Growing evidence suggests that constraints to the availability and quality of tree seed can undermine the success of forest and landscape restoration efforts and the delivery of associated benefits such as mitigating climate change and halting biodiversity loss. Past experiences to promote tree seed supply have frequently shown limited outcomes over time, partly because of unexpected, deleterious dynamics that emerged from the interventions themselves. In this study, we used a dynamic system approach to understand the interrelated problems that constrain the supply of good quality and site-adapted tree seeds to meet smallholders' and other stakeholders' demand in Burkina Faso and the Philippines, and to identify leverage points for intervention. Causal loop diagrams were constructed for each country, based on a framework of indicators of effective tree seed supply systems, literature review, semistructured interviews, and expert validation. The diagrams illustrate the complex interactions between planned interventions and their expected and unexpected effects that frequently lead to adverse outcomes. For example, the high turnover of forestry officers in municipalities to combat corruption in Burkina Faso combined with limited resources to support smallholders undermined the officers' ability to strengthen local capacities in seedling production and sustainable forest management. In the Philippines, the imposition of rigid requirements for seedling survival rates as a condition for funding, in the absence of adequate time and resources for the production of quality seedlings and monitoring, resulted in exaggerated survival rates during reporting, which in turn hampered the detection and addressing of shortcomings. A dynamic system approach can help stakeholders recognize the broader impacts of their actions and jointly identify appropriate interventions, from developing more context-specific approaches to reconsidering investment criteria to balance benefits.

No abstract

No abstract

Climate disasters affect human security and development, moreso in fragile and conflict-affected contexts where population’ capacities to cope with climate change are compromised. Responses to such crises lie at the nexus of humanitarian assistance, development, and peacebuilding. Yet, there are still too few integrated programmatic responses coordinating peacebuilding and climate actions to ensure a progressive human development. This research develops a multi-scalar model to help actors identify thematic areas to inform synergistic efforts and programs at different scales to better coordinate their actions. Findings suggest that climate action and peacebuilding sectors can coordinate actions around climate and conflict risk assessments, the management of land and water resources, ecosystem restoration, nature-based climate adaptation, climate and conflict smart agriculture, natural resources governance, and sustainable market development. These collaborative efforts have the potential to generate co-benefits, such as increased social cohesion and livelihood creation.

Governments are updating national strategies to meet global goals on biodiversity, climate change and food systems proposed in the Convention on Biological Diversity post-2020 framework and agreed at the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference (COP26) and Food Systems Summit (UNFSS). This represents a unique and crucial opportunity to integrate and accelerate food system actions to tackle interconnected global challenges. In this context, agroecology is a game-changing approach that can provide the world’s growing population with nutritious, healthy affordable food, ensure fair incomes to farmers and halt and reverse the degradation of the natural environment. Here, we explore agroecological transition pathways in four case studies from low- and middle- income countries and identify catalysts for change. We find that enabling policy and market environments, participatory action research and local socio-technical support each plays a critical role in stimulating transitions towards agroecology. We propose strategies and priorities for research to better support agroecological transitions using these catalysts of change as entry points. Engagement of governments, private sector, civil society, farmers and farm workers in this research agenda is essential.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract