Search

Over the past two decades, voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) have emerged as instruments to improve social and environmental practices and to communicate sustainability standards in trade and business. However, debates about the correct assessment methodology for VSS risk causing duplication, overlaps, and fragmentation, undermining the value of VSS in sustainability transition. In this paper I propose materiality, theory of change and reflexive governance as the three building blocks of an appropriate framework for VSS and other sustainability assessment schemes in the food and agricultural sectors. Materiality is the specific criteria for defining and assessing factors that matter for sustainability, such as indicators, metrics, and rankings. Materiality is a process of social construction that enables stakeholder engagement and integrated knowledge production, going beyond just benchmarking entities against their competitors using standardized measures. Theory of change is a method that explains how interventions lead to desired outcomes and changes but is much more than a linear logic model of inputs and outputs. It sheds light on underlying assumptions, embedded contexts and long- and short-term dynamics. Reflexive evaluation consists of a single-loop process that follows a problemdetection-correction course and double- and triple-loop learning that allows assumptions and learned propositions to be challenged. It highlights unintended outcomes and offers alternatives to conducting interventions, which is different from conventional monitoring and evaluation methods, which focus on measuring the attainment of intended outcomes only. The study concludes that the semantic meaning of "standards" and "assessment" in agricultural VSS abstract the complex nature of sustainability because of overly linear meaning. In the complex construct of sustainability assessment, the role of VSS is not to conclude a success or a failure but to encourage knowledge-based learning and accountable governance because social change is an open-ended validation and adaption process. The framework proposed by this paper offers a solution by calling for integrated knowledge production resulting from interdisciplinary assessments and learning-oriented actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Livelihoods are activities and practices in which social and environmental factors interlink, and they play a key role in achieving human well-being and environmental conservation. Livelihood analyses are therefore important to social-ecological systems research. With a few exceptions, however, the concept of agency has been largely missing in research applying the social-ecological systems approach. This is an important gap to address, because humans are not passive victims of broader sociopolitical trends and environmental changes, but rather play causative roles that shape history. This paper presents a conceptual framework that enables the explicit integration of agency into livelihood analyses, and is useful for examining the extent to which livelihoods enable people to be agents of their own well-being, and stewards of their environment. The framework has four pillars of agency: preconditions (referring to capital assets and resources, or CARs); processes (feedbacks and dynamics); power (the social and political fabrics, and relations in which livelihoods are embedded); and possibilities (the extent to which a present livelihood expands into future options, and builds the ability to act on options). The framework is then applied to a case study analyzing smallholder farming livelihoods and food security in southwest Ethiopia. The case study is based on empirical work involving quantitative survey, in-depth interviews, and focus-group discussions. This paper demonstrates the applicability of the framework to identifying agency constraints in smallholder farming, and helps determine areas where agency can be further strengthened. Beyond the case study, the framework may also be applied in other contexts and to other livelihood types. Its application can strengthen the contribution of livelihood analysis to social-ecological systems research by providing a way to operationalize and foreground agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global shift toward agricultural specialization in the 20th century led to unprecedented ecological and socioeconomic changes, both positive and negative, in rural landscapes. Economic theory describes comparative advantage and market participation as two important drivers of such changes. Landscapes in the Global South are still often characterized by subsistence agriculture and direct dependence on natural ecosystem processes. Agricultural specialization is part of the structural transformation process from subsistence to market-oriented agriculture. However, comparative advantage and market participation as major drivers for agricultural specialization remain understudied. In this paper, we assess the potential drivers of ecosystem service specialization in an Ethiopian smallholder landscape at the kebele level, the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia. We measured specialization via the concentration of production for a range of locally important provisioning ecosystem services (beef, cattle, coffee, eucalyptus, honey, maize, sorghum, and teff). We measured comparative advantage based on productivity data, and assessed spatial flows of ecosystem services to local, regional, and global markets (i.e., telecoupling). To unpack the relationships between specialization, comparative advantage, and telecoupling, we used hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, correlation analysis, and linear regression. More telecoupled kebeles (i.e., kebeles that produced more of ecosystem services that flow to broader spatial scales) were more specialized in their ecosystem service production, and the positive relationship between comparative advantage and specialization grew stronger with altitude. Wealthier kebeles and kebeles with higher population density were less specialized. Biophysical drivers, such as altitude and amount of forest cover, influenced the ecosystem services produced and the relationship between comparative advantage and specialization. Policy makers should therefore try to balance potential positive and negative consequences of specialization, and to account for fine-scale social and biophysical drivers underpinning diverse ecosystem service production profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Livelihoods are activities and practices in which social and environmental factors interlink, and they play a key role in achieving human well-being and environmental conservation. Livelihood analyses are therefore important to social-ecological systems research. With a few exceptions, however, the concept of agency has been largely missing in research applying the social-ecological systems approach. This is an important gap to address, because humans are not passive victims of broader sociopolitical trends and environmental changes, but rather play causative roles that shape history. This paper presents a conceptual framework that enables the explicit integration of agency into livelihood analyses, and is useful for examining the extent to which livelihoods enable people to be agents of their own well-being, and stewards of their environment. The framework has four pillars of agency: preconditions (referring to capital assets and resources, or CARs); processes (feedbacks and dynamics); power (the social and political fabrics, and relations in which livelihoods are embedded); and possibilities (the extent to which a present livelihood expands into future options, and builds the ability to act on options). The framework is then applied to a case study analyzing smallholder farming livelihoods and food security in southwest Ethiopia. The case study is based on empirical work involving quantitative survey, in-depth interviews, and focus-group discussions. This paper demonstrates the applicability of the framework to identifying agency constraints in smallholder farming, and helps determine areas where agency can be further strengthened. Beyond the case study, the framework may also be applied in other contexts and to other livelihood types. Its application can strengthen the contribution of livelihood analysis to social-ecological systems research by providing a way to operationalize and foreground agency.