Climate-change and variability (CC&V) exerts multiple stresses on agriculture production. It negatively impacts gender-cadres especially in Kenya's arid and semi-arid lands that occupy 89% (area), 36% (population), 70% (livestock), and 90% (wildlife). Smallholders with limited resources endowments have adopted climate-smart agriculture technologies, which are viewed as a panacea to CC&V in addressing interlinked food-security challenges. This paper reports baseline survey results on 149 randomly selected households in Kalii watershed. Primary and secondary data were collected in March 2015. Data-analyses encompassed regressions, descriptive statistics and gender-analysis. Local perceptions/results revealed precipitations downward-trend and an upward-trend of temperatures, and other elements, and outcomes of CC&V. Gender and innovations are statistically significant at (p<0.05). Decision-making on assets' and proceeds' control and use, was men's domain. Invariably, gender and climate-smart agriculture innovations are critical in food and nutrition security strategy under CC&V.

Evidence shows the importance of food systems for sustainable development: they are at the nexus that links food security, nutrition, and human health, the viability of ecosystems, climate change, and social justice. However, agricultural policies tend to focus on food supply, and sometimes, on mechanisms to address negative externalities. We propose an alternative. Our starting point is that agriculture and food systems’ policies should be aligned to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This calls for deep changes in comparison with the paradigms that prevailed when steering the agricultural change in the XXth century. We identify the comprehensive food systems transformation that is needed. It has four parts: first, food systems should enable all people to benefit from nutritious and healthy food. Second, they should reflect sustainable agricultural production and food value chains. Third, they should mitigate climate change and build resilience. Fourth, they should encourage a renaissance of rural territories. The implementation of the transformation relies on (i) suitable metrics to aid decision-making, (ii) synergy of policies through convergence of local and global priorities, and (iii) enhancement of development approaches that focus on territories. We build on the work of the “Milano Group,” an informal group of experts convened by the UN Secretary General in Milan in 2015. Backed by a literature review, what emerges is a strategic narrative linking climate, agriculture and food, and calling for a deep transformation of food systems at scale. This is critical for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. The narrative highlights the needed consistency between global actions for sustainable development and numerous local-level innovations. It emphasizes the challenge of designing differentiated paths for food systems transformation responding to local and national expectations. Scientific and operational challenges are associated with the alignment and arbitration of local action within the context of global priorities.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

ABSTRACT. In 2014, the Third International Conference on the resilience of social-ecological systems chose the theme "resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation." The conference aimed specifically at fostering an encounter between the experiences and thinking focused on the issue of resilience through a social and ecological system perspective, and the experiences focused on the issue of resilience through a development perspective. In this perspectives piece, we reflect on the outcomes of the meeting and document the differences and similarities between the two perspectives as discussed during the conference, and identify bridging questions designed to guide future interactions. After the conference, we read the documents (abstracts, PowerPoints) that were prepared and left in the conference database by the participants (about 600 contributions), and searched the web for associated items, such as videos, blogs, and tweets from the conference participants. All of these documents were assessed through one lens: what do they say about resilience and development? Once the perspectives were established, we examined different themes that were significantly addressed during the conference. Our analysis paves the way for new collective developments on a set of issues: (1) Who declares/assign/cares for the resilience of what, of whom? (2) What are the models of transformations and how do they combine the respective role of agency and structure? (3) What are the combinations of measurement and assessment processes? (4) At what scale should resilience be studied? Social transformations and scientific approaches are coconstructed. For the last decades, development has been conceived as a modernization process supported by scientific rationality and technical expertise. The definition of a new perspective on development goes with a negotiation on a new scientific approach. Resilience is presently at the center of this negotiation on a new science for development.

No abstract

To operationalize the great food system transformation and ensure its sustainability, five areas of research and action require more attention: (i) economic and structural costs; (ii) political economy;(iii) diversity of cultural norms; (iv) equity and social justice; and (v) governance and decision support tools.