Suchergebnisse

The popularity of agroecology has grown over the last few years as an alternative paradigm for food systems. This public attention has meant agroecology is increasingly becoming institutionalised and integrated into food policy frameworks. While there is a significant body of literature discussing the origins and worldviews intrinsic to agroecology, hardly any academic publications focusing on analysing policies claiming to have an agroecological focus exist. This first policy study of its kind contributes to the scarce agroecological policy literature by interrogating what we argue is a translation' process, which starts with the vision of agroecology and analyses how the concept changes once it has been operationalised into a policy document or law. Evidence from two European agricultural policy contexts, namely France and the United Kingdom, is presented. The methodology followed focused on the analysis of the context, problem construction, conceptualisation of agroecology, operational principles, and policy instruments included in the policy documents. Three main themes emerged from the case studies: differences in framing agroecology in the public policy arena; common dependencies to existing configurations influencing translations of agroecology in public policies; and the need for democratic discussion on the hybridisation of agroecology itself, as well as on implied, but often veiled, political choices. This paper concludes that a selective and relational hybridisation of agroecology is emerging during its translation' into public policies.

The popularity of agroecology has grown over the last few years as an alternative paradigm for food systems. This public attention has meant agroecology is increasingly becoming institutionalised and integrated into food policy frameworks. While there is a significant body of literature discussing the origins and worldviews intrinsic to agroecology, hardly any academic publications focusing on analysing policies claiming to have an agroecological focus exist. This first policy study of its kind contributes to the scarce agroecological policy literature by interrogating what we argue is a translation' process, which starts with the vision of agroecology and analyses how the concept changes once it has been operationalised into a policy document or law. Evidence from two European agricultural policy contexts, namely France and the United Kingdom, is presented. The methodology followed focused on the analysis of the context, problem construction, conceptualisation of agroecology, operational principles, and policy instruments included in the policy documents. Three main themes emerged from the case studies: differences in framing agroecology in the public policy arena; common dependencies to existing configurations influencing translations of agroecology in public policies; and the need for democratic discussion on the hybridisation of agroecology itself, as well as on implied, but often veiled, political choices. This paper concludes that a selective and relational hybridisation of agroecology is emerging during its translation' into public policies.

The popularity of agroecology has grown over the last few years as an alternative paradigm for food systems. This public attention has meant agroecology is increasingly becoming institutionalised and integrated into food policy frameworks. While there is a significant body of literature discussing the origins and worldviews intrinsic to agroecology, hardly any academic publications focusing on analysing policies claiming to have an agroecological focus exist. This first policy study of its kind contributes to the scarce agroecological policy literature by interrogating what we argue is a translation' process, which starts with the vision of agroecology and analyses how the concept changes once it has been operationalised into a policy document or law. Evidence from two European agricultural policy contexts, namely France and the United Kingdom, is presented. The methodology followed focused on the analysis of the context, problem construction, conceptualisation of agroecology, operational principles, and policy instruments included in the policy documents. Three main themes emerged from the case studies: differences in framing agroecology in the public policy arena; common dependencies to existing configurations influencing translations of agroecology in public policies; and the need for democratic discussion on the hybridisation of agroecology itself, as well as on implied, but often veiled, political choices. This paper concludes that a selective and relational hybridisation of agroecology is emerging during its translation' into public policies.

The popularity of agroecology has grown over the last few years as an alternative paradigm for food systems. This public attention has meant agroecology is increasingly becoming institutionalised and integrated into food policy frameworks. While there is a significant body of literature discussing the origins and worldviews intrinsic to agroecology, hardly any academic publications focusing on analysing policies claiming to have an agroecological focus exist. This first policy study of its kind contributes to the scarce agroecological policy literature by interrogating what we argue is a translation' process, which starts with the vision of agroecology and analyses how the concept changes once it has been operationalised into a policy document or law. Evidence from two European agricultural policy contexts, namely France and the United Kingdom, is presented. The methodology followed focused on the analysis of the context, problem construction, conceptualisation of agroecology, operational principles, and policy instruments included in the policy documents. Three main themes emerged from the case studies: differences in framing agroecology in the public policy arena; common dependencies to existing configurations influencing translations of agroecology in public policies; and the need for democratic discussion on the hybridisation of agroecology itself, as well as on implied, but often veiled, political choices. This paper concludes that a selective and relational hybridisation of agroecology is emerging during its translation' into public policies.

We show that narrative visualisation can contribute to identifying financial, legal, political, trade and other mechanisms capable of serving the diverse needs of practitioners of agroecology (primarily small scale farmers) and advocates of food sovereignty. Using financial and non-financial public information (re)sources such as historical macroeconomic data from the Bank of England and open source software tools, we paint portraits of (a) the trans-Atlantic slave trade and European Empires, (b) 21st century large-scale land acquisitions, and (c) traditional farming systems, agricultural biodiversity, and climate change. This triptych of background notes plus autonomous yet complementary cartograms and timelines overlaid with events provides long historical and large geographical lenses for understanding how the web of institutional and social structures of the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States of America were and remain central to the international political ecology of agriculture, particularly food and fibre. We propose that policies that support, strengthen and scale agroecology can increase financial stability by reducing climate change-related physical, liability and transition risks thereby making macroeconomies more resilient to crises and prepared for adverse shocks. This exploration of human and natural systems affords also a window on the emerging fields of structural one health and planetary health.

We show that narrative visualisation can contribute to identifying financial, legal, political, trade and other mechanisms capable of serving the diverse needs of practitioners of agroecology (primarily small scale farmers) and advocates of food sovereignty. Using financial and non-financial public information (re)sources such as historical macroeconomic data from the Bank of England and open source software tools, we paint portraits of (a) the trans-Atlantic slave trade and European Empires, (b) 21st century large-scale land acquisitions, and (c) traditional farming systems, agricultural biodiversity, and climate change. This triptych of background notes plus autonomous yet complementary cartograms and timelines overlaid with events provides long historical and large geographical lenses for understanding how the web of institutional and social structures of the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States of America were and remain central to the international political ecology of agriculture, particularly food and fibre. We propose that policies that support, strengthen and scale agroecology can increase financial stability by reducing climate change-related physical, liability and transition risks thereby making macroeconomies more resilient to crises and prepared for adverse shocks. This exploration of human and natural systems affords also a window on the emerging fields of structural one health and planetary health Keywords: Economic policy; agricultural policy; alternative data; Bank of England; trans-Atlantic slave trade; British Empire; Large-scale land acquisitions; Traditional farming systems; agricultural biodiversity; agroecology; Community-led London Plan; Visualisation

Bringing together academics, artists, practitioners and 'community activists', this book explores the possibilities for, and tensions of, social justice work under the contemporary drive for community-orientated 'impact' in the academy. Threading a line between celebratory accounts of institutionalised community engagement, self-professed 'radical' scholarship for social change and critical accounts of the governmentalisation of community, the book makes an original contribution to all three fields of scholarship. Showcasing experimental research and co-production practices taking place in the UK, Australia, Sweden and Canada and within universities, independent research organisations and internationally prestigious museums and galleries, the book considers what research impact could look like for a wide range of audiences and how universities could engage with different publics in ways that would be relevant and useful, but may not necessarily be easily measurable. Asking hard questions of the current impact agenda, the book offers an insight into emerging routes towards co-production for social justice