Highlights 14• Empowerment is possible even when control is not fully ceded. 15• Engaging different stakeholders alone falls short of addressing power imbalances. 16• Transparently assuming positions should not be seen as hindrances, but as an asset. 17• "Strong objectivity" might generate less partial accounts of contested issues. proposed by transdisciplinarity, is to point to the fundamental aspect of reflexivity. But 25 reflexivity also includes being aware that power and control over the object is derived 26 from the social position of researchers, an issue not often explicitly discussed in 27 transdisciplinary research. Reflexivity thus represents an important but insufficient 28 principle for guaranteeing appropriate levels of self-reflection within a process of 29 knowledge coproduction. We therefore hypothesize that transdisciplinary research could 30 greatly benefit from feminist scientific tradition, in particular the insights of standpoint 31 theory and the concept of 'strong objectivity'. We analyse, and reflect upon, how a recent 32 transdisciplinary research initiative -conducted together with civil society organizations 33 in (CSOs) in six countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador and India 34-has benefited from the use of 'strong objectivity'. We analyse how the social position 35 of all stakeholders, including ourselves as the scientific actors in this initiative, influence 36 the process and conditions of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production, and we discuss 37 how power and control by scientists affects the process and conditions of interaction. 38Thereby we argue for the necessity of explicitly assuming sides in contested contexts for 39 reaching objectivity in transdisciplinary research. -which lead to multiple and individual constellations of dominance and discrimination. 167The argument is that research starting off from marginal lives offers more enlightening background, which might be restricting or diverting the implementation of resource

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Multi-stakeholder participation (MSP) has become a central feature in several institutions and processes of global governance. Those who promote them trust that these arrangements can advance the deliberative quality of international institutions, and thereby improve the democratic quality, legitimacy and effectiveness of both the institutional landscape, as well as decisions made within it. This paper employs a heuristic framework to analyze the deliberative quality of MSP. Specifically, it applies Dryzek's deliberative systems framework to the case of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). The assessment shows that the CFS improves the deliberative quality of food security governance by including and facilitating the transmission of discourses from the public to the empowered spaces. However, the deliberative quality of CFS could be higher with stronger accountability mechanisms in place, more meta-deliberation and adoption of CFS outcomes at national and local levels. Reflecting on the limitations of using this heuristic framework to assess MSP, we conclude that the analysis would benefit from more explicit consideration of different forms of power that are part of the social relations between actors involved in such settings. By proposing this analytical approach, we expect to advance a heuristic framework for assessing deliberation in an international context of the growing importance of MSP in sustainability and global governance.

Inadequacies of the current agriculture and food systems are recognised globally in the form of damages to environment and human health. In addition, the prevailing economic and policy systems do not reflect these damages in its accounting systems and standards. These shortcomings lead to perverse and pervasive outcomes for society at large. Our proposal is to consider all social and environmental externalities – both negative and positive, in global agriculture and food systems and reflect them in an economic system by evaluating comprehensive costs and benefits. This can be done by adopting an innovative, universal, and inclusive framework (the ‘TEEBAgriFood’ framework) in order to stimulate appropriate policy responses.

Biofuels have been promoted worldwide under the assumption that they can support several strategic policy goals, while mitigating associated risks. Drawing on published evidence on performance, contributing papers to this Special Section question assumptions commonly attributed to biofuels: their carbon neutrality, their positive effect on rural livelihoods, and policymakers' ability to effectively govern for sustainability. This paper takes these findings as its starting point and asks, "What next?" for countries wishing to advance biofuels as one option for the necessary divestment from fossil fuels. Deriving recommendations for national biofuel programmes from past performance is no easy task. Context, complexity, power dynamics and scaling pose significant challenges to achieving policy aims. We are nevertheless able to distil a set of sine qua nons (indispensables) for sustainable biofuel governance from the evidence and change management literatures. They are put forward not as recipes for success, but minimum conditions and "best bet" approaches requiring testing, deliberation, and refinement. Perhaps the most fundamental sine qua non is to pursue options that downscale global demand-as current levels of global energy consumption, if only in the transport sector, cannot be met by biomass-derived agrofuels in a way that meets social and environmental sustainability goals.