Suchergebnisse

Global environmental change (GEC) represents an immediate and unprecedented threat to the food security of hundreds of millions of people, especially those who depend on small-scale agriculture for their livelihoods. As this book shows, at the same time, agriculture and related activities also contribute to GEC by, for example, intensifying greenhouse gas emissions and altering the land surface. Responses aimed at adapting to GEC may have negative consequences for food security, just as measures taken to increase food security may exacerbate GEC. The authors show that this complex and dynamic

Global environmental change (GEC) represents an immediate and unprecedented threat to the food security of hundreds of millions of people, especially those who depend on small-scale agriculture for their livelihoods. As this book shows, at the same time, agriculture and related activities also contribute to GEC by, for example, intensifying greenhouse gas emissions and altering the land surface. Responses aimed at adapting to GEC may have negative consequences for food security, just as measures taken to increase food security may exacerbate GEC. The authors show that this complex and dynamic relationship between GEC and food security is also influenced by additional factors; food systems are heavily influenced by socioeconomic conditions, which in turn are affected by multiple processes such as macro-level economic policies, political conflicts and other important drivers. The book provides a major, accessible synthesis of the current state of knowledge and thinking on the relationships between GEC and food security. Most other books addressing the subject concentrate on the links between climate change and agricultural production, and do not extend to an analysis of the wider food system which underpins food security; this book addresses the broader issues, based on a novel food system concept and stressing the need for actions at a regional, rather than just an international or local, level. It reviews new thinking which has emerged over the last decade, analyses research methods for stakeholder engagement and for undertaking studies at the regional level, and looks forward by reviewing a number of emerging 'hot topics' in the food security-GEC debate which help set new agendas for the research community at large.

In the mid‐2000s, several highly‐cited papers called for improving conceptual coherence and methodological transparency in vulnerability research to support greater policy relevance. As reducing vulnerability rises on political agendas, identifying empirically validated measures will become increasingly important in the design and evaluation of multi‐site and multi‐scale programmatic interventions. Using a systematic review methodology, we analyze the current range of conceptual frameworks, operationalizations and research methodologies as used in empirical studies of local‐level vulnerability in agricultural settings. Detailed analysis of theories and methods provides a platform for moving toward reporting that supports valid comparisons between disparate studies. This in turn, enables the design and implementation of empirically‐informed programmatic interventions. The results show that earlier concerns remain relevant. Even the best reported cases do not support aggregated analysis because conceptual ambiguity and methodological heterogeneity renders each study effectively unique. While conceptualization is broadly consolidating around the IPCC framework, declaration of that framework does not predict consistent operationalization. Furthermore, emerging alternative frameworks, especially Vulnerability as Expected Poverty, reveal important limitations of the IPCC framework. Findings also highlight that reporting practices in vulnerability research perpetuate problematic ambiguity. When designing and reporting research, we recommend addressing six key questions that can help specify the objectives of the study: (1) Is this system vulnerable? (2) To what is this system vulnerable? (3) How vulnerable is this system? (4)What is causing this system to be vulnerable? (5) How is vulnerability distributed within the system? (6) What is causing the observed distribution of vulnerability within the system?

The conversion of primary forest to other land uses in the Amazon threatens biodiversity and releases carbon into the atmosphere, but makes economic development and poverty reduction possible. Small-scale farmers practising slash-and-burn cultivation account for a significant proportion of tropical deforestation. However, the conditions necessary for increased productivity of alternative land use systems (LUS) to improve farmer welfare and simultaneously reduce deforestation are not well understood. The research presented in this report attempts to determine the environmental consequences of different LUS in the western Brazilian Amazon, whether these consequences can be mitigated with appropriate technological, policy and institutional changes and what sorts of tradeoffs exist among the different social objectives facing policy makers. The research programme implemented during Phase II of ASB s project in Brazil was designed to better understand how the Government of Brazil, national and international research organizations and donor agencies can balance global environmental objectives with economic development and poverty reduction. The key question can be summarized as: can intensifying land use within forest and on cleared land simultaneously reduce deforestation and reduce poverty? ; Available in SANREM office, ES

The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is implementing the Program for Climate Smart Livestock (PCSL) in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia. PCSL is designed to build the capacity of governments, the private sector, and livestock keepers towards improving livestock productivity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions while adapting to climate change. In March 2021, ILRI held a workshop with relevant stakeholders to discuss potential transformative pathways for the livestock sector in Uganda.

