Presentation held by Working Group 1 at the Governance & Institutions Across Scales in Climate Resilient Food Systems Brussels Workshop 9-11 Sept 2014 for the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Flagship 4.

1. Group 1
Gaps and Methods for analyzing
Governance and Institutions for Climate Resilient Food Systems

2. Key Research Gaps and Questions
1) Regional level appears to be a “blackbox” in this field of analysis
2) Using non-climate entry points for getting climate issues on
government agendas, particularly at the regional level
3) Integration of actions across levels, vertically (e.g. agricultural
knowledge management systems; global to national-level)
4) Analyzing mechanisms of accountability for national implementation of
regional/global agreements
5) Reviewing horizontal coordination mechanisms and identifying what
has worked and what has not

3. Methodological Approaches
• Deriving conceptual frameworks with operational indicators (taking into
account interests, ideas, institutions, actors)
• Comparative cross-country analysis for external validity
• Qualitative comparative analysis and equifinality
• Mapping relationships and causal linkages
o Fuzzy cognitive maps
o Cognitive maps and system dynamics
o Netmapping
• Data mining (from social media, texting, etc.) to uncover informal networks
• Regional scenario analyses

4. Methodological Challenges
• Integrating interdisciplinary approaches and other actors with
legitimate knowledge (e.g. critical systems heuristics)
• Recognizing that if we want implementation impact, involving other
non-traditional actors, particularly at the local level
• Reconciling tensions in this research arena and within the CG system:
• Balancing academic pressures versus wanting to produce relevant and useful
outputs for the communities with which we’re engaging
• Needing to show impact through indicators versus needing to understand
governance processes, mechanisms, and power structures
• Determining whether we achieve impact most effectively through the
methodological process versus the methodological product

5. Partners
• Boundary partners
• Civil society groups
• Governmental groups
• Epistemic communities
* Partners should be viewed not just as end users but also co-users