Your search found 4 records
1 Lebel, L.; Lebel, P.; Chuah, C. J. 2019. Governance of aquaculture water use. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(4):659-681. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1457513]
Aquaculture ; Water use ; Water governance ; Water quality ; Water allocation ; State intervention ; Co-management ; Technological changes ; Innovation ; Certification ; Regulations ; Incentives ; Communication ; Information dissemination
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049205)
(1.53 MB)
Successful aquaculture depends on access to sufficient water of adequate quality, and should not significantly degrade water quality or damage ecosystems in receiving waters. While water management technologies have received a lot of attention as potential solutions, many of the outstanding challenges are collective-action problems that depend on improving aquaculture governance. In high-income countries, aquaculture is often subject to multiple regulations that constrain the development of the sector, whereas in most low- and middle-income countries, regulations are fewer, less demanding or not implemented. Many of the promising and innovative governance initiatives involve a combination of rules, information and incentives, as well as negotiation among multiple stakeholders.
2 Traldi, R. 2021. Progress and pitfalls: a systematic review of the evidence for agricultural sustainability standards. Ecological Indicators, 125:107490. (Online first) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107490]
Sustainable agriculture ; Standards ; Sustainability ; Indicators ; Best practices ; Certification ; Assessment ; Socioeconomic aspects ; Environmental factors ; Crops
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H050346)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21001552/pdfft?md5=9f4d5243fe4a0b6d9595c4371e2bd05b&pid=1-s2.0-S1470160X21001552-main.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050346.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050346.pdf
(5.57 MB) (5.57 MB)
Over the last decade, there have been increasing calls for robust impact evaluations of voluntary agricultural sustainability standards (VSS’s). In response, this study reviews the literature regarding 13 major agricultural standards, asking: where are certified crops being studied? Which sustainability outcomes and indicators are measured? And finally, what does the current evidence base suggest about VSS outcomes? The analysis of 45 peer-reviewed articles suggests a mismatch between what is certified and what is studied. Some crops and standards are over-represented in the literature as compared to their amount of certified production (e.g. coffee and Fairtrade certification), while others are under-represented (cotton, sugar, cocoa, soy, and palm oil, in addition to Organic certification). The review also identifies countries which appear to be under-represented in the literature, including Brazil, Australia, Malaysia, the Ivory Coast, and the United States. When measuring success, economic indicators are the most frequently evaluated, and only 20% of studies analyze economic, social, and environmental indicators simultaneously. When grouped by case, the indicator results tend to be positive on average (51%), followed by no difference (41%) and negative (8%) outcomes. There are no significant differences among sustainability pillars in terms of the average proportion of positive and negative results. These findings should be interpreted carefully, since the evidence base is heavily weighted towards coffee certification (75% of cases analyzed), and impacts are highly context dependent. Finally, the review identifies best practices in conducting robust evaluations, including the importance of addressing sustainability trade-offs and appropriately measuring environmental outcomes. While significant gaps remain, the findings indicate an increase in research credibly measuring VSS impacts.
3 Krauss, J. E.; Krishnan, A. 2021. Global decisions versus local realities: sustainability standards, priorities and upgrading dynamics in agricultural global production networks. Global Networks, 24p. (Online first) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12325]
Agricultural production ; Agricultural value chains ; Sustainability ; Standards ; Horticulture ; Cocoa industry ; Stakeholders ; Farmers ; Livelihoods ; Policies ; Certification ; Social aspects ; Economic aspects ; Environmental factors ; Case studies ; Models / Africa South of Sahara / Central America / Nicaragua / Kenya
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H050408)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/glob.12325
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050408.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050408.pdf
(1.76 MB) (1.76 MB)
Voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) in global production networks (GPNs) have grown significantly in prominence. Existing research largely assumed that VSSs create linear upgrading outcomes for all GPN actors and has studied VSSs from the point of adoption in the GPNs, rather than a broader range of stages in their lifecycle. To address these limitations, and building on literature around power and agency in GPNs, we develop the constellation of priorities (CoP) model to unpack the diverse and often diverging boardroom (Northern lead firm) and local (Southern supplier) priorities involved in such standards. Through in-depth fieldwork on horticulture in Kenya and cocoa in Nicaragua across the VSS lifecycle, we find significant divergences in priorities between farmer groups in both countries and lead firms in the UK and Germany. We demonstrate analytically and empirically that diverging priorities coupled with power asymmetries produced contestations, leading to simultaneous economic and environmental downgrading, and social upgrading.
4 Thompson, W. J.; Blaser-Hart, W. J.; Joerin, J.; Krutli, P.; Dawoe, E.; Kopainsky, B.; Chavez, E.; Garrett, R. D.; Six, J. 2022. Can sustainability certification enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers? The case of Ghanaian cocoa. Journal of Land Use Science, 17(1):407-428. (Special issue: Women in Land Science) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2022.2097455]
Climate resilience ; Sustainability ; Certification ; Smallholders ; Farmers ; Cocoa ; Climate change ; Food systems ; Governance ; Livelihoods ; Indicators ; Socioeconomic aspects ; Rural areas ; Fertilizers ; Econometric models / Ghana / Juabeso / Fanteakwa South / Abuakwa North / Suhum
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H051391)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1747423X.2022.2097455
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051391.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051391.pdf
(5.93 MB) (5.93 MB)
Sustainability certification has been posited as a key governance mechanism to enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers. Whilst many certifications now include climate resilience in their standards, their ability to deliver this for smallholders remains untested. We take the case of the 2015–16 drought-shock to cocoa production in Ghana to examine whether certification can enhance smallholder climate resilience. We used a novel transdisciplinary methodology combining participatory outcome definition with household surveys, biophysical measurements, satellite data and counterfactual analysis. Utilising our climate resilience framework, we find that certification has a strong effect on the adoption of basic management, e.g. fertilization, but a weak influence on more complex resilience strategies, e.g. agroforest diversification. Beyond certification, we identify strong regional patterns in resilience. These findings suggest that certification has some potential to enhance climate resilience but greater focus on facilitating diversification and adapting to sub-national contexts is required for improved effectiveness.
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