The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is implementing the Program for Climate Smart Livestock (PCSL) in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia. PCSL is designed to build the capacity of governments, the private sector, and livestock keepers towards improving livestock productivity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions while adapting to climate change. In late November 2020, ILRI held a virtual workshop with relevant stakeholders to discuss potential transformative pathways for the livestock sector in Kenya. PARTICIPANTS The workshop brought together 35 Kenyan stakeholders representing a variety of organisations, including government ministries, the private sector, NGOs and research institutes. FORMAT The workshop was carried out virtually, via Zoom, over 2 days, 1 week apart. Digital tools were used for gathering individual reflections (Mentimeter) and group discussions (Miro). The workshop activities and outcomes are outlined in the following pages. They draw a lot of inspiration from the Futures Thinking Playbook by Kate Bishop King (2017) and the Three Horizons Framework as applied by Bill Sharpe and colleagues (2016). REPORTING BACK This report shares both the workshop methodology and exercises carried out, as well as the key outcomes.

The food systems/global environmental change nexus is a key area of research that links two major interconnected challenges humanity faces in the 21st century. This paper discusses the role of strategic foresight for tackling these challenges in spaces that aim to facilitate deliberative, multi-actor governance. First, we reflect on the role of foresight in the domains of global food futures and global environmental change and its impacts on governance in these domains. Then, we explore how lessons from both domains can be integrated by examining an on-going international foresight program: the CGIAR program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Using multi-stakeholder scenarios interacting with global market/water/land cover models, this program explores trade-offs, synergies and other relationships between food security and environmental governance in the developing world. The CCAFS foresight process takes a complex systems approach, exploring the inter-connectedness of food systems and environmental systems. This systems approach includes the acknowledgement that diverse sources of knowledge and experience are crucial both to systems understanding and to concerted action toward sustainable and accepted change. Key to the CCAFS foresight process is the ambition to go beyond a disconnected futures process and to integrate foresight into the daily realities of multi-actor governance. We discuss how well the CCAFS foresight program connects food systems and environmental change futures and whether it succeeds in integrating strategic foresight in both governance dimensions. Based on this case we outline challenges and opportunities for foresight in the food systems/environments nexus.

Global pressures on food security such as climate change, rising food prices and rising populations demand collaborative action from actors governing food systems across all levels and scales. This paper describes concerted efforts in East Africa, West Africa and South Asia to build capacity for food system governance at the regional (sub-continental) level where key environmental and socio-economic change processes play out. The Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) program is a partnership between the global agricultural development institutes (CGIAR) and the global environmental change community (ESSP). CCAFS uses multi-actor scenarios development processes to bring together regional actors from civil society, NGOs, the private sector, national governments, regional governance institutions, media and research. Together, these actors use exploratory scenarios of the future to consider radically different, plausible socio-economic development pathways for their regions. These alternate futures explore different roles for state and nonstate actors and interactions between national and regional governance efforts in terms of food security, environmental management and livelihoods. The scenarios also explore the consequences of reactive and proactive modes of governance and the focus on short term priorities versus long term priorities. This paper reports on how developing these socioeconomic scenarios creates collaborative multi-sector networks in East and West Africa and South Asia that together focus on key regional uncertainties. Furthermore, we discuss the subsequent use of the scenarios to test strategies, policies and technologies with state and non-state actors to build capacity for regional governance.

