Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T21:44:08.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stakeholder engagement in prioritizing sustainability assessment themes for smallholder coffee production in Uganda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016

Brian Robert Ssebunya ,
Erwin Schmid ,
Piet van Asten ,
Christian Schader ,
Christine Altenbuchner  and
Matthias Stolze
Brian Robert Ssebunya*
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse, CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland. Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Feistmantelstrasse 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
Erwin Schmid
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Feistmantelstrasse 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
Piet van Asten
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), P.O. Box 7878 Kampala, Uganda.
Christian Schader
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse, CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland.
Christine Altenbuchner
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Feistmantelstrasse 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
Matthias Stolze
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse, CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many sustainability assessment frameworks have been developed in recent years, but translating them into practical tools to guide decision making remains challenging. By engaging coffee stakeholders in Uganda, we demonstrate a process of translating the widely-accepted framework for Sustainability Assessments of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA), developed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), to smallholder production systems. Stakeholders prioritized the sustainability themes in terms of relevance and feasibility, and subsequently identified relevant sub-themes. We find that the structure and scope of some generally accepted themes need appropriate modifications in order to address the social and structural heterogeneity of smallholder production systems. Although importance and feasibility rankings significantly vary within and between stakeholder groups, governance and economic themes are commonly perceived as very important though equally the least feasible for smallholders. Thus, the inclusion of the ‘farmer-group’ structure as part of the sustainability assessment criteria is perceived as necessary especially toward achieving governance-related goals. These findings emphasize the need of engaging stakeholders in defining locally adapted sustainability assessment criteria.

