Figure 9 - uploaded by Yann Laurans
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
KEY MESSAGES • Information alone often fails to motivate change. Manipulation of data has led consumers to doubt scientific results, serving special interests at the expense of public benefit. Information overload implies the need for synthesis to enable better access and impact. • Rationalizations against the need for change include: fatalism, arg...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... systems-wide perspective (as described in Chapter 2) is paramount, but the Framework is designed to be flexible in order that it may be tailored to a wide range of actors, including farmers, business people and consumers. Figure 9.1 illustrates the functional domain of the TEEBAgriFood ToC within and among stakeholders to improve public knowledge and decision making processes and stimulate pressures for change. Other forces that drive and condition the political economic context, including institutions that mediate the prospects for change, such as markets and property rights, are also essential building blocks in the ToC, but are beyond TEEBAgriFood's immediate domain. ...
Context 2
... et al. (2014) used path dependency analysis to look at the potential for carbon sequestration from new woodland planting in Scotland in contrast to the conventional planting that would lead to net emissions. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems report (IPES-Food 2016) showed path dependency to be among the eight characteristics of industrial agriculture that most restrain advance toward sustainable food systems, Figure 9.2 shows how path dependency has contributed to lock-in to a specific path in which the concentration of power plays a central role along with other drivers and narratives that help to perpetuate the system (see Section 9.3 for further details of the importance of addressing power relations as a means toward transformational change). ...
Context 3
... monoculture facilitate pesticide resistance? Or, as Figure 9.3 describes, have pesticides simply substituted one predator for another? ...
Context 4
... our global civilization take a new path toward an ethics based on collective responsibility for the common good, and, if so, what are the implications for change in food systems? Figure 9.3 Time sequence of pesticide resistance in pest populations (Source: adapted from https:// commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3965987) ...
Context 5
... role of different stakeholders in change processes must therefore be approached via their role in the value chains (Forrer and Mo 2013; Kashmanian and Moore 2014). Figure 9.4 describes the critical points along food systems on which CSO/NGO coalitions have acted jointly with progressive business organisations, consumers, taxpayers and labour advocates to place pressures upon the formation of value chains. ...
Context 6
... in the 2000s vigorously promoted Brazil's sugar-cane ethanol abroad as a clean fuel from a renewable source, able to deliver substantial GHG emission reductions by displacing fossil based fuels (UNICA n.d.; Wilkinson and Herrera 2008;WWF Brasil 2008;Egeskog et al. 2014). Occupying former pastures and some cropland, (Adami et al. 2012) sugarcane became a dominant element of the landscape (see Figure 9.5). ...
Context 7
... ZAA was designed to direct the expansion of sugarcane into new production areas, identifying restrictions for production, including protected areas and biodiversity conservation concerns, soil and climate aptitude, air quality, water availability and topography (SMA 2009). This exercise culminated in the publication of a zoning map, which categorizes land suitability for sugarcane cultivation and for establishment of agro-industrial facilities (Figure 9.5b). Although these regulations do not empower authorities to deny activities non-compliant with the zoning map, public development banks, international agencies and external investors may condition finance on meeting zoning criteria (see Section 9.4.5). ...
Context 8
... instance, a social movement may use a study to make a government undertake a change; the government will in turn use the study as well to make other actors change and so on. To illustrate this, actors are grouped in Figure 9.6 below with a proposed relative position on the continuum axis between the influencer pole and the key actors pole. ...
Citations
... Lynn et al. 2009); 2) frameworks based on biophysical suitability (Larned et al. 2017;Lilburne et al. 2020;Mcdowell et al. 2018); 3) frameworks to support multi-criteria analysis and decision-making (e.g. Renwick et al. 2017); 4) ecosystem services/well-being-based frameworks (May et al. 2018;Teeb 2018); and 5) frameworks that are process-based and work with the relevant decisionmakers to derive decisions (Awatere and Harcourt 2020;Morgan et al. 2021). ...
Choices about how to use land are critical to efforts to manage water quality in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Māori and non-Māori communities need decision-making frameworks that enable their values and priorities to inform land use choices. However, few of the available frameworks meet the needs of Māori communities. It is challenging to construct decision-making frameworks that have true utility for both Māori and non-Māori land stewards because of differences in their relationships with the whenua (land), the wai (the water) and te taiao (the environment). Additionally, Māori may utilise different types and formats of data in their decision-making from those traditionally encompassed by science-based frameworks. This paper aims to help non-indigenous researchers understand the required development processes and design features if a framework aimed at a broad audience is to have genuine relevance and utility for indigenous users. To achieve this, we utilised a modified version of Cash et al.’s Credibility, Salience and Legitimacy framework to evaluate a range of land use decision-making frameworks. We discuss why science-based concepts of holism are not the same as those embodied by a Māori worldview. We conclude that it is essential to co-develop frameworks in genuine partnership with Māori.
