Competing claims on natural resources become increasingly acute, with the poor being most vulnerable to adverse outcomes of such competition. A major challenge for science and policy is to progress from facilitating univocal use to guiding stakeholders in dealing with potentially conflicting uses of natural resources. The development of novel, more equitable, management options that reduce rural poverty is key to achieving sustainable use of natural resources and the resolution of conflicts over them. Here, we describe an interdisciplinary and interactive approach for: (i) the understanding of competing claims and stakeholder objectives; (ii) the identification of alternative resource use options, and (iii) the scientific support to negotiation processes between stakeholders. Central to the outlined approach is a shifted perspective on the role of scientific knowledge in society. Understanding scientific knowledge as entering societal arenas and as fundamentally negotiated, the role of the scientist becomes a more modest one, a contributor to ongoing negotiation processes among stakeholders. Scientists can, therefore, not merely describe and explain resource-use dynamics and competing claims, but in doing so, they should actively contribute to negotiation processes between stakeholders operating at different scales (local, national, regional, and global). Together with stakeholders, they explore alternatives that can contribute to more sustainable and equitable use of natural resources and, where possible, design new technical options and institutional arrangements.

No abstract

No abstract

ABSTRACT. Transformations inherently involve systems change and because of the political nature of change, are subject to contestation. A potentially effective strategy to further transformative change that builds on interdisciplinary, multiactor, and multiscalepractices and values is the use of foresight. Foresight covers a wide range of methods to systematically investigate the future. Foresight exercises offer collaborative spaces and have the potential to conceptualize and even initiate transformative change. But there is no clear understanding of the possibilities and limitations of foresight in this regard. This explorative paper builds on foresight and sociology and interrogates the role of foresight in transformative change, building on four cases. These cases are embedded in different contexts and characterized by different organizational approaches and constellations of actors. Nevertheless, they share the common goal of transformative food systems change. By reflecting on the processes that play a role in foresight workshops, we analyze what created conditions for transformative change in these four empirical cases. We have operationalized these conditions by distinguishing layers in the structuring processes that influence the impact of the foresight process. Based on this analysis, we conclude that there are three roles, ranging from modest to more ambitious, that foresight can play in transformative change: preconceptualization of change; offering an avenue for the creation of new actor networks; and creation of concrete strategies with a high chance of implementation. Furthermore, contributing to future design of foresight processes for transformative change, we offer some crucial points to consider before designing foresight processes. These include the role of leading change makers (including researchers), the risk of co-option by more regime-driven actors, and the ability to attract stakeholders to participate.

Although there's increasing emphasis on farmer-led extension in rural development, very few studies have been done to understand the social processes involved. This study was undertaken to identify farm and farmer characteristics that may influence dissemination of seed and knowledge of improved fallows and biomass transfer, to whom, how and what is disseminated. This was done by carrying out a formal and informal survey involving a random sample of 120 farmers from Siaya and Vihiga districts of western Kenya who were involved in a pilot project on soil fertility replenishment by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) and Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). A second survey involved 40 farmers, selected using the snowball sampling technique that were given seed and information by the first group of farmers. Descriptive statistics and logit regression models were used to analyze data. Results presented showed that seed and knowledge were mostly shared along kinship ties. Furthermore, informal social networks were found to be more effective for seed than knowledge. This calls for simplification of technical information by development professionals in order to help support farmers' understanding and communication of complex principles. Farmers with leadership status in their groups, those who belonged to many groups and those with larger farm sizes were more likely to give out seed of improved fallows. These categories of farmers could be targeted to enhance the spread of technologies.

This introductory paper to the special section argues that there are now significant signs and opportunities of real transformations of food systems in which to create new synergies between sustainable consumption and production, and which can potentially shift agri-food into more secure and sustainable sets of conditions. With reference to empirical research in Europe, the paper assesses the transformative potential of a series of mobilisations associated with: sustainable city networks, community cooperative and share schemes, and regional agro-ecological, seed, plant and livestock schemes. Not denying the significance of countervailing intensive and industrialised food regimes, the paper introduces a set of conceptual building blocks, which emerge as ways of both assessing and progressing these mobilisations. It is argued that to succeed they need elements of at least four conditions: (i) a significant and lasting reconfiguration of governance and regulatory conditions; (ii) an ability and capacity to both promote sustainable production and food access and diet through the development of new assemblages; (iii) develop new social and physical and distributional infrastructures which can scale out their impacts; and (iv) be embedded in a more reflexive governance context which is both supportive and spatially sensitive to their diverse conditions. The succeeding papers in the special issue will deal with these transformatory factors in comparative and empirical depth. Here we outline how and why such a 're-building' has become so critical at this current juncture.

No abstract

This article introduces a special issue that is dedicated to a critical inquiry of the deagrarianisation and depeasantisation theses. It sets the scene for the contributions that are included in the special issue and sketches the themes that are covered. An analysis of this kind is important because ultimately, it is concerned with key agrarian questions about the future of family farming, food security and sovereignty, land-based livelihoods and rural areas as a whole. The contributions to this special issue explore ways of conceptualising agriculture and the rural. For some, a leading question is whether and how processes of repeasantisation and re-agrarianisation are relevant to robust agrarian pathways. Other contributions prefer relational approaches and analyse transformation processes using concepts like 'territory' and '(re-and/or de-)territorialisation', 'landscape' and 'assemblages' to examine processes of change in the rural domain. They share the premise that it is worthwhile exploring the underlying dynamics of these processes as real and representing agrarian pathways that hold the promise of a dynamic agrarian future and vibrant countrysides. The articles also agree on the need to go beyond understanding development as unilinear and dichotomous. They all engage critically with the rather 1. Setting the scene: the deagrarianisation and depeasantisation theses and the future of the rural and the agrarian Processes of deagrarianisation and depeasantisation are theorised as inevitable outcomes of past and contemporary processes of agrarian transformations. Global, capitalist expansion has restructuring effects on farming, the way farming is practised, the composition of the family and the provision of (family) labour; the intergenerational transfer of farm assets; urban-rural interactions; the natural environment and landscape; and the supply and provisioning of food. Scholars predict the demise of what is referred to in the policy and scholarly literature as 'small-scale' or 'smallholder farming', 'family