Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

Abstract

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).

Environmental Justice and Transformations to Sustainability

“…One of the crucial lessons here is that transformative change requires inter vention to weaken the prevailing regime and its powers to resist change. For example, Newell et al 15 show that attempts to promote climate smart agri culture as a radical and innovative con tribution to sustainability have faltered because the prevailing agribusiness regime retained sufficient power to keep it out of the public debate. Large agribusiness players used their domi nance to weaken the more radical activ ities of climate smart agriculture and then incorporate what remained into their regime.…”

Analysing interactions among the sustainable development goals: findings and emerging issues from local and global studies

“…An important dynamic here are the power relationships between different social groups (Newell et al 2019 ). There is evidence from Kenya that local groups most affected by national plans for introducing “climate-smart agriculture” (smallholder farmers, fisher communities, pastoralists) (SDGs 2 and 13) are not engaged in national decision-making processes about how to implement this type of agriculture in their communities (Newell et al 2018 ). In Ecuador, research has shown that national policies to advance economic growth (SDG 8) via increased oil extraction have caused environmental degradation and health impacts near extraction sites that harm poor and indigenous people.…”

“…There is evidence from Kenya that local groups most affected by national plans for introducing “climate-smart agriculture” (smallholder farmers, fisher communities, pastoralists) (SDGs 2 and 13) are not engaged in national decision-making processes about how to implement this type of agriculture in their communities (Newell et al 2018 ).…”

Are local development plans mainstreaming climate-smart agriculture? A mixed-content analysis of medium-term development plans in semi-arid Ghana

“…One reason for CSA mainstreaming challenges at the local level can be attributed to CSA being ambiguous and controversial (Clapp et al 2018 , p. 81; Newell et al 2018 , p. 59; Taylor 2018 , pp. 96–98), both as a concept and in its application.…”

“…These studies are important for understanding the factors that can inhibit or enhance farmers’ adoption of CSA. Equally important, however, are studies that examine the institutional contexts of CSA at different levels of governance (Chandra et al 2018 , p. 527; Newell et al 2018 , pp. 53–55; Totin et al 2018 , pp.…”