Your search found 5 records
1 Bossio, Deborah; Critchley, W.; Geheb, K.; van Lynden, G.; Mati, B.; Bhushan, P.; Hellin, J.; Jacks, G.; Kolff, A.; Nachtergaele, F.; Neely, C.; Peden, D.; Rubiano, J.; Shepherd, G.; Valentin, Christian; Walsh, M. 2007. Conserving land, protecting water. In Molden, David (Ed.). Water for food, water for life: a Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London, UK: Earthscan; Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). pp.551-583.
Water resource management ; Land management ; Soil degradation ; Soil management ; Erosion ; Sedimentation ; Water pollution ; Households ; Women ; Gender ; Farming systems
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: IWMI 630.7 G000 IWM Record No: H040207)
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Water%20for%20Food%20Water%20for%20Life/Chapters/Chapter%2015%20Land.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H040207.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H040207.pdf
(0.90 MB) (1.66 MB)
2 Wollenberg, E.; Herrero, M.; Wassmann, R.; Neufeldt, H.; Vermeulen, S.; Rosswall, T.; Campbell, B.; Hellin, J.; Jarvis, A.; Challinor, A.; Snook, L.; Smakhtin, Vladimir; Kinyangi, J. 2012. Setting the agenda: climate change adaptation and mitigation for food systems in the developing world. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). 18p. (CCAFS Working Paper 29)
Climate change ; Adaptation ; Policy ; Research ; Food security ; Living standards ; Economic development ; Developing countries
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H045821)
http://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/24914/CCAFSWorkingPaper29.pdf?sequence=1
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H045821.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H045821.pdf
(1.20 MB) (1.20MB)
New agricultural development pathways are required to meet climate change adaptation and mitigation needs in the food systems of low-income countries. A research and policy agenda is provided to indicate where innovation and new knowledge are needed. Adaptation requires identifying suitable crop varieties and livestock breeds, as well as building resilient farming and natural resources systems, institutions for famine and crop failure relief, and mechanisms for rapid learning by farmers. Mitigation requires transitioning to ‘low climate impact’ agriculture that reduces emissions while achieving food security, economic well-being and sustainability. Efficient interventions, incentives for large-scale shifts in practices, and monitoring systems are required. Integrated assessments of adaptation and mitigation are needed to better understand the synergies and trade-offs among outcomes.
3 Ratner, B. D.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Hellin, J.; Mapedza, Everisto; Unruh, J.; Veening, W.; Haglund, E.; May, C.; Bruch, C. 2013. Addressing conflict through collective action in natural resource management: a synthesis of experience. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 41p. (CAPRi Working Paper 112) [doi: https://doi.org/10.2499/CAPRiWP112]
Natural resources management ; Collective action ; Conflict ; Risks ; Institutions ; Frameworks ; Cooperation ; Sociology ; Ecology ; Governance ; Food production ; Rural areas ; Living standards / Africa / Asia / Latin America
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H046235)
(0.52 MB) (528.95 KB)
The food security crisis, international “land grabs,” and new markets for environmental services have drawn renewed attention to the role of natural resource competition in the livelihoods of the rural poor. While significant empirical research has focused on diagnosing the links between natural resource competition and (violent) conflict, much less has focused on the dynamics of whether and how resource competition can be transformed to strengthen social-ecological resilience and mitigate conflict. Focusing on this latter theme, this review synthesizes evidence from a wide range of cases in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Building on an analytical framework designed to enable such comparative analysis; we present several propositions about the dynamics of conflict and collective action in natural resource management, and a series of recommendations for action. These propositions are: that collective action in natural resources management is influenced by the social-ecological and governance context, that natural resource management institutions affect the incentives for conflict or cooperation, and that the outcomes of these interactions influence future conflict risk, livelihoods, and resource sustainability. Action recommendations concern policies addressing resource tenure, conflict resolution mechanisms, and social inequalities, as well as strategies to strengthen collective action institutions in the natural resource sectors and to enable more equitable engagement by marginalized groups in dialogue and negotiation over resource access and use.
4 Hellin, J.; Amarnath, Giriraj; Challinor, A.; Fisher, E.; Girvetz, E.; Guo, Z.; Hodur, J.; Loboguerrero, A. M.; Pacillo, G.; Rose, S.; Schutz, T.; Valencia, L.; You, L. 2022. Transformative adaptation and implications for transdisciplinary climate change research. Environmental Research: Climate, 1(2):023001. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ac8b9d]
Climate change adaptation ; Transformation ; Transdisciplinary research ; Agricultural research ; Climate resilience ; Risk reduction ; Social aspects ; Equity ; Food systems ; Vulnerability ; Technology ; Innovation ; Institutions ; Governance ; Collaboration ; Policies ; Finance
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H051430)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/ac8b9d/pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051430.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051430.pdf
(0.70 MB) (719 KB)
The severity of the climate challenge requires a change in the climate response, from an incremental to a more far-reaching and radical transformative one. There is also a need to avoid maladaptation whereby responses to climate risk inadvertently reinforce vulnerability, exposure and risk for some sections of society. Innovative technological interventions are critical but enabling social, institutional and governance factors are the actual drivers of the transformative process. Bringing about this transformation requires inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, and the embracing of social equity. In this Perspective, we unpack what this means for agricultural research and, based on our collective experience, we map out a research agenda that weaves different research components into a holistic and transformative one. We do not offer best practice, but rather reflections on how agricultural research can more readily contribute to transformative adaptation, along with the personal and practical challenges of designing and implementing such an agenda.
