Explore the vast range of titles available.

The importance of connectedness in laying the ground for social-ecological transformations or in spreading new ideas and practices for transformation is increasingly recognized. However, the role of networks in supporting the emergence and growth of seeds (initiatives with the potential to positively shape the future) has not yet been comprehensively studied empirically. To this end, we introduce a novel concept, the seeds’ substrate, to characterize: (1) the relationships among a network of seeds, (2) the support needed for seeds to appropriately scale and coalesce, and (3) the actors that enable and provide support. The seeds’ substrate concept was theoretically informed and empirically derived by using a case study of an ongoing coalescing process. On this basis, we derived several categories and definitions for seeds interactions, types of support, and supporting actors that collectively constitute the seeds’ substrate. Specifically, we identified seven types of interactions between seeds, nine types of support, and 14 different categories of supporting actors. Furthermore, we presented a multi-level network approach to analyze the seeds’ substrate and test specific hypotheses within this modeling approach. By putting the seeds’ substrate concept into practice in an ongoing coalescence process involving 11 seeds around the small-scale fisheries food system in Uruguay, we identified the network of seeds and the constellations of actors and interactions that preceded efforts to deliberately foster a seed coalition. This allowed us to anticipate synergies and conflicts and to identify key supporting actors that structure the seed substrate. In addition, we derived a comprehensive baseline against which to quantitatively compare the unfolding of the coalescence process over time. This paper contributes to filling a gap in the Seeds of Good Anthropocenes literature and unpacks a key but largely unexplored subprocess of its theory of change: the transition from periods of experimentation to periods of coalescence. We expect the seeds’ substrate concept to be useful in a wide and diverse range of social-ecological contexts.

This editorial examines the intricate landscape of local climate action in Latin America. It explores the interplay between local initiatives, global agendas, and the potential for innovative and anti-systemic approaches. The paper recognizes the constraints faced by local actors, including limited capacity and the complexities of action, highlighting their differences and complementarity. Furthermore, this editorial underscore the role of local climate actions in challenging the dominant neoliberal global order, particularly through grassroots efforts prioritizing sustainability and equity. These initiatives offer alternative socioeconomic models and reframe issues beyond climate change, addressing broader challenges like inequality and resource depletion. In navigating these complexities, the editorial emphasizes the need to combine both localization and local climate actions, demanding inventive methods for progress measurement and support. It sets the stage for a topical collection that dissects local climate action in Latin America and its critical role within the global climate change agenda, and national policies.

Despite the critical importance of small-scale fisheries for food security and well-being and the role of fishers as stewards of aquatic ecosystems, their future is uncertain. Tackling narratives that portray small-scale fisheries as obsolete, disparate, and inefficient requires collectively imagining and articulating new, creative, and inspiring narratives that reflect their real contributions and enable transformative futures. Drawing on a transdisciplinary country-level case study, we analyze the process and outcomes of co-creating desirable, plural, and meaningful visions of the future for small-scale fisheries in Uruguay. Using an arts-based approach and leveraging the agency of emerging innovative initiatives throughout the country, different food system actors (fish workers, chefs, entrepreneurs) and knowledge systems (local, experience-based, and scientific) were engaged in a creative visioning process. The results of this arts-based co-creation process include (1) a series of desirable visions and narratives, synthesized into an artistic boundary object; and (2) the stepping stones to a transformative space for collective reflection, learning, and action. Although the artistic boundary object has proven instrumental among multiple and diverse participants, the transformative space encouraged academic and non-academic participants to plan collective actions and to feel more confident, motivated, and optimistic about the future of small-scale fisheries in Uruguay. With this paper we provide a tool, a platform, and a roadmap to counter the dominant bleak narrative, while also communicating the elements that constitute desirable futures for small-scale fisheries in Uruguay. On a broader scale, our contribution reinforces the emerging narrative of the key role that small-scale fisheries have, and will play, in local and global food systems.