Economic growth in Africa accelerated in the new millennium, enhancing confidence in the continent's future. Positive developments have taken place in the liberalization of trade and markets, in the strengthening of institutions and policies, and in investments in human and social capital and infrastructure. However, the growth has not trickled down to the large number of rural people experiencing chronic or crisis-driven hunger and poverty. Thus, Africa has had a larger proportion of extreme poor than any other region of the world. Most of Africa's poor are rural and most rely largely on crops, livestock, trees and fish – along with off-farm income – for their livelihoods. The improvement of agriculture, particularly smallholder farming systems, is fundamental to overcoming the problems of rural poverty and lagging rural economies. The African rural development context is unique and diverse, in its geography, agro-ecology, history, politics and culture. National and regional decision makers face the challenge of identifying the best agricultural and rural development opportunities with the greatest impact on food security, livelihoods and economic growth. Experience has shown that policy and investment decisions must be better grounded in local context-specific analyses, incorporating multi-stakeholder and systems approaches focused on the livelihood strategies and opportunities of farm men and women. The value of targeting technologies and policies to different farming systems has been recognized in the Science Agenda of the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). At the opening of the new millennium an FAO/World Bank analysis was published that examined rural development opportunities over the period from 2000 to 2015 from the perspective of farm households in major farming systems of the developing world (Dixon et al. 2001; www.fao.org/farmingsystems/). The analysis classified and mapped farming systems, including those of Africa, examined the drivers of change for the 2000–2015 period and identified strategic priorities for each system. This farming system framework and analysis has proved to be valuable for targeting and prioritizing agricultural research and development initiatives and has been used repeatedly – for example, by the InterAcademy Council report on Africa, the Millennium Villages Project, the CGIAR Collaborative Research Programs, and others. Given the major changes in African agricultural opportunities, it was time for an update of the 2000 FAO/World Bank analysis of African farming systems looking forward from 2015 to 2030. Since 2000 the African population has increased by a third, dynamism has returned to many African economies and regional agricultural research and development organizations have generated and disseminated many new varieties and practices – but farm household vulnerability and international market volatility have increased. The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research supported an update, with assistance and guidance from the New Partnership for Africa's Development, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the CGIAR, the World Bank, and the Food and Agricultural Organization. The work was coordinated by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in Nairobi. More than 60 scientists and development professionals, working in multi-disciplinary teams, assessed constraints, trends and strategic interventions in the 15 major farming systems across the continent. The analysis integrated key recent strategic reports and a wealth of expert knowledge and spatial data – including natural resource, production, infrastructural and nutritional information from FAO, World Bank, CGIAR, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and other sources. The resulting book provides a unique systematic, forward-looking, compendium of continent-wide farming system assessments and databases for agribusiness, policy makers and science leaders. The document will undoubtedly be a fundamental guide for years to come for prioritization and targeting of public and private investments to deliver food and nutrition security and rural transformation in Africa.

This roadmap is developed based on a context analysis of Ethiopian agriculture. The roadmap aims to strengthen the role of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) in addressing vulnerabilities facing the agriculture sector under changing climatic conditions by institutionalizing climate-smart agriculture. The roadmap is largely informed by the overarching country Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) strategy; review of scientific literature; sectoral documents on Ethiopian agriculture and climate-smart agriculture; and related reports from government, development partners, scientific publications, expert comments on the draft and inputs obtained from several senior experts on two presentations made during climate-smart agriculture platform meetings conducted in May and November 2019.

Stresses that livestock-keeping remains one of the most important livelihood activities practiced in African drylands, with production of meat and milk typically comprising 5–15 percent of total gross domestic product (GDP) and up to 60 percent of agricultural GDP. Future feed and animal resources will prove insufficient to provide secure and adequate livelihoods for people depending on livestock as their principal livelihood source, however. By 2030, about 77 percent of pastoralist households and 58 percent of agro-pastoralist households will prove unable to accumulate the numbers of animals needed to subsist even at 50 percent of the poverty line. Investments in improving animal health services, feed resources, and increasing market integration, could help livestock-keeping households remain resilient, but the development of alternative sources of income must remain an integral component of any dryland development strategy. Government policies designed to sedentarize pastoralists, particularly in the more arid zones, will only reduce productivity and exacerbate poverty.