Suchergebnisse

While there is consensus on the need to promote agricultural development in Africa to achieve food security and use agriculture as an engine of growth, there is a lively policy debate on appropriate policies to achieve this goal. In the past two decades, there has been a revival of policies that favor government support to agriculture in Africa, especially in the form of input subsidies. Such policies have remained highly controversial, reflecting a long-standing dichotomy in agricultural development policy between those who consider subsidies as essential to increase agricultural productivity and those who criticize such state-focused policy instruments and favor market-oriented approaches. In the literature, agricultural policy choices have mainly been analyzed using models that capture economic or political interests. Some studies have focused on policy beliefs to explain the dichotomy, but what has not received much attention is the use of language in agricultural policy discourses, in spite of increasing evidence that narratives matter for policy-making. To address this gap, we combine the Advocacy Coalition Framework with Narrative Policy Analysis to examine agricultural policy discourses in Senegal. Applying a cluster analysis to coded transcripts of in-depth interviews with policy stakeholders, we identified two opposing advocacy coalitions and labelled them "agricultural support coalition" and an "agricultural support critique coalition". An analysis of the argumentative structure of the narratives of each coalition revealed interesting differences: while the agricultural support coalition told a range of straight-forward stories that explain how government support, such as input subsidies, addresses the problem of low agricultural productivity, the opposing coalition formulated their stories mostly in the form of critiques rather than telling equally straight-forward counter-stories. Based on the analysis, we examine possible meta-narratives, which take arguments of both coalitions into account and may have the potential to overcome the long-standing dichotomy in agricultural development. ; Peer Review

While there is renewed interest to promote agricultural development, there is a lively policy debate on the appropriate instruments to achieve this goal. While some actors argue that agricultural development requires strong government support and input subsidies, others criticize those state-focused instruments and favor market-oriented approaches. This paper aimed at contributing to a better understanding of the prevailing policy narratives in the agricultural policy making landscape, using Senegal as a case study example. Transcripts of in-depth interviews conducted with policy stakeholders in Senegal are the primary data source. The empirical analysis reveals that, there are two main coalitions with opposing policy narratives; "agricultural support" narrative coalition and "agricultural support critique" narrative coalition. The story-line of the agricultural support critique emphasizes that, the government provision of input subsidies is ineffective while story-line of the proponents of such policies consider support essential to promote agricultural development. The analysis of the narratives suggests that, the agricultural support coalition has a story-line with a beginning (low productivity caused by lack of inputs), middle (providing subsidized inputs) and end (increased productivity). In contrast, the agricultural support critique essentially presents "non-stories" and "counter stories" (focusing on alternative storyline of what should not be done). ; Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany

With the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has come a renewed global interest in ending hunger, achieving food security and preventing natural resource degradation. Despite this renewed interest and increased commitments to invest in agricultural development, there is an ongoing debate over the pathways to sustainability. The debate centres on sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) and agroecological intensification (AEI) pathways to agricultural sustainability. Using a systematic literature review approach, this study examines the debate over AEI and SAI. This study employs a theoretical framework based on the economic, social, and ecological dimensions of sustainable agriculture within a policy and institutional space. Based on the sustainability dimensions, a discourse analytical technique is applied to unravel the debate. The results reveal that proponents of the SAI pathway are predominantly private sector actors, while support for the AEI pathway comes mainly from international donors, NGOs and civil society actors. Both pathways aim to promote food security; however, the actors differ on discourse relating to the concept of farming, the role of GMOs, the scale of operation, and land use, as well as views on the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainability. Resolving these differences requires a blended sustainability approach that moves beyond the current AEI and SAI debate by acknowledging the tradeoffs and synergies of the socio-economic and ecological dimensions of the different pathways to sustainability. Knowledge platforms will support this shift, and an enabling policy and institutional environment will provide the right incentives to promote sustainable agriculture.

The triple burden of malnutrition is growing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Increasing access to affordable ultra-processed foods in the food environment is contributing to this problem. While existing explanations for this triple burden of malnutrition have examined demand-side factors of food choices, the supply-side policies relating to the food environment drivers, ideas and actors' interests have been neglected. Using a case study of Ghana, this analysis combines the Advocacy Coalition Framework with the narrative policy analysis to unpack the supply-side food environment policies and actors driving the triple burden of malnutrition. Applying a mixed methods analysis of the transcripts, the narratives reveal public, private and civil society organization (CSO) coalitions with different ideas and interests in the food environment. In the private sector coalition, food companies engage in aggressive advertising and are driven by profit motives – leading to the supply of more ultra-processed foods. The public sector is failing to regulate the market because of inadequate policies, limited institutional capacities and coordination, enforcement challenges, inadequate resources, and self-interest. Social activism by CSOs, for example, pressuring food companies to deliver healthy foods and holding the government accountable, is also lacking. The result is a triple sector (public, private and CSO) failure in the urban food environment with consequences on the availability of ultra-processed foods. This has long-lasting implications for the reduction of the triple burden of malnutrition and the achievement of zero hunger. To accelerate nutrition-sensitive food environments that deliver healthier food options, we argue that it is critical to entertain the ideas and interests of stakeholders and implement food environment policies that cover private and public sector initiatives, as well as increase consumer awareness. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; CRP2; DCA; 2 Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition for all; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; GSSP ; DSGD; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

In an aspirational global food system, everyone would meet but not exceed their nutritional needs, and fulfill personal preferences for tasty, affordable, varied, convenient and healthy food—while keeping climate change under 2°C. Diets are an outcome of people's choices and are profoundly shaped by socio-cultural, physical and economic factors in the food 'choice environment'. Historically there have been substantial changes in people's diets and diets continue to be in flux. Dietary change offers a route to achieving the aspirational Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) food system, combining positive outcomes for health and for the environment. The most effective strategies to shift diets will involve multiple approaches that deliberately aim not just to influence consumers themselves, but all participants in the food system, taking into account plural values and incentives. Effectiveness of actions will depend on the political economy at national and global levels. Overall there is reason to be hopeful about the potential for dietary change, given both historic trends and the growing suite of tools and approaches available.