Suchergebnisse

L'adoption de l'ODD 16 marque une étape majeure dans la reconnaissance par la communauté internationale du développement de l'importance des principes dés associés à la notion de gouvernance. Ils sont dorénavant reconnus comme des objectifs perse et non pas uniquement pour leur valeur instrumentale en tant que facteurs conditionnant la réussite des politiques publiques. La gouvernance, qui était vue comme une contrainte, un critère pour l'allocation de l'aide aux PED, est mise en avant comme un moyen de rééquilibrage des pouvoirs à l'échelle nationale et internationale. Mais l'ODD 16 restera sans effet en l'absence d'un dispositif adéquat de mesure et de suivi de cet objectif. À cet égard, l'institutionnalisation d'enquêtes auprès des citoyens, relayant leurs voix sur la gouvernance, dans le cadre d'un processus conduit par les pays, et non pas imposé et mené par les institutions internationales, peut pennettre de concrétiser directement les principes de transparence, de participation et d'inclusion qui sont visés par l'ODD 16.

La situation de l'irrigation en Poitou-Charentes est emblématique des tensions entre le monde agricole et la société. Pour dépasser ces conflits, un observatoire alliant système d'information et action collective a été mis en place en Charente à l'initiative d'un collectif regroupant responsables politiques, chercheurs et conseillers agricoles. Cet article a pour objectif de restituer l'analyse des différentes perspectives et attentes des acteurs ayant participé à l'élaboration de l'observatoire. L'analyse proposée s'appuie sur une enquête réalisée en 2006 auprès des acteurs concernés. Il en ressort un cadre que nous proposons d'utiliser lors de la conception d'observatoires afin d'expliciter la diversité des attentes des parties prenantes et de faciliter l'élaboration d'un accord préalable à leur mise en ½uvre. / Irrigation in Poitou-Charentes exemplifies the tensions that exist between agriculture and other societal sectors. To overcome these conflicts, a Community Information System (CIS) for the purpose of both data management and community development has been set up in Charente by a group of policymakers, researchers and agricultural advisers. This paper describes our analysis of the differences among participants in the development of this CIS in terms of their points of view and expectations. Drawing on an analysis of a set of interviews conducted with these stakeholders in 2006, we propose a framework for use during the initial design phase of a CIS to make stakeholder expectations explicit and to promote a shared understanding prior to setting up a CIS.

La situation de l'irrigation en Poitou-Charentes est emblématique des tensions entre le monde agricole et la société. Pour dépasser ces conflits, un observatoire alliant système d'information et action collective a été mis en place en Charente à l'initiative d'un collectif regroupant responsables politiques, chercheurs et conseillers agricoles. Cet article a pour objectif de restituer l'analyse des différentes perspectives et attentes des acteurs ayant participé à l'élaboration de l'observatoire. L'analyse proposée s'appuie sur une enquête réalisée en 2006 auprès des acteurs concernés. Il en ressort un cadre que nous proposons d'utiliser lors de la conception d'observatoires afin d'expliciter la diversité des attentes des parties prenantes et de faciliter l'élaboration d'un accord préalable à leur mise en ½uvre. / Irrigation in Poitou-Charentes exemplifies the tensions that exist between agriculture and other societal sectors. To overcome these conflicts, a Community Information System (CIS) for the purpose of both data management and community development has been set up in Charente by a group of policymakers, researchers and agricultural advisers. This paper describes our analysis of the differences among participants in the development of this CIS in terms of their points of view and expectations. Drawing on an analysis of a set of interviews conducted with these stakeholders in 2006, we propose a framework for use during the initial design phase of a CIS to make stakeholder expectations explicit and to promote a shared understanding prior to setting up a CIS.

La situation de l'irrigation en Poitou-Charentes est emblématique des tensions entre le monde agricole et la société. Pour dépasser ces conflits, un observatoire alliant système d'information et action collective a été mis en place en Charente à l'initiative d'un collectif regroupant responsables politiques, chercheurs et conseillers agricoles. Cet article a pour objectif de restituer l'analyse des différentes perspectives et attentes des acteurs ayant participé à l'élaboration de l'observatoire. L'analyse proposée s'appuie sur une enquête réalisée en 2006 auprès des acteurs concernés. Il en ressort un cadre que nous proposons d'utiliser lors de la conception d'observatoires afin d'expliciter la diversité des attentes des parties prenantes et de faciliter l'élaboration d'un accord préalable à leur mise en ½uvre. / Irrigation in Poitou-Charentes exemplifies the tensions that exist between agriculture and other societal sectors. To overcome these conflicts, a Community Information System (CIS) for the purpose of both data management and community development has been set up in Charente by a group of policymakers, researchers and agricultural advisers. This paper describes our analysis of the differences among participants in the development of this CIS in terms of their points of view and expectations. Drawing on an analysis of a set of interviews conducted with these stakeholders in 2006, we propose a framework for use during the initial design phase of a CIS to make stakeholder expectations explicit and to promote a shared understanding prior to setting up a CIS.

This policy brief of the European Union (EU) Think Tank – part of the FIT4FOOD2030 Coordination and Support Action (CSA) of the FOOD 2030 initiative – is a response and contribution to growing pleas for a 'systems approach' to transform food systems for Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) for present and future generations. This policy brief specifically focusses on the necessity of the adoption of a systems approach to Research and Innovation (R&I) in order to foster the transformation of food systems.

A better understanding of key interactions between a multitude of actors, government levels and processes (production, consumption, distribution) and involving stakeholders is crucial to delivery of transformation. Our food systems face severe, urgent and persistent challenges, and so do we as humanity. Therefore, we need to strengthen the systems approach to Research and Innovation (R&I) in order to inform policy and decision makers to foster the transformation of EU food systems, in line with societies' needs.

Invited Manuscripts ; International audience ; 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.

Invited Manuscripts ; International audience ; 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.

Invited Manuscripts ; International audience ; 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.

Invited Manuscripts ; International audience ; 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.

Invited Manuscripts ; International audience ; 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.

Invited Manuscripts ; International audience ; 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.

Invited Manuscripts ; International audience ; 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.