Food Security, Knowledge and Adaptive capacity building. Maria Carmen Lemos School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan

Transcription

1 Food Security, Knowledge and Adaptive capacity building Maria Carmen Lemos School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan

2 Analysing Food Systems in context of drivers and feedbacks GEC DRIVERS Changes in: Land cover & soils, Atmospheric Comp., Climate variability & means, Water availability & quality, Nutrient availability & cycling, Biodiversity, Sea currents & salinity, Sea level Socioeconomic DRIVERS Changes in: Demographics, Economics, Sociopolitical context, Cultural context Science & Technology Environmental feedbacks e.g. water quality, GHGs Natural DRIVERS e.g. Volcanoes Solar cycles DRIVERS Interactions Food System ACTIVITIES Producing Processing & Packaging Distributing & Retailing Consuming Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to: Food Security, Environmental Security, and other Societal Interests Social Welfare Food Utilisation Food Availability Food Access Environ Capital Socioeconomic feedbacks e.g. livelihoods, social cohesion Source: Zurek, M. & Ericksen, P. (2006) A Conceptual Framework Describing Food System GEC Interactions. In prep.

3 Farmers building a dam as part of the government emergency work front program

4 Farmers supplement their diets with cactus plants.

5 Adaptive capacity The ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences (IPCC 2001)

6 Determinant: Human capital Information & Technology Material resources and infrastructure Organization and social capital Political capital Wealth & financial capital Institutions and entitlements Encompasses: Knowledge (scientific, local, technical, political), education levels, health, individual risk perception, labor Communication networks, freedom of expression, technology transfer and data exchange, innovation capacity, early warning systems, technological relevance Transport, water infrastructure, buildings, sanitation, energy supply and management, environmental quality Statecivil society relations, local coping networks, social mobilization, density of institutional relationships Modes of governance, leadership legitimacy, participation, decentralization, decision and management capacity, sovereignty Income and wealth distribution, economic marginalization, accessibility and availability of financial instruments (insurance, credit), fiscal incentives for risk management Informal and formal rules for resource conservation, risk management, regional planning, participation, information dissemination, technological innovation, property rights and risk sharing mechanisms Eakin and Lemos 2005

7 Knowledge, governance and Adaptive Capacity More knowledge Better decisions knowledge is available, accessible, and equitably distributed System more adaptive

8 Seasonal Climate Forecasting Great expectations of social impact tempered by mixed empirical evidence Successful application examples tend to be resource intensive and skewed towards more resourceful users Difficulty scaling up

9 Equity issues Unequal access may harm the most vulnerable Communication and dissemination constraints persist Opportunity costs Lemos and Dilling 2007

10 Unpacking governance Growing evidence of the importance of governance and institutions as determinants of adaptive capacity at different scales But which governance? How is governance critical to adaptive capacity?

11 Marca D agua Project 18 river basins Survey: 626 interviews with river basin committee members Unpacking Governance II

12 SURVEY BASINS Date Created Size of Basin (km2) Number of Municipalities Lagoa da Conceição Committee (SC) Pirapama Committee (PE) Litoral Norte Committee (SP) Gravataí Committee (RS) Lagos São João Consortium Alto Tietê Committee(SP) Sapucaí Mirim Grande Committee Pará Committee (MG) Araçuaí Committee (MG) Piracicaba Consortium(SP) Itajaí Committee (SC) Santa Maria Committee (RS) Tibagi Consortium (PR) Velhas Committee (MG) Itapicuru Consortium (BA) Paracatu Committee (MG) Paraiba do Sul Committee (RJ, SP, MG) Baixo Jaguaribe Committee (CE)

13 Engle 2007

14 Adaptive Capacity Index (Engle 2007) Guiding assumptions Representation: The more representative, the higher the adaptive capacity. Participation: The more participatory, the higher the adaptive capacity. Knowledge and Information Availability and Use: The more knowledge and information available and used, the higher the adaptive capacity. Equality: The more equal distribution of power and agenda setting ability, or the less inequality, the higher the adaptive capacity. Flexibility: The more flexible, the higher the adaptive capacity. Commitment/BuyIn: The more commitment/buyin, the higher the adaptive capacity. Networks/Connectivity: The more networked and connected with other institutions and stakeholders, the higher the adaptive capacity. Experience: The more water management and public policy experience, the higher the adaptive capacity. Resources: The more resources (wealth and education), the higher the adaptive capacity.