5 Dolinska, A.; Hassenforder, E.; Loboguerrero, A. M.; Sultan, B.; Bossuet, J.; Cottenceau, J.; Bonatti, M.; Hellin, J.; Mekki, I.; Drogoul, A.; Vadez, V. 2023. Co-production opportunities seized and missed in decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation in agriculture – how do we practice the “best practice”?. Agricultural Systems, 212:103775. (Online first) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103775]
Climate change adaptation ; Agriculture ; Decision support systems ; Decision making ; Frameworks ; Stakeholders ; Farming systems ; Smallholders ; Sustainability ; Political aspects ; Indigenous Peoples' knowledge ; Agroforestry ; Monitoring and evaluation
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H052349)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X23001804/pdfft?md5=7d5da35dad4721e84834aadd50c7c2fa&pid=1-s2.0-S0308521X23001804-main.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H052349.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H052349.pdf
(1.43 MB) (1.43 MB)
CONTEXT: To contribute to building sustainable and effective climate change adaptation solutions avoiding usability gap, it is largely recommended to engage in the process of co-production, integrating expertise and knowledge from various academic and non-academic actors.
OBJECTIVE: We want to learn if and how co-production, believed to effectively link knowledge and decision-making, and thus suggested as the best practice in building decision-support frameworks, is really applied in the frameworks that are being implemented on the ground.
METHODS: A literature review allowed us to identify integrated decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation in agriculture developed and used over the period of the last 10 years and involving non-academic stakeholders. To analyse them, we chose as an assessment tool the four co-production principles proposed by Norström and colleagues: context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented and interactive.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The useful entry points for incorporating co-production in the design of decision-support that we found in the reviewed frameworks include among the others adequate participants selection strategy, building on existing interaction spaces, developing a theory of change with the participants, and involving participants in the design of different elements of the method. The architectures of the analyzed frameworks contained more elements that responded to pluralistic and interactive principles than to context-based and goal oriented principles, we have also identified gaps in the design, such as taking into account the personal characteristics of researchers that could strengthen a framework's implementation and its impact, or attempts at bridging different levels of decision making, to cover the triad of science, policy and practice. A detailed look at the decision-frameworks that are actually being applied allows for a critical reflection whether and how we as researchers use what we preach as an effective way of responding to sustainability challenges in agriculture. Co-production principles turn out to be a useful tool for analysis and we suggest they can be used as a check-list when designing decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation.
SIGNIFICANCE: This papers offers useful examples of how to shift the research-led processes of decision-support towards more co-production with non-academic actors, to increase chances of bridging the gaps between science, policy and practice.
OBJECTIVE: We want to learn if and how co-production, believed to effectively link knowledge and decision-making, and thus suggested as the best practice in building decision-support frameworks, is really applied in the frameworks that are being implemented on the ground.
METHODS: A literature review allowed us to identify integrated decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation in agriculture developed and used over the period of the last 10 years and involving non-academic stakeholders. To analyse them, we chose as an assessment tool the four co-production principles proposed by Norström and colleagues: context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented and interactive.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The useful entry points for incorporating co-production in the design of decision-support that we found in the reviewed frameworks include among the others adequate participants selection strategy, building on existing interaction spaces, developing a theory of change with the participants, and involving participants in the design of different elements of the method. The architectures of the analyzed frameworks contained more elements that responded to pluralistic and interactive principles than to context-based and goal oriented principles, we have also identified gaps in the design, such as taking into account the personal characteristics of researchers that could strengthen a framework's implementation and its impact, or attempts at bridging different levels of decision making, to cover the triad of science, policy and practice. A detailed look at the decision-frameworks that are actually being applied allows for a critical reflection whether and how we as researchers use what we preach as an effective way of responding to sustainability challenges in agriculture. Co-production principles turn out to be a useful tool for analysis and we suggest they can be used as a check-list when designing decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation.
SIGNIFICANCE: This papers offers useful examples of how to shift the research-led processes of decision-support towards more co-production with non-academic actors, to increase chances of bridging the gaps between science, policy and practice.
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