... TEEBAgriFood (May et al., 2018) has published what the authors called a ToC (but which could be considered more of a broad schematic of relationships) for their work improving public knowledge and decision-making processes around agri-and food-related ecosystem valuation (Figure 8). The ToC recognises forces that drive and condition the political economic context, including institutions that mediate the prospects for change (such as markets and property rights) are also essential building blocks in the ToC, but are beyond TEEBAgriFood's immediate domain. ...
This report seeks to explore the current status of mainstreaming biodiversity into production sectors — in theory and in practice.
It first explores a number of key concepts of biodiversity mainstreaming. Then a review of reveals that while the literature on mainstreaming continues to evolve and improve, its development is hampered by an inconsistent use of terminology and approaches. The report concludes that an empirical framework is needed, as well as more and better ‘stories’ that will allow the narrative to change.
... Una "teoría del cambio" sólida identifica a los agentes, procesos y requisitos previos necesarios para que las intervenciones alcancen las consecuencias previstas en la mejor medida posible. May et al. (2018) presentan una teoría del cambio que sostiene que conocer mejor y cuantificar las principales externalidades del sistema alimentario gracias al Marco de Evaluación de TEEBAgriFood puede aprovecharse para influir en los responsables de la adopción de decisiones en contextos concretos. La teoría del cambio propone que si el cambio que se persigue con la política, el modelo agrícola, la práctica de las empresas agrícolas o el comportamiento de los ciudadanos ya cuenta con una comunidad de apoyo, algunos defensores creíbles y tal vez algo de adherencia, las evaluaciones exhaustivas derivadas de la aplicación del Marco TEEBAgriFood pueden justificar que se ejerza una mayor presión y se generen oportunidades para que se produzca dicho cambio. ...
“La Economía de los Ecosistemas y la Biodiversidad” (TEEB) es una iniciativa enmarcada en el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (ONU Medio Ambiente) y coordinada por la oficina de TEEB en Ginebra (Suiza). “TEEB para la Agricultura y la Alimentación” (TEEBAgriFood) engloba diversos proyectos de investigación y fomento de la capacidad en el marco de TEEB, centrándose en la evaluación integral de los sistemas agroalimentarios a lo largo de sus cadenas de valor, incluidas sus externalidades más significativas. El presente documento es una síntesis del informe TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations Report (La Economía de los Ecosistemas y la Biodiversidad para la Agricultura y la Alimentación: Informe sobre los Fundamentos Científicos y Económicos), con el apoyo de la Global Alliance for the Future of Food.
Autores: Alexander Müller (TMG: Think Tank for Sustainability) y Pavan Sukhdev (GIST Advisory/ONU Medio Ambiente)
Los autores son plenamente responsables de las opiniones y declaraciones expresadas en este informe, pero desean agradecer
y reconocer el aporte de las siguientes personas:
Comité Directivo del Proyecto: “TEEB para la Agricultura y la Alimentación” está gestionado por un Comité Directivo de alto nivel, presidido por Alexander Müller (TMG: Think Tank for Sustainability) e integrado por expertos sénior de los ámbitos de la agricultura, la alimentación, la salud y la economía de los ecosistemas, entre ellos: Patrick Holden (Sustainable Food Trust), Peter May (Universidad Federal Rural de Río de Janeiro), Kathleen Merrigan (George Washington University), Danielle Nierenberg (Food Tank), Walter Pengue (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento/Universidad de Buenos Aires), Jules Pretty (Universidad de Essex), Maryam Rahmanian (Investigadora independiente), Ruth Richardson (Global Alliance for the Future of Food), Pavan Sukhdev (GIST Advisory/ONU Medio Ambiente) y Abdou Tenkouano (West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development).
Autores principales encargados de coordinar el Informe sobre los Fundamentos Científicos y Económicos, cuyos aportes fueron esenciales y que contribuyeron al fundamento intelectual para esta síntesis, entre ellos: Barbara Gemmill-Herren (Centro Mundial de Agrosilvicultura), Haripriya Gundimeda (Instituto de Tecnología de la India, Bombay), Michael W. Hamm (Universidad del Estado de Michigan), Salman Hussain (ONU Medio Ambiente), Ivonne Lobos Alva (TMG: Think Tank for Sustainability), Anil Markandya (Centro Vasco para el Cambio Climático), Peter May (Universidad Federal Rural de Río de Janeiro), Walter Pengue (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento/Universidad de Buenos Aires), Carl Obst (Institute for Development of Environmental-Economic Accounting/Universidad de Melbourne), Gunars Platais (Banco Mundial), Harpinder Sandhu (Universidad Flinders/Universidad de Australia Meridional), Kavita Sharma (ONU Medio Ambiente), Maria Cristina Tirado von der Pahlen (Universidad de Loyola Marymount, Los Ángeles), Jes Weigelt (TMG: Think Tank for Sustainability) y Wei Zhang (Instituto Internacional de Investigación sobre Políticas Alimentarias).