15 Unpacking Knowledge What knowledge are we talking about? At what scale? How do decision makers use knowledge? Seasonal climate forecasting, weather information, reservoir models River basin committees; river basin agencies and state level agencies

16 Relevance of climate info (score 110) Tech info makes decisions easier Unequal tech knowledge Unequal economic power Unequal political power CEIVAP Itaja Alto Tiet Ara ua Velhas Par Pirapama Sapuca Mirim Litoral Norte Baixo Jaguaribe Paracatu Lagoa da Concei o Gravata Santa Maria Piracicaba Tibagi Itapicuru Lagos de S o Jo o Total

17 Simplified Institutional model individual Experience Values, preferences, ideas networks Accountability Discretion Compatibility insulation organization Culture Autonomy capacity Willingness to adopt techno scientific knowledge Broader Institutional environment Complexity/nature of the problem Built infrastructure Institutional arrangements Knowledge fit, access, communication Lemos 2008

18 Knowledge Governance/ democracy High Low High Higher levels of adaptive capacity Technocratic Insulation Low Potential for ill informed decisions Maladaptation

19

20 Use of seasonal climate information in Ceará Highly politicized process that contributed both to support SCF and discredit it Tale of two policies: while insulation killed the seed distribution program, it supported bold reform in disaster relief

21 Water management, Knowledge and Adaptive Capacity Reservoir scenarios Why does it work? Role of reformoriented técnicos, perception of fit Conflict between» different users» Ajuzante/montante» Amounts of water discharged from three different reservoirs

22 Technical information: May signal increased adaptive capacity may allow for more participation for water users, especially elites which contributes to the continuation of traditional patterns of nonelite exclusion.

23 Keeps critical decisionmaking firmly in the hands of tecnicos reinforces the dominance of a technical discourse in water management (advocates for the dominance of technical discourse argue that considering the possibility of excessive and wasteful consumption, there should be limits to users discretionary powers in the first place). Ceará case: long and steep learning curve that built administrative and policy capacity and where success is relative

24 Why is it important we look at knowledge and governance together? Positive synergy essential to go beyond risk management and engage in adaptive capacity building

25 Twotiered approach to building adaptive capacity: reconcile short term adjustment to negative effects of impacts with long term structural reform that address the inequalities at the very root of vulnerability

26 Final thoughts Determinants of adaptive capacity are not always discrete categories varying in the same direction, but overlapping processes that may feedback both positively and negatively on each other Need to unpack governance and knowledge beyond aggregate categories The state is dead, long live the statepolitics matter! Need to frame adaptation as an opportunity to rethink development.

27

28 Availability of Technical Information Basins No. interview s Yes (%) No (%) NR (%) NS (%) Total (%) REGIÃO NORDESTE Baixo Jaguaribe 29 31,0 65,5 3,4 Itapicuru 25 76,0 24,0 Pirapama 17 52,9 47,1 REGIÃO SUDESTE Alto Tietê 30 40,0 60,0 Araçuaí 14 28,6 71,4 CEIVAP 59 64,4 35,6 Lagos São João 16,0 Litoral Norte 34 82,4 17,6 Pará 26 57,7 42,3 Paracatu 16 43,8 50,0 6,3 Piracicaba 17 94,1 5,9 Rio das Velhas 24 41,7 54,2 4,2 Sapucaí Mirim 23 82,6 13,0 4,3 REGIÃO SUL Gravataí 27 77,8 22,2 Itajaí 58 67,2 31,0 1,7 Lago da Conceição 25 24,0 72,0 4,0 Santa Maria 29 93,1 6,9 Tibagí 32 50,0 43,8 3,1 3,1

