Contested landscapes: the global political economy of climate-smart agriculture

Newell, Peter; Taylor, Olivia

doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1324426

Cited by 159 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cairns and Krzywoszynska (2016) have argued that the nexus has become a new buzzword, combining ambiguity of meaning with strong normative resonance to express an "integrative imaginary," while assuming that policy integration is both desirable and possible. In relation to CSA, there is similar concern that the triple-win rhetoric serves to downplay the conflicts between competing policy objectives and obscures the contradictions and challenges associated with them (Newell and Taylor 2018). Furthermore, as Weitz et al (2017, 165) argue, while the WEF nexus literature identifies barriers to achieving coherence, it "does not clearly explain why the barriers are present, what influences them, and how they can be acted upon.…”

Section: Food and Agriculture In A Warming Worldmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, it is ambiguous when it comes to specifying particular techniques for sustainable agriculture, despite claims that it constitutes "a new approach … to guide the needed changes of agricultural systems" (Food and Agriculture Organization 2013a, 27). CSA serves as a broad discursive umbrella to accommodate differing agendas, aligning itself broadly with preexisting approaches like sustainable intensification and agroecology by emphasizing their shared goal of integrating climate change imperatives with agricultural productivity, while obscuring their substantive differences (Newell and Taylor 2018). It has also been critiqued for failing to adequately recognize trade-offs.…”

Section: Food and Agriculture In A Warming Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This allows for the tracing of the relationships and dynamics between actors within the complex. Analyses of such complexes have been produced for genetic resources (Raustiala and Victor 2004), food security (Margulis 2013), and climate change (Keohane and Victor 2011) as well as for the institutions within the climate change, food, and agriculture arena under the banner of CSA (Newell and Taylor 2018).…”

Section: Theorizing the Governance Of Food And Agriculture In A Warmimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Competition between agencies, differing interests, and the very ambiguity of CSA, which allows corporate and global governance actors to label diverse technologies as "climate-smart" (Newell and Taylor 2018;Taylor 2018), also create opportunities for national and local government officials to acquire authority and resources by invoking the label "climatesmart." In other words, across governance scales, a series of accommodations and negotiations take place when global and regional imperatives are brought into play with local political dynamics where they assert their preferred readings of CSA and the policy approaches and technologies by which it can best be achieved.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

Newell¹,

Taylor²,

Touni³

2018

Global Environmental Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how, why, and whether the trade-offs and tensions around simultaneous implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals are resolved both sustainably and equitably requires an appreciation of power relations across multiple scales of governance. We explore the politics and political economy of how the nexus around food, energy, and water is being governed through initiatives to promote climate-smart agriculture (CSA) as it moves from the global to the local. We combine an analysis of how these interrelationships are being governed (and ungoverned) by key global institutions with reflection on the consequences of this for developing countries that are being targeted by CSA initiatives. In particular, we look at Kenya as a country heavily dependent on agriculture, but also subject to some of the worst effects of climate change and which has been a focus for a range of bilateral and multilateral donors with their preferred visions of CSA. We draw on strands of literature in global environmental politics, political ecology, and the political economy of development to make sense of the power dynamics that characterize the multiscalar politics of how CSA is translated, domesticated, and operationalized in practice.We currently lack global governance institutions and processes in the area of food and agriculture capable of addressing the interrelationships between the global food system, on one hand, and environmental challenges around water, energy, and climate change, on the other. Instead, fragmentation persists across institutions and agencies with responsibility for these areas, despite growing acknowledgment of the complex interlinkages that characterize the nexus around water, energy, and food (WEF) in particular. The urgency of addressing these issues is underscored by the recognition that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) cannot be achieved in isolation from one another. To simultaneously and effectively achieve goals 2 (hunger), 6 (water), 7 (energy), 13 (climate change), and 15 (life on land) presupposes an institutional capacity and willingness to act on and govern those relationships in more integrated ways across all levels of governance from the local to the global, crossing scales and sectors (United Nations Environment Programme 2007).

show abstract

Section: Food and Agriculture In A Warming Worldmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Food and Agriculture In A Warming Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theorizing the Governance Of Food And Agriculture In A Warmimentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

Newell¹,

Taylor²,

Touni³

2018

Global Environmental Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(For some notable exceptions, see [15,39]. In a broader context, complementary studies of labor and agriculture in global governance, as well as GEG and biotechnology, see notably [40][41][42][43]. )…”

Section: Protectionism In a Neoliberal World?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociology in Global Environmental Governance? Neoliberalism, Protectionism and the Methyl Bromide Controversy in the Montreal Protocol

Gareau

2017

Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sociological studies of global agriculture need to pay close attention to the protectionist aspects of neoliberalism at the global scale of environmental governance. With agri-food studies in the social sciences broadening interrogations of the impact of neoliberalism on agri-food systems and their alternatives, investigating global environmental governance (GEG) will help reveal its impacts on the global environment, global science/knowledge, and the potential emergence of ecologically sensible alternatives. It is argued here that as agri-food studies of neoliberalism sharpen the focus on these dimensions the widespread consequences of protectionism of US agri-industry in GEG will become better understood, and the solutions more readily identifiable. This paper illustrates how the delayed phase out of the toxic substance methyl bromide in the Montreal Protocol exemplifies the degree to which the US agri-industry may be protected at the global scale of environmental governance, thus prolonging the transition to ozone-friendly alternatives. Additionally, it is clear that protectionism has had a significant impact on the dissemination and interpretation of science/knowledge of methyl bromide and its alternatives. Revealing the role that protectionism plays more broadly in the agriculture/environmental governance interface, and its oftentimes negative impacts on science and potential alternatives, can shed light on how protectionism can be made to serve ends that are at odds with environmental protection.

show abstract

Public agricultural research, political economy, and climate change: A literature review

Miao,

Ulucak,

Zilberman

2024

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impacted by both economic and political forces, agricultural research serves as a critical approach to alleviating the adverse effects of climate change. Focusing on public agricultural research in the United States, this paper provides a literature review on research and development from the perspectives of the market environment and political economy. It also examines the current assessment of agricultural research effectiveness in addressing the challenges of climate change. A bibliometric analysis is conducted to appreciate the knowledge dynamics in the nexus of agricultural research, political economy, and climate change. Future research directions related to public agricultural research are discussed.

show abstract

Contested landscapes: the global political economy of climate-smart agriculture

Cited by 159 publications

References 27 publications

Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

Sociology in Global Environmental Governance? Neoliberalism, Protectionism and the Methyl Bromide Controversy in the Montreal Protocol

Public agricultural research, political economy, and climate change: A literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About