Gender equality and social inclusion

Ongoing food system inequalities and pressures on planetary boundaries requires a paradigm shift among agricultural research for development (AR4D) actors to produce effective innovation for sustainable environmental and social outcomes. Building on insights from Agricultural Innovation System literature and recognizing the influence of personal and systemic biases within AR4D, the following recommendations address upstream challenges, interdisciplinary collaboration, emphasize outcome-driven scaling, adaptive project implementation, and integrate critical considerations for social differentiation.

Digital innovations can offer solutions to various food, water, and land systems challenges globally. However, there are concerns on the ethical and social inclusivity aspects of these innovations, particularly for marginalized groups of people in less industrialised countries. In this article, we describe the design and development of a digital inclusivity framework, which builds from a detailed synthesis of inclusivity in digital literature. Key insights from the review were collated into five dimensions: risk mitigation, accessibility, usability, benefits, and participation. These dimensions can be assessed by means of twenty-one concrete and measurable sub indicators. Our focus was to enable a more holistic approach to the usually technocentric design of digital innovations. The framework, including the associated indicators, lays the groundwork for the development of a digital inclusivity index, a tool for assessing and fostering the inclusivity of digital innovations in food, water, and land systems.

1. Successful adaptation often involves changes to the decision context to enable new ways of thinking and acting on climate change. Using 16 adaptation initiatives the authors were engaged with, we analysed how and why decision contexts changed to identify ways to improve adaptation as a process of collective deliberation and social learning. 2. We used the scope of the adaptation issue and governance arrangements to classify initiatives into four types and scored changes in the decision context using three frameworks: (1) the values, rules and knowledge (VRK) perspective to identify changes to adaptation decision-making; (2) the five dimensions of futures consciousness to identify the building of adaptation capabilities and (3) the social learning cycle to reveal evidence of reflexive learning. 3. Initiatives using novel governance arrangements for discrete problems (‘problem governance’) or complex, systemic issues (‘systems governance’) scored highest for influences of VRK, futures consciousness and the social learning cycle on the decision context. Initiatives using existing management for discrete problems (‘problem management’) scored moderately for change in the decision context, while those using existing management for systemic issues (‘systems management’) scored low because change was often impeded by existing rules. 4. All three frameworks influenced decision contexts in systems governance initiatives. Problem governance initiatives revealed interactions of VRK and futures consciousness but limited influence of VRK on the social learning cycle. Scope and governance arrangements differ with the adaptation issue and initiatives adapt over time: some small-scale ones became more systemic, developed novel governance arrangements and changed the decision context. 5. Our findings do not show that some adaptation initiatives are better or more transformative than others; just that their scope and appropriate governance arrangements are different. This questions the notion that successful adaptation requires building generic transformative adaptation approaches and capabilities. There is a diversity of arrangements that work. What is important is to align the approach to the adaptation problem. We suggest two directions for improving adaptation initiatives: first, by influencing how they can shift between problem and systems focus and between standard management and novel governance, and secondly, by using methods to diagnose and direct change in the decision context.

This methodology brief, developed within the CGIAR initiative on National Policies and Strategies, tackles essential questions about how gender is woven (or not) into the fabric of a policy document – and how to interpret and understand the results. This tool, centered around a list of questions to use systematically whilst interrogating policy documents, is primarily designed for policy researchers, but the questions can also act as a guide during policy design for policy makers.