As part of the formulation of the first National Water Plan (NWP) in Uruguay, a mini-public process called ‘Citizen Deliberation on Water (Deci Agua)’ was developed in 2016. While the draft of the plan was being discussed in the formal arenas of water governance (Basin Commissions and Regional Water Resources Councils), a University research team (led by the authors), in coordination with the national water authority, adapted the mechanism of consensus conferences in order to incorporate the citizens’ visions and to contribute to public understanding of the NWP challenges. This article analyses the main aspects of the developed participation strategy and discusses them regarding a set of quality criteria used to evaluate deliberative processes. Although the final version of the NWP (passed by decree in 2017) incorporated some of the contributions of the Citizen Panel, an in-depth analysis of the scope of the deliberative process of Deci Agua allows us to delve into some key aspects related to the quality of participation processes and the challenges. A mixed approach that combines stakeholder participation and lay citizens is novel and desirable in water governance since it increases the scope of participation, deepens the legitimacy of decision-making and improves the public debate.

Adaptive water governance involves collaboration among multiple actors, social learning, and flexibility to deal with shocks and surprises. Crises thus become a useful context to assess how the institutional arrangements contribute to adaptation. However, an important part of the specialized literature has focused on these issues as they occur in highly institutionalized settings in the Global North. This paper, instead, analyzes basin organizations in settings with variable degrees of institutionalization in South America. The objective is to analyze the actions (or lack thereof) conducted or encouraged by basin committees in watersheds of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, in the face of water crises. We analyze three case studies, involving basin committees that faced different water crises (all affecting drinking water supply) at different scales: (1) Chubut River Basin committee and a turbidity crisis in the Lower Valley in 2017 (Chubut, Argentina), (2) Piracicaba-Capivari-Jundiaí (PCJ) River Basins committee and a drought that occurred in 2014–2015 (São Paulo, Brazil), and (3) Laguna del Cisne Basin commission and a crisis associated with a failure in the water treatment operation in 2019 (Canelones, Uruguay). In each case, we analyze the institutional design of the committee and the actions (or lack thereof) undertaken regarding the crisis, including the perceptions of key stakeholders of those actions. Findings showed that stakeholders tend to act and communicate through fast channels when water crises occur, referring to basin committees only for technical and additional support (Brazil), information sharing (Uruguay), or not convening the committee at all (Argentina). Our cases in South American countries with different contexts provided empirical evidence of the barriers that basin committees face as political–institutional frameworks to foster adaptive water governance (e.g., limited stability, centralization, lack of leadership).

The wicked nature of sustainability challenges facing food systems demands intentional and synergistic actions at multiple scales and sectors. The Southern Cone of Latin America, with its historical legacy of “feeding the world,” presents interesting opportunities for generating insights into potential trajectories and processes for food system transformation. To foster such changes would require the development of collective understanding and agency to effectively realize purposeful and well-informed action toward desirable and sustainable food futures. This in turn demands the transdisciplinary engagement of academia, the private sector, government/policy-makers, community groups, and other institutions, as well as the broader society as food consumers. While the need for contextualized knowledge, priorities and definitions of what sustainable food systems change means is recognized, there is limited literature reporting these differences and critically reflecting on the role of knowledge brokers in knowledge co-production processes. The political nature of these issues requires arenas for dialogue and learning that are cross-sectoral and transcend knowledge generation. This paper presents a case study developed by SARAS Institute, a bridging organization based in Uruguay. This international community of practice co-designed a 3-year multi-stakeholder transdisciplinary process entitled “Knowledges on the Table.” We describe how the process was designed, structured, and facilitated around three phases, two analytical levels and through principles of knowledge co-production. The case study and its insights offer a model that could be useful to inform similar processes led by transdisciplinary communities of practice or bridging institutions in the early stages of transformative work. In itself, it also represents a unique approach to generate a language of collaboration, dialogue, and imagination informed by design skills and methods. While this is part of a longer-term process toward capitalizing on still-unfolding insights and coalitions, we hope that this example helps inspire similar initiatives to imagine, support, and realize contextualized sustainable food system transformations.

