Suchergebnisse

Many contemporary development solutions and policy prescriptions place emphasis on the potential for closer integration of poor people or areas with global markets. But the prospects for the reduct-ion of chronic poverty depend in great measure on the nature of the broader economic processes that, according to how they are configured, can either exacerbate or alleviate poverty. These pro-spects also depend on the forms of local economic growth that impact on the lives of the poor. Since the mid 1990s, a literature has emerged on value chains that has helped increase our understanding of how firms and farms in developing countries are integrated in global markets. Studies using the global value chain approach examine different types of value chain governance and the opportunities they provide for technological or functional upgrading of traders and producers in developing countries. But few value chain studies have succeeded in explicitly documenting the impact of value chain activities on poverty, gender and the environment. In this light, the paper develops a conceptual framework that can help overcome the shortcomings highlighted so far in 'stand-alone' value chain, livelihoods and environmental analyses by integrating the 'vertical' and 'horizontal' aspects of value chains that affect poverty and sustainability. This framework is used to draw lessons for external interventions in value chains targeted at small pro-ducers and other weak actors in developing countries, particularly the kinds of interventions known as 'action research' which puts emphasis on strategic and political approaches to achieving sustained improvements for disadvantaged groups. A companion paper to the present one develops a strategic framework and practical methods to guide action research in value chains (Riisgaard et al., 2008). The entire methodology will be tested during 2008-09 by seven action research projects targeted at poor rural producers in Africa and Asia. All projects form part of the Rural Poverty and Environment programme of the International Development Research Centre and are carried out as part of the RPE research theme 'integrate poverty and environmental concerns into value chain analysis' under the guidance of the Overseas Development Institute, London.

The paper presents a strategic and practical guide for how to design and implement action research in value chains in a way that integrates poverty, environmental and gender concerns. The focus is on small producers in developing countries and other weak chain actors such as small trading and processing firms. The toolbox guides the design and implementation of action research projects by presenting a step by step approach describing in detail (and with comprehensive checklists) what to do, questions to ask and issues to consider in each of the steps from the choice of overall research design, over participatory research and implementation of action, to evaluation, adjustment and exit. Reflections and decisions concerning effective action are assisted by a strategic framework for identifying 'upgrading' strategies potentially available for improving value chain participation for small producers, with the ultimate purpose of increasing the rewards and/or reducing the risks from participation. The stepwise approach is further aided by a comprehensive evaluation of specific action research methods, which first of all helps to select the specific research methods most suitable for the purpose and conditions of a particular action research project. A hypothetical example based on a real-world situation, shows how the toolbox might be applied in practice in its entirety, while real-world examples illustrate the most common upgrading strategies pursued by smallholders.

The potential contribution of organic farming to the public goods, 'Nature and Biodiversity', 'Environment', 'Energy and Climate', 'Human Health and Welfare' and 'Animal Health and Welfare' in Denmark is guided and partly secured by the principles and specific requirements of the EU Organic Regulation. However, other factors, such as the production type, farm size, geographical location and - not the least - the management of the farm, also influence the contribution. Using the ban on synthetic pesticides and restricted use of antibiotics, including the requirements to compensate for and prevent such uses in organic farming, as examples, the positive and negative contributions of organic farming in relation to selected public goods were analysed. The contributions of organic farming to Nature and Biodiversity and Human and Animal Health and Welfare are mainly positive compared to conventional farming for all farm types, whilst the effects on Environment and Energy and Climate are mixed; i.e. some effects are positive and others are negative. The analysis revealed a need for further documentation and revision of the organic principles and specific organic requirements—in particular in relation to the public goods Energy and Climate, which at present are not addressed in the EU Organic Regulation. Moreover, some organic farming requirements and practices cause dilemmas; e.g. more space per animal and outdoor access improves Animal Health and Welfare but at the same time has negative effects on Environment, Energy Consumption and Climate Change. These dilemmas should be solved before OA may be fully attractive as an integrated policy measure supporting jointly several public goods objectives.

peer-reviewed ; his article belongs to the Proceedings of TERRAenVISION 2019 ; Our planet suffers from humankind's impact on natural resources, biogeochemical cycles and ecosystems. Intensive modern agriculture with inappropriate inputs of fertilisers, pesticides and fossil fuel –based energy has increasingly added to human pressure on the environment. As a key element of our natural capital, soils are also under threat, despite being essential to provide food, feed, fibre and fuel for an increasing global population. Moreover, soils play a key role in carbon, water and energy cycles, highlighting their importance for biomass provision and the circular bioeconomy. Evidently, these new and complex challenges cannot be resolved effectively with existing knowledge and experience alone. These challenges require scientific research, interdisciplinary collaboration and networking to find context-specific and tailored solutions addressing societal issues of our time and facilitating the adoption of these solutions. The most effective approaches are based on the involvement of multiple actors from science, policy, economy, civil society and farming that have the same goal, work on the same societal issue, but have complementing backgrounds, expertise and perceptions. The European Joint Programme (EJP) SOIL is a European network of research institutes in the field of soil science and agricultural soil management that will provide science-based advice to practitioners and policymakers, at local, national and European level. The EJP SOIL aims to align and boost research, training and capacity building through joint programming activities co-funded by the European Commission and national research programs. This will reduce current fragmentation and help to find synergies in order to make a leapfrog in research on good agricultural soil management in three main areas: climate change mitigation and adaptation, production capacity in healthy food systems, and environmental sustainability. By joint programming, training and capacity building, EJP SOIL will also take into account the need for effective policy solutions, as well as the socio-economic conditions of all stakeholders in the agricultural value chain. Thus, a key focus of the EJP SOIL is to build and strengthen a framework for an integrated community of research groups working on related aspects of agricultural soil management. As part of this effort, EJP SOIL will co-construct with stakeholders a roadmap for agricultural soil research. To develop a structured roadmap, EJP SOIL works with a version of the knowledge management framework of Dalkir (2005). The EJP version uses four compartments: (i) Knowledge development, (ii) knowledge harmonisation, organisation and storage (iii) knowledge sharing and transfer, and (iv) knowledge application. The four segments are part of a cyclic process to enhance the development and use of knowledge on agricultural soils. Knowledge development comprises assessing new knowledge needs to achieve the expected impacts of EJP SOIL. Therefore, by involving multiple stakeholders, knowledge gaps across Europe will be identified to work towards the adoption of Climate-Smart Sustainable Agricultural Soil Management (CSSASM). Within the knowledge sharing and transfer compartment, the capacity of scientists, advisors, policy makers, farmers and other stakeholders will be strengthened. EJP SOIL will work to support networks and co-creation of new knowledge with stakeholder groups, stimulating innovation in CSSASM. The knowledge harmonization, organization and storage compartment of the knowledge framework ensures linkages with all stakeholders to guarantee data harmonization and standardization. The last compartment, application of knowledge, will be facilitated by creating better guidelines, awareness and capacity for Climate-Smart Sustainable Agricultural Soil Management adoption and by strengthening science-to-policy processes at EU and Member State level.