciences, and the private energy engineering sector; (iii) evaluation of the IREPA methodology through case-study research in a rural community in South Africa. Locally relevant social, institutional, environmental and techno-economic factors were explored through mutual knowledge exchange with smallholders and subsequently applied for appropriate RET selection. Three barriers to participatory decision-making were revealed: i) lack of knowledge ofrenewable energy among smallholders; ii) insufficient practical information dissemination in IREPA; iii) abstract nature of the analytical hierarchy process. The adaptions recommended by this research would render IREPA a suitable bottom-up approach for the assessment and effective implementation of RET, stimulating socio-economic development in rural areas.Publisher Statement: NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, [24, (2016)] DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.002© 2016, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br/

Crisis? What Crisis? The Normality of the Current Food Crisis

The 2005–8 food crisis was a shock to political elites, but in some respects the situation was normal. Food policies are failing to respond adequately to the squeeze on land, people, health and environment. Strong evidence of systems failure and stress, termed here New Fundamentals, ought to reframe twenty-first century food politics and effort. Yet so far, international discourse is too often narrow and technical. The paper suggests that 2005–8 reinforced how the dominant twentieth century productionist policy paradigm is running out of steam. This assumed that producing more food would resolve social problems. Yet distortions in markets, access and culture remain. At national and international levels of governance, despite realization of the enormity of the challenge ahead, there is still a belief in slow incremental change

Evaluating the Sustainability of a Small-Scale Low-Input Organic Vegetable Supply System in the United Kingdom

www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainabilit

Transformative Agroecology Learning in Europe: Building Consciousness, Skills and Collective Capacity for Food Sovereignty

Agroecology has been proposed as a key building block for food sovereignty. This article examines the meaning, practices and potentials of ‘transformative agroecology learning’ as a collective strategy for food system transformation. Our study is based on our qualitative and action research with the European Coordination of Via Campesina to develop the European Agroecology Knowledge Exchange Network (EAKEN). This network is linked to the global network of La Via Campesina and builds on the strong experiences and traditions of popular education in Latin American peasant movements. Rather than focusing on agroecology education as a process of individual learning, we analyse how a transformative agroecology education can be strengthened as a critical repertoire of action used by social movements to advance food sovereignty. Our analysis contributes a new theory of transformative agroecology learning based on four key characteristics or qualities: horizontalism; diálogo de saberes (wisdom dialogues); combining practical and political knowledge; and building social movement networks. While these different elements of transformative agroecology learning were present across EAKEN, they were unevenly developed and, in many cases, not systematized. The framework can help to strategically and reflexively systematize and strengthen a transformative agroecology learning approach as a key building block for food sovereignty

Reflecting on ICN2: Was it a game changer?

At the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2), November 2014, 170 member states endorsed the Rome Declaration on Nutrition and a Framework for Action. The Rome Declaration committed to ending malnutrition in all its forms while the Framework for Action offered 60 voluntary actions to help achieve this. These documents and ICN2 itself had the potential to be a major step forward for public health nutrition, addressing issues associated with today's complex food system. This article reviews ICN2, its process, outputs and some of the gaps and weaknesses of the documents. ICN2's legacy can be interpreted in two ways-a missed opportunity or one of broad aspirations which have yet to translate into meaningful action. The paper considers whether ICN2 could have adopted a more ecological approach to diet and nutrition, linking health and sustainability. While this fits the evidence, it would require a strong commitment to coherence and food system change, almost certainly a firm stance on some food corporate power, and resolve to champion health at the heart of economic policy. This ambitious agenda would require specific multi-actor and multi-level action, together with metrics and mechanisms for accountability. Coherent government policies and actions to tackle all manifestations of inappropriate diet, and to reframe the economic forces which shape such diets are urgently required. To achieve this, the public health movement needs to work closely with civil society, yet ICN2 showed that there is some reluctance to energise that combination. As a result, ICN2 must be judged a missed opportunity, despite having useful aspirations

The politics of global assessments: the case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)

The IAASTD – the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development – which ran between 2003 and 2008, involving over 400 scientists worldwide, was an ambitious attempt to encourage local and global debate on the future of agricultural science and technology. Responding to critiques of top-down, northern-dominated expert assessments of the past, the IAASTD aimed to be more inclusive and participatory in both design and process. But to what extent did it meet these objectives? Did it genuinely allow alternative voices to be heard? Did it create a new mode of engagement in global arenas? And what were the power relations involved, creating what processes of inclusion and exclusion? These questions are probed in an examination of the IAASTD process over five years, involving a combination of interviews with key participants and review of available documents. The paper focuses in particular on two areas of controversy – the use of quantitative scenario modelling and the role of genetically-modified crops in developing country agriculture. These highlight some of the knowledge contests involved in the assessment and, in turn, illuminate four questions at the heart of contemporary democratic theory and practice: how do processes of knowledge framing occur; how do different practices and methodologies get deployed in crosscultural, global processes; how is ‘representation’ constructed and legitimised; and how, as a result, do collective understandings of global issues emerge? The paper concludes that, in assessments of this sort, the politics of knowledge needs to be made more explicit, and negotiations around politics and values, framings and perspectives, need to be put centre-stage in assessment design.ESR

Whose Power to Control? Some Reflections on Seed Systems and Food Security in a Changing World

Four key words are essential in understanding the changing global food system: power, control, risks and benefits. The interplay between state and private actors vying to influence the direction of change, and use whatever tools for control they can, is at the heart of the contention for the future control of food. It is one shaped by history and influenced by a changing geopolitics. This interplay has led to the creation of a range of global rules affecting food, agriculture and biodiversity in which those on ‘intellectual property’ or IP are central. These rules come from a system dominated by the interests of the biggest players. Also important are the changing understandings and nature of food security and the pathways to innovation in agri?food systems that are most likely to lead to a just, healthy and sustainable future for all. Developments in food and farming are central to this and are the context in which the political economy of cereal seed systems in Africa is grounded