29 What kinds of inequity constraint the democracy of decisionmaking in your basin: technical knowledge River Basin Councils No. interviews Yes (%) No (% ) There is no inequity (%) NR (%) NS (%) Total (%) REGIÃO NORDESTE Baixo Jaguaribe 29 79,3 20,7 Itapicuru 25 64,0 28,0 8,0 Pirapama 17 88,2 11,8 REGIÃO SUDESTE Alto Tietê 30 83,3 13,3 3,3 Araçuaí 14 78,6 21,4 CEIVAP 59 64,4 35,6 Lagos São João 16 43,8 56,3 Litoral Norte 34 44,1 55,9 Pará 26 69,2 30,8 Paracatú 16 37,5 62,5 Piracicaba 17 35,3 58,8 5,9 Rio das Velhas 24 79,2 16,7 4,2 Sapucaí Mirim 23 60,9 39,1 REGIÃO SUL Gravataí 27 66,7 29,6 3,7 Itajaí 58 75,9 22,4 1,7 Lago da Conceição 25 88,0 12,0 Santa Maria 29 72,4 20,7 6,9 Tibagí 32 59,4 28,1 9,4 3,1

30 Accessibility of Technical information (presented in a manner that facilitates understanding. ORGANISMOS DE BACIA HIDROGRÁFICA Número total de entrevist as Sim (%) Não (%) NR (%) NS (%) Total (%) REGIÃO NORDESTE Baixo Jaguaribe 29 86,2 13,8 Itapicuru 25 88,0 12,0 Pirapama 17 70,6 29,4 REGIÃO SUDESTE Alto Tietê 30 36,7 63,3 Araçuaí 14 64,3 35,7 CEIVAP 59 72,9 27,1 Lagos São João 16,0 Litoral Norte 34 76,5 20,6 2,9 Pará 26 73,1 26,9 Paracatú 16 37,5 56,3 6,3 Piracicaba 17 64,7 29,4 5,9 Rio das Velhas 24 50,0 41,7 8,3 Sapucaí Mirim 23 69,6 30,4 REGIÃO SUL Gravataí 27 59,3 40,7 Itajaí 58 77,6 22,4 Lago da Conceição 25 48,0 48,0 4,0 Santa Maria 29 82,8 17,2 Tibagí 32 59,4 34,4 3,1 3,1

31 Inclusion: Organizational Representation Segments Committees Consortia All Councils Large Public and PrivateUsers 17% 20% 17% State and Federal Agencies 19% 8% 17% Municipal Authorities 22% 36% 25% Civil Society 28% 20% 27% Small producers 9% 13% 10% Other categories 4% 3% 4% Total % (486) % (107) % (626)

32 Inclusion: Gender, Education, Income Female All Councils 21% Elementary education or less Graduate Education Graduate specialization, MA or PhD Five Times the Minimum Wage or less R$ 1.300,00 More than 10 times the Minimum Wage R$2,600 7% 47% 15% 65%

33 Accountability In the decision making process, do you normally vote according to: Your own opinion or personal knowledge about the issue The guidance of your organization or segment/ category The guidance of a technical chamber or working group within your council Other. Did not answer Total 39% 31% 25% 3% 1% %

34 Accountability Involvement of Constituencies in Council Activities Other people from your organization always or sometimes suggest topics or solutions for issues discussed? Other members of your segment always or sometimes attend council meeting 69 % 57 %

35 Accountability Reporting to Constituencies Report to organization through written reports or presentations at meetings Report to other organizations in segment through written reports or presentations at meetings 77% 52%

36 Influence Member Evaluations of the Council Average Score on a Scale of 110 Dealing with the Most Important Issues in the Basin Success in influencing government decisions Success in influencing the decisions of private companies Success in influencing the behavior of the basin population 6,56 6,04 5,64 5,42

37 Deliberation Four Indicators of Free Deliberation Activities are defined by all members who want to get involved People feel free to express themselves and discuss their worries and proposals in the council Members who present proposals in the majority of plenary meetings Members who participate in negotiations in the council 38% 81% 42% 84%