• Energy Research

The long-term viability of pastoralism has been a constant theme for discussions. The progress of knowledge on the sustainability of pastoralism under global environmental change has been notable in the last years. To better characterize this vulnerability, we have examined the existing scientific knowledge about the three dimensions of vulnerability, being exposure illustrated by the existing climate trends and non-climate transformations, sensitivity by the impacts of these on pastoral resources and pastoral land conversions, and adaptation by the adaptation strategies developed by the pastoral communities. A qualitative meta-analysis was conducted to explore patterns and trends across the literature. From this, six different pathways of vulnerability being followed by pastoral communities were identified: Encroachment, Re-greening, Customary, Polarization, Communal and No-alternative. The results point that the livelihood options of pastoralists are generally becoming narrower. Four major forces are identified as exerting determinant influence on the co-production of the vulnerability of pastoralism: (i) the double exposure to climate and non-climate transformations, (ii) the persistence of unfavorable development policies, (iii) the great vitality of adaptation, and (iv) the multifaceted role of markets. We point that it is crucial to distinguish between the component of vulnerability inherent in any economic activity devoted to the use of natural resources, which is the usual business of pastoralism, and the component of vulnerability linked to external forces that disturb the usual working of the pastoral production strategies. FLG has a Juan de la Cierva postdoctoral contract financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and financial support by SUR and Departament d’Economia i Coneixement of the Catalan Government. Peer reviewed

AbstractClimate change affects the functioning of all of the components of food systems, often in ways that exacerbate existing predicaments and inequalities among regions of the world and groups in society. At the same time, food systems are a major cause of climate change, accounting for a third of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Therefore, food systems can and should play a much bigger role in climate policies. This chapter highlights nine action points for climate change adaptation and mitigation in food systems. The chapter shows that numerous practices, technologies, knowledge and social capital already exist for climate action in food systems, with multiple synergies with other important goals, such as the conservation of biodiversity, the safeguarding of ecosystem services, sustainable land management and reducing social and gender inequalities. Many of these solutions are presently being applied at local scales around the world, even if not at sufficient levels. Hence, the major effort to unleash their potential would involve overcoming various technical, political-economic and structural barriers for their much wider application. Some other solutions require research and development investments now, but will focus on helping us meet the longer-term challenges of climate change in regard to food systems in the second half of this century, when most existing food production practices will face unprecedented challenges. In the short term, these pro-poor policy changes and support systems can have a range of positive effects well beyond food systems without delay. In the long term, investments in research will help ensure food security and ecosystem integrity for coming generations.

There is a concern that agriculture will no longer be able to meet, on a global scale, the growing demand for food. Facing such a challenge requires new patterns of thinking in the context of complexity and sustainability sciences. This paper, focused on the social dimension of the study and management of agricultural systems, suggests that rethinking the study of agricultural systems entails analyzing them as complex socio-ecological systems, as well as considering the differing thinking patterns of diverse stakeholders. The intersubjective nature of knowledge, as studied by different philosophical schools, needs to be better integrated into the study and management of agricultural systems than it is done so far, forcing us to accept that there are no simplistic solutions, and to seek a better understanding of the social dimension of agriculture. Different agriculture related problems require different policy and institutional approaches. Finally, the intersubjective nature of knowledge asks for the visualization of different framings and the power relations taking place in the decision-making process. Rethinking management of agricultural systems implies that policy making should be shaped by different principles: learning, flexibility, adaptation, scale-matching, participation, diversity enhancement and precaution hold the promise to significantly improve current standard management procedures.

The wide-ranging literature on food systems provides multiple perspectives and world views. Various stakeholders define food and food systems in non-equivalent ways. The perception of the performance of food systems is determined by these specific perspectives, and a wide variety of policies responding to different aims are proposed and implemented accordingly. This paper sets out to demonstrate that the pre-analytical adoption of different narratives about the food system leads to non-equivalent assessments of the performance of food supply chains. In order to do so, we (i) identify a set of relevant narratives on food supply chains in Spanish and Catalan contexts; (ii) identify the pertinent attributes needed to describe and represent food supply chains within the different perspectives or narratives; and (iii) carry out an integrated assessment of three organic tomato supply chains from the different perspectives. In doing so, the paper proposes an analysis of narratives to enable the analyst to characterize the performance of food supply chains from different perspectives and to identify the expected trade-offs of integrated assessment, associating them with the legitimate-but-contrasting views found among the social actors involved.

Agri-food systems are essential not only in achieving food security but also in achieving both social and environmental sustainability. Despite different actors use different frameworks to define and assess food systems sustainability, there is growing consensus on the need to approach them from a complex socio-ecological systems perspective. However, existing frameworks often lack the political dimension in the analysis of food systems outcomes. Food sovereignty has emerged as a proposal that centers the discussion in the entire system putting emphasis on the political aspects of food. In this paper, using food sovereignty as a conceptual framework, we propose a quantitative methodology that allows analysis of the functioning of food systems at the international level. We present a database with 97 indicators distributed into six categories: 1) access to resources; 2) productive models; 3) commercialization; 4) food consumption and the right to food; 5) agrarian policies and civil society organization, and 6) gender. We also present the limitations found in developing the database as well as its potential applications for a wide variety of actors. Dr. Rivera-Ferre is a Ramon y Cajal Research Fellow from the Spanish Ministry of Economy (MINECO). MS. Adriana Ruiz-Almeida held a grant of the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT). Peer reviewed

AbstractClimate change scenarios have significant implications for the livelihoods and food security of particular groups in society and will necessitate a range of adaptation actions. While there is a significant literature on the social as well as biophysical factors and limits to adaptation, less is known about the interactions between these, and what such interactions mean for the prospects of achieving sustainable and resilient food systems. This paper is an attempt at addressing this gap by examining changing biophysical and social factors, with specific consideration of vulnerable groups, across four case studies (Ghana, Malawi, Norway and Spain). In each case, future climate change scenarios and associated biophysical limits are mapped onto four key social factors that drive vulnerability and mediate adaptation, namely, scale, history, power and politics, and social differentiation. We then consider what the interaction between biophysical limits and socio‐political dynamics means for the options for and limits to future adaptation, and how climate may interact with, and reshape, socio‐political elements. We find that biophysical limits and socio‐political factors do not operate in isolation, but interact, with dynamic relationships determining the ‘space’ or set of options for sustainable adaptation. By connecting the perspectives of biophysical and social factors, the study illuminates the risks of unanticipated outcomes that result from the disregard of local contexts in the implementation of adaptation measures. We conclude that a framework focusing on the space for sustainable adaptation conditioned by biophysical and social factors, and their interactions, can help provide evidence on what does and does not constitute sustainable adaptation, and help to counter unhelpful narratives of climate change as a sole or dominant cause of challenges in food systems.