Within the adaptive co-management field, evaluation has been receiving increased attention over the last 10 years. Although monitoring and evaluation are integral components of adaptive co-management, they are sometimes weakly incorporated. Participatory evaluation could play a role in embedding monitoring and evaluation more strongly, but there is very little empirical research about its outcomes and implications for adaptive co-management. Small-scale fisheries in Uruguay were used as case study as they are going through a governance transition; local multistakeholder councils have been formed to look for solutions to fishery-related problems in a collective manner. In one of these councils, we facilitated a participatory evaluation process with involvement of the four stakeholder groups (fishers, fisheries agency, coast guard and local governments). The objective was to investigate the potential of participatory evaluation for enhancing the two main pillars of adaptive co-management: collaboration and learning. Findings from interviews with workshop participants show that cooperation and communication among stakeholders were enhanced. However, trust only increased between some stakeholders, and existing conflicts were not resolved. The evaluation workshops became a learning space and stakeholders improved their skills to participate and interact with different actors. An important outcome was a series of operational agreements for the council, to overcome the weaknesses and challenges that the council was facing. Learning is crucial in the initial stage of an adaptive co-management process (and throughout it). The implications of the study are discussed in light of the scholarship on adaptive co-management, transdisciplinary research and sustainability science.

The increasing scale and interconnection of many environmental challenges - from climate change to land use - has resulted in the need to collaborate across borders and boundaries of all types. Traditional centralized, top-down and sectoral approaches to governance of single-issue areas or species within social-ecological systems often have limited potential to alleviate issues that go beyond their jurisdiction. As a result, collaborative governance approaches have come to the forefront. A great deal of past research has examined the conditions under which collaborative efforts are likely to achieve desired outcomes. However, few studies have analyzed how the means to achieve successful collaborative outcomes differ based on context when examined across multiple studies. In this research, we begin to chart a means for doing this. Building onto a Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) Framework, we provide a coding manual to analyse how contextual variables mediate the effects of mechanism variables on outcomes of the collaborative governance of social-ecological systems. Through the examination of four cases, we provide a proof-of-concept assessment and show the utility of the CMO framework and coding manual to draw comparisons across cases for understanding how collaborative outcomes are contingent on the social-ecological context in which they occur.

The literature on commons has established the validity and significance of Elinor Ostrom’s design principles for collective action. Can these principles be used to guide policies and initiatives towards adaptive co-management? We analyze this idea by using two case studies, Piriápolis (Uruguay) and Paraty (Brazil). Both cases are small-scale fisheries, and both have been experiencing a social-ecological crisis in a context of prevailing top-down government management. However, there are signs that government policies are moving towards participatory governance. The objective of this article is to identify opportunities and barriers to adaptive co-management of small-scale fisheries in Uruguay and Brazil using Ostrom’s design principles for guidance. Both case studies partially meet seven of the eleven design principles (as amended by Cox and colleagues), but do not fulfill four. The analysis of the fisheries using Ostrom’s principles sheds light on the opportunities and barriers to adaptive co-management in three categories: resource system, resource users, and governance system. Barriers include long-standing conflicts between small-scale fishers and government agencies, and between small and large-scale fisheries sectors. Nevertheless, recent initiatives involving participatory approaches to research and management show potential to improve compliance with several principles. Two weaknesses of using Ostrom’s principles for the analysis of the cases were a lack of attention to social learning and the exclusion of external drivers.

Participatory research in which experts and non-experts are co-researchers in addressing local concerns (also known as participatory action research or community-based research) can be a valuable approach for dealing with the uncertainty of social–ecological systems because it fosters learning among stakeholders and co-production of knowledge. Despite its increased application in the context of natural resources and environmental management, evaluation of participatory research has received little attention. The objectives of this research were to define criteria to evaluate participatory research processes and outcomes, from the literature on participation evaluation, and to apply them in a case study in an artisanal fishery in coastal Uruguay. Process evaluation criteria (e.g., problem to be addressed of key interest to local and additional stakeholders; involvement of interested stakeholder groups in every research stage; collective decision making through deliberation; and adaptability through iterative cycles) should be considered as conditions to promote empowering participatory research. Our research contributes to knowledge on evaluation of participatory research, while also providing evidence of the positive outcomes of this approach, such as co-production of knowledge, learning, strengthened social networks, and conflict resolution.