Notarios

2.3.1. Agri-food system as SES under food sovereignty

Following Ostrom (2007; 2009), we propose to first identify the boundary and the ecological and social components of the agri-food system (see Fig. 1), taking into account scales and levels. Agro-ecosystem boundaries (RS) constitute both agro-ecosystem (e.g., farm) and human- constructed facilities (e.g., road system, industry). Agro-ecosystem units (RU) include the inputs to perform the agri-food activities (e.g., species richness, animals). Agri-food governance

system (GS) constitutes both institutions and their governance arrangements, which can be both formal and informal (e.g., manufacturing standards, participatory guarantee systems). Agri-food system actors (A) involve individuals, organizations, or groups of organizations that participate in the performance of agri-food activities (e.g., peasants, middlemen, consumers; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Based on Cash et al. (2006), we define the scales as spatial, temporal, institutional, and networks that allow the study of each subsystem and the levels as the units of analysis that are located at different positions on a scale (e.g., levels of operative, collective, and constitutional rules within the institutional scale).

In agri-food systems, cross-level and cross-scale interactions (I) occur when actors perform the agri-food activities (production, processing, distribution, and consumption; Ericksen 2008b); focal action situation is when interactions occur producing certain outcomes (O; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Applying this categorization to agri-food-system responses to food-sovereignty policies, the focal action situations are the six so-called pillars of food sovereignty: access to resources, agroecological production models, local markets, food consumption—right to food, social organization, and agri-food policies (modified from Ortega-Cerdà and Rivera-Ferre 2010). Pillars linked to both ecological and social subsystems include access to resources (mainly from interactions between RS and GS) and production model (mainly from interactions between RU and A) while the other four pillars are more closely linked to social subsystems (mainly from interactions between GS and A), showing the relevance of the social elements in determining agri-food systems’ outcomes. Figure 2.1 shows the analysis of agri-food systems as SES, the most relevant cross-scale and cross-level interactions and the main relations between the SES components and food sovereignty pillars.

As agri-food activities result from interactions within and between the agri-food subsystems (RS, RU, GS, and A), each pillar of food sovereignty has relation with one, two, or more agri- food activities. Appendix 2.1 allows visualizing these relations.

We select the particular variables (second tier of SES framework) relevant to analyze each pillar of food sovereignty and some proposed indicators (third tier) to analyze them. To design the indicators, we followed the categories proposed by Ortega-Cerdà and Rivera-Ferre (2010) and performed a literature review on food sovereignty. Appendix 2.2 shows the selected food sovereignty indicators linked to SES variables. The way agri-food activities are carried out, their feedback, and the sources of exogenous drivers will determine different outcomes from agri- food activities. Using the vulnerability framework, the outcomes are explored through the study of agroecological resilience and individual and collective adaptive capacity.

Figure 2.1 Agri-food system as socio-ecological system (SES) using Ostrom’s framework (adapted from McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) under the food sovereignty paradigm. At the left side the ecological subsystems (RS and RU, boxes in green) and at the right side the social subsystems (GS and A, boxes in blue) with their respective scales and levels. For each subsystem we highlight the main links with food sovereignty pillars (boxes in yellow). At the center the agri-food activities and outcomes (boxes in red). The links between each agri-food activity and food sovereignty pillars is detailed in Appendix 2.1.

2.3.2. Assessment of agri-food systems’ transformation

To operationalize the vulnerability framework to assess local agri-food systems transformations, we propose to adapt Fraser’s (2007; 2011) proposal and combine it with participatory scenario analysis (Ravera et al 2011; Reed et al 2013). Fraser’s (2007; 2011) framework allows analyzing multidimensional agri-food systems’ vulnerability through the study of three features: (1) agro-ecosystem resilience that measures the extent to which the agro-ecosystem (RS and RU) can tolerate climatic shocks and remain productive, (2) individual capacity that measures the socioeconomic attributes of actors (A) to be sensitive to and to be able to adapt to global changes, and (3) collective capacity that measures the extent to which the multilevel institutions (GS) respond and/or adapt to changes. Participatory methods and scenario analysis allow answering of normative questions (Binder et al 2010) by including different actors’ perceptions about historical and current drivers of change as well as future impacts on prioritized goals of the agri-food system transformation.

A three-step methodology is proposed. The first step is aimed at introducing the normative question of Vulnerability of what and to what? From the actors’ narratives, we select a subset of drivers of change (i.e., social, economic, political, and environmental drivers [S and ECO]) linked to the agri-food components, which constitute the sources of exposure. Different actors might also define vulnerability differently, especially when linked to food sovereignty goals. Secondly, different narratives of historical and current perceptions of change, exposure, and impacts of the local agri-food system are explored in order to answer normative questions: Vulnerability for whom? At which scale? The actors identify what they mean for maintaining and/or achieving the desired outcomes of food sovereignty over time and what the scale of assessment of the current sensitivity and capacity to adapt the agri-food system is. In a third step, not presented in this article, actors envision future trajectories of transformation under different drivers through participatory scenario analysis and qualitatively assess how they might affect the interactions between components of the agri-food system and their final outcomes.