Coordinador del informe: Dustin M. Wenzel (ONU Medio Ambiente), cuya ejemplar gestión de los procesos y la eficiente coordinación de esta compleja colaboración mundial ha permitido elaborar este informe.
“La economía de los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad para la agricultura y la alimentación” (TEEBAgriFood), un nuevo estudio puesto en marcha por ONU Medio Ambiente con motivo del Día Mundial del Medio Ambiente 2018, muestra cómo captar la compleja realidad de los diversos e interrelacionados sistemas “ecoagroalimentarios” actuales para evaluar integralmente su desempeño a fin de fundamentar la toma de decisiones, evitando los riesgos y las limitaciones propios de sistemas de medición simplistas como la “productividad por hectárea”.
Existen dos diferencias clave entre el enfoque convencional de evaluación del rendimiento agrícola, basado únicamente en la producción, y el enfoque sistémico que prefiere TEEBAgriFood. Estas radican en que el primero se restringe a los segmentos de “producción” de las cadenas de valor alimentarias y a aquellas reservas, flujos, resultados y repercusiones que pueden observarse en los mercados y, por tanto, reflejarse en las estadísticas económicas normalizadas. El enfoque sistémico adoptado por TEEBAgriFood analiza las cadenas de valor alimentarias en toda su extensión y demuestra que existen reservas y flujos importantes, aunque económicamente invisibles (es decir, sin relación con el mercado), que también deben tenerse en cuenta.
The systems analysis framework has permeated the social and political sciences, and its use is increasing in the analysis of global value chains. Nevertheless, minimal research has applied this systems analysis to investigate voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) in the value chain. This study employs systems analysis to explore the role and interactions of VSS in the coffee value chains of Costa Rica and Colombia. Using discourse analysis, the study identifies in the discourses of interviewed stakeholders system traps (this means specific archetypes systems tend to evolve when not balanced) and leverage points that can initiate rapid and significant changes in complex systems when introduced. The interviewed stakeholders cited numerous examples of events related to the identified traps and leverage points in the value chains examined. Another relevant finding is the coherence of these discourses, which were consistent and had no contradictions in different stakeholders’ expressions. The findings contribute to the research regarding private governance in the agricultural sector, introducing a new analytical framework.
Our goals are bold and ambitious: to contribute a
framework approach for better understanding and
managing the impacts and externalities of agriculture
and food value chains, and to incite a global network of
scholars and decision-makers dedicated to disclosing
and valuing those impacts.
Without a doubt, the complexity is daunting as we
embrace, holistically, the interconnectedness of
agriculture and food production issues with which
we must grapple. Yet we choose not to simplify our
study, rejecting from the onset the reductionist, silooriented
impulse that has dominated much of modern
agricultural thought and action. Instead our collective
effort to understand the true cost of food has left us
energized, as we are certain that this is an essential
step forward toward the kind of new policies, practices,
science, and community engagement necessary to
achieve our goals, particularly in the context of the
Sustainable Development Goals.
Agriculture and food systems must evolve if we are to
survive as a planet. Our report seeks to shine a light
on the pathways forward and to generate new thinking and strategies that might lead to a more sustainable
food future. Herein, you will find comprehensive,
systems thinking approaches to evaluating ’eco-agrifood
systems’, an innovative Framework along with
methodologies and tools to support robust evaluation
of current production practices, and a theory of change
describing how this all fits into the bigger picture.
We are honored to be a part of TEEBAgriFood and stand
alongside so many contributors as we unveil this report.
There is strength in numbers and it is impressive to note
that over 150 scholars from 33 countries representing a
wide range of disciplines, backgrounds and perspectives
have contributed in some meaningful way. For this
reason, we are convinced that this document is a
beginning, not an end. We have seeded a powerful global
network to carry on and further delineate externalities of
agriculture and food value chains.
We invite you, the reader, to join us and invest in the
collective effort to raise awareness of our dependency
on the invisible benefits provided by natural, human, and
social capital as well as the hidden costs that undergird
our ‘eco-agri-food systems’. We must alter our current course and design better agriculture and food value
chains and policies that support healthy people and a
healthy planet. We must bring everyone to the same
table to use a common approach that supports the
change we seek. This is what TEEBAgriFood offers.
‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB) is an initiative hosted by United Nations Environment
Programme (UN Environment), and coordinated by the TEEB Office in Geneva, Switzerland. ‘TEEB for Agriculture & Food’
(TEEBAgriFood) encompasses various research and capacity-building projects under TEEB focusing on the holistic
evaluation of agriculture and food systems along their value chains and including their most significant externalities.
This ‘Scientific and Economic Foundations’ report addresses the core theoretical issues and controversies underpinning
the evaluation of the nexus between the agri-food sector, biodiversity and ecosystem services and externalities including
human health impacts from agriculture on a global scale. It is supported by the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.
