Exploring Sustainability Implications of Transitions to Agroecology: a Transdisciplinary Perspective

Successful transitions to agroecology require shared understanding of the sustainability implications of transitions for food systems. To gain such understanding, a transdisciplinary approach is increasingly called for by funders, end users of research and scientists. Transdisciplinary processes were used in the UNISECO project to develop strategic pathways that enable transitions to agroecology in case studies across Europe. These strategic pathways were combined with scenarios of EU food systems in 2050, in which combinations of agroecological farming and food consumption practices were assessed. These were then reviewed considering selected UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a reference for discussing the sustainability implications of transitions to agroecology. Sustainability implications were identified for several SDGs including Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Quality Education (SDG 4), Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12), Climate Action (SDG 13) and Life on Land (SDG 15). Key factors contributing to the sustainability of transitions to agroecology are: i) mature social capital and improved farmer knowledge of the benefits of agroecological practices; ii) strengthened collaborative actions and collective institutions to increase negotiating power within the value-chain; and, iii) changes in consumer behaviour and diets. These factors highlight the need for a food system perspective in transitions to agroecology and supporting policies. This in turn highlights the meaningful role of transdisciplinary research in strengthening the sustainability of European food systems

ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN MAJOR LATVIAN CITIES

ANOTĀCIJA Attīstības plānošanas dokumenti, investīcijas, attīstības rādītāji un pārvaldības prakse tika novērtēta sešās Latvijas republikas pilsētās (Rīga, Daugavpils, Liepāja, Jūrmala, Ventspils un Rēzekne), lai noteiktu to atbilstību ilgtspējīgas attīstības kritērijiem – spēju veicināt ilgtspējīgu attīstību. Attīstības plānošanas dokumentu vides, ekonomikas un sociālās dimensijas ilgtspējības analīzei izstrādātās vērtēšanas metodikas pamatā ir plānošanas vadības cikls un Olborgas ilgtspējīgas attīstības kritēriji. Pilsētu attīstības politikas analīzē tika vērtēta attīstības plānošanas dokumentu mērķu un rīcību atbilstība Olborgas ilgtspējības kritērijiem. Pilsētu attīstības politikas ieviešanas analīzē tika novērtēta veikto un plānoto investīciju atbilstība Olborgas ilgtspējības kritērijiem. Attīstības politikas ietekmes analīzē, pirmkārt, tika novērtēti pilsētas attīstības rādītāju esamība un piemērotība Olborgas kritēriju izpildes monitoringam. Otrkārt, tiem Olborgas kritērijiem, kuriem bija atbilstoši vai daļēji atbilstoši rādītāji, tika raksturotas attīstības tendences. Attīstības plānošanas dokumentu analīze liecina, ka kopumā tajos definētie mērķi un rīcības vāji atbilst ilgtspējības kritērijiem. Pilsētu investīciju novērtējums liecina, ka vairumā gadījumu puse kopējo investīciju atbilst ilgtspējības kritērijiem. Pilsētu investīciju projekti, īpaši tie, kas neatbilst ilgtspējībai, ir vairāk saistīti ar ceļu infrastruktūru un infrastruktūru dzīves vides kvalitātes uzlabošanai, nevis ar ekonomikas attīstībai labvēlīgas vides radīšanu. Pētītajās pilsētās pielietotie attīstības rādītāji tikai daļēji ļauj veikt ilgtspējības monitoringu, jo trūkst rādītāju un/vai datu. Pilsētās izmantotie attīstības programmas uzraudzības sistēmas rādītāji ir mazefektīvi attīstības programmas monitoringam, jo nereti nepastāv tieša sasaiste starp definētajiem rādītājiem un attīstības mērķiem. Pārvaldības prakses analīze uzrāda: pētītajās pilsētās ilgtspējīgas attīstības plānošana, ieviešana un monitorings netiek veikts sistemātiski un koordinēti.ANOTATION An assessment of the sustainability of urban development policies, investments and development indicators was undertaken in six national level case study cities in Latvia (Riga, Daugavpils, Liepaja, Jurmala, Ventspils and Rezekne). At the basis of the methodology is an integrated assessment of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability within the full planning cycle using the Aalborg Commitments sustainability criteria. Governance practice in the context of sustainability in the case cities was analysed through interviews with municipal planners and decision-makers. Urban development policies were analysed through an assessment of objectives and measures defined in development planning documents using the Aalborg Commitments sustainability criteria. Implementation of development policies involved an assessment of actual and planned investments against the Aalborg Commitments criteria. An assessment of the impact of development policies was undertaken in two stages. Firstly, the availability and appropriateness of existing development indicators in case cities was assessed. Secondly, development trends were assessed for those Aalborg Commitments criteria that had appropriate or partially appropriate monitoring indicators. The assessment of development planning documents revealed that objectives and measures defined therein are weakly coherent with the Aalborg sustainability criteria. The assessment of investment plans indicated that only approximately half of the investment projects are coherent with sustainability criteria. In the case study cities investment projects, particularly those that are not coherent with the Aalborg sustainability criteria are predominantly associated with road infrastructure, urban public space infrastructure rather than investments more directly related to priority economic and social issues confronting cities in Latvia such as unemployment, job creation, out-migration, demographic decline, poverty etc. The development indicators used in the case study cities are only partly capable of monitoring urban sustainability because appropriate indicators and/ or data are lacking. Indicators used by cities to monitor the implementation of development programmes are frequently ineffective since a direct relationship does not exist between indicators and defined development objectives. The assessment of governance practice shows that in the case cities sustainability planning, implementation and monitoring does not take place in a systematic and coordinated manner