Keywords

sustainability themesSAFAstakeholder engagementsmallholder productioncoffeeUganda
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2017 , pp. 428 - 445
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adong, A., Mwaura, F., and Okoboi, G. 2012. What factors determine membership to farmer groups in Uganda? Evidence from the Uganda Census of Agriculture 2008/9. Economic Policy Research Centre Research Series 98. p. 1–42.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35:216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bal, M., Bryde, D., Fearon, D., and Ochieng, E. 2013. Stakeholder engagement: Achieving sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability 6:695–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, B. 1997. Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Values, Concepts, and Methodological Approaches. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Belcher, K.W., Boehm, M.M., and Fulton, M.E. 2004. Agroecosystem sustainability: A system simulation model approach. Agricultural Systems 79(2):225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, S. and Morse, S. 2001. Breaking through the glass ceiling: Who really cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environment 6:291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouni, C. 1998. Sustainable development indicators: Theory and methodology. Nature Sciences Sociétés 6(3):18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamaret, A., O'Connor, M. and Gilles, R. 2007. Top-down/bottom-up approach for developing sustainable development indicators for mining: Application to the Arlit uranium mines (Niger). International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience 10 (1/2):161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, G.A. 1999. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. Dryden Press, Fort Worth, US.Google Scholar
Collins, E., Kearins, K., and Roper, J. 2005. The risks in relying on stakeholder engagement for the achievement of sustainability. Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory 9(1):1–19.Google Scholar
Collinson, M. 2000. A history of Farming Systems Research. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and CAB International, Rome, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, A.M.G., Van den Berg, J., Koops, W.J., Grossman, M., and Udo, H.M.J. 2001. Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to sustainable development: A novel approach using fuzzy set theory. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 86:172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuéllar-Padilla, M. and Calle-Collado, A. 2011. Can we find solutions with people? Participatory action research with small organic producers in Andalusia. Journal of Rural Studies 27:372–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalkey, N.C. 1972. The Delphi method: an experimental article of group opinion. In Dalkey, N.C., Rourke, D.L., Lewis, R. and Snyder, D. (eds.). Studies in the Quality of Life: Delphi and Decision-Making. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. p. 13–54.Google Scholar
Dalkey, N.C. and Helmer, O. 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science 9(3):458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. and Glasper, E. 2005. Staff nurse development programme: Evaluation. Paediatric Nursing 17(8):30–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A. and Gustafson, D. 1975. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi. Scott Foresman, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dixon, J.A., Gibbon, D.P., and Gulliver, A. 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World, FAO Inter Departmental Working Group. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/3/a-ac349e.pdf (verified 28 January 2015).Google Scholar
FAO 2014. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA), version 3. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-assessments-safa/en/, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.Google Scholar
Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W.E., Mark, R., and McAlpine, P. 2005. Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 78:114–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, E. 1984. Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Press, Boston.Google Scholar
GAIN 2014. Uganda Coffee Annual Report 2014. Global Agricultural Information Network. USDA Foreign Agricultural Services, Kampala.Google Scholar
Gasparatos, A. and Scolobig, M. 2012. Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecological Economics 80:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., and Horner, M. 2008. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28(4–5):286–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfray, J., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S., and Toulmin, C. 2010. Food Security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidi, D. 2011. Sustainable Agriculture Enterprise: Framing Strategies to Support Smallholder Inclusive Value Chains for Rural Poverty Alleviation. CID Research Fellow and Graduate Student Working Paper No. 53. Center for International Development at Harvard University.Google Scholar
Haatanen, A., den Herder, M., Leskinen, P., Lindner, M., Kurttila, M., and Salminen, O. 2014. Stakeholder engagement in scenario development process e Bioenergy production and biodiversity conservation in eastern Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 135:45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, N. and Holmes, C.A. 2012. Nominal group technique: An effective method for obtaining group consensus. International Journal of Nursing Practice 18:188–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazell, P. and Wood, S. 2008. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B 363:495–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, C. and Sandford, B.A. 2007. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 12(10):1–8.Google Scholar
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65:412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jawtusch, J., Schader, C., Stolze, M., Baumgart, L., and Niggli, U. 2013. ‘Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine: Results from pilot applications of the FAO SAFA Framework’, International Symposium on Mediterranean Organic Agriculture and Quality Signs related to the Origin, Agadir, Morocco. 2–4 December 2013.Google Scholar
Khadka, C. and Vacik, H. 2012. Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal. Forestry 85(1):145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, K., Patel, M., Rothman, D.S., and Quaranta, G. 2006. Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part II. Participatory local scenario development. Futures 38(3):285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlman, T. and Farrington, J. 2010. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2(11):3436–3448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lien, G., Hardaker, J.B., and Flaten, O. 2007. Risk and economic sustainability of crop farming systems. Agricultural Systems 94(2):541–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M.B., and Buttler, A. 2012. A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal of Environmental Management 111:213–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathur, V.N., Price, A.D.F. and Austin, S.A. 2006. Deliberative democracy for effective stakeholder engagement in sustainability assessment. 4th international conference Citizens and governance for sustainable development, CIGSUD'2006, 28th–30th September, Vilnius, Lithuania.Google Scholar
McDougall, C., Pandit, B.H., Banjade, M.R., Paudel, K.P., Ojha, H., Maharjan, M., Rana, S., Bhattarai, T., and Dangol, S. 2009. Facilitating Forests of Learning: Enabling an Adaptive Collaborative Approach in Community Forestry User Groups. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Available at Web site http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BMcDougall0901.pdf (verified 25 September 2015).Google Scholar
Moller, H. and MacLeod, C.J. 2013. Design Criteria for Effective Assessment of Sustainability in New Zealand's Production Landscapes. The NZ Sustainability Dashboard Research Report 13/07. Published by ARGOS. Available at Web site http://www.nzdashboard.org.nz (verified 15 December 2015).Google Scholar
Norman, D.W., Siebert, J.D., Modiakgota, E., and Worman, F.D. 1994. Some key concepts important in farming systems research. In Farming Systems Research Approach: A primer for Eastern and Southern Africa. Food and Agricultural Organization p. 18–26.Google Scholar
Norman, D.W., Siebert, J.D., Modiakgota, E., and Worman, F.D. 1994. Farming Systems Research Approach: A primer for Eastern and Southern Africa. UNDP Farming Systems Programme, Gaborone, Botswana.Google Scholar
OECD 1995. Sustainable Agriculture – Concepts. Issues and Policies in OECD Countries, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Oltean-Dumbrava, C., Watts, G., and Miah, A. 2014. “Top-down-bottom-up” methodology as a common approach to defining bespoke sets of sustainability assessment criteria for the built environment. Journal of Management in Engineering 30(1):19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peña, A., Estrada, C.A., Soniat, D., Taylor, B., and Burton, M. 2012. Nominal group technique: A brainstorming tool for identifying areas to improve pain management in hospitalized patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine 7(5):416–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potter, M., Gordon, S., and Hamer, P. 2004. The nominal group technique: A useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. N Z Journal of Physiotherapy 32:126–130.Google Scholar
Pretty, J. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture. Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance. Earthscan Publications, London.Google Scholar
Pretty, J. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B 363(1491):447–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, M., Fraser, E.D.G., Morse, S., and Dougill, A.J. 2005. Integrating methods for developing sustainability indicators to facilitate learning and action. Ecology and Society 10(1):r3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M.S., Fraser, E.D.G., and Dougill, A.J. 2009. An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics 59(4):406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigby, D., Woodhouse, P., Young, T., and Burton, M. 2001. Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecological Economics 39:463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, H., Buchy, M., and Proctor, W. 2002. Laying down the ladder: A typology of public participation in Australian natural resource management. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 9(4):205–218.Google Scholar
Russillo, A. and Pintér, L. 2009. Linking Farm-Level Measurement Systems to Environmental Sustainability Outcomes: Challenges and Ways Forward. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Available at Web site http://www.iisd.org (verified 15 December 2015).Google Scholar
Schader, C., Jawtusch, J., Emmerth, D., Bickel, R., Grenz, J., and Stolze, M. 2012. Sustainability assessment of operators in the food chain based on the FAO SAFA-framework. In Zukunft der Ökolebensmittelverarbeitung: Nachhaltigkeit – Qualität Integrität. 2. IFOAM EU-Verarbeiterkonferenz zum Thema Ökolebensmittelverarbeitung und Umweltleistungen (Oberursel/ Frankfurt, Germany, 26–27 November 2012). Research Institute of Organic Farming (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. Available at Web site http://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/default/files/event/files/ifoameu_processingconference-frankfurt2012_jawtusch_bickel_poster-safa_fib.pdf (verified 28 January 2015).Google Scholar
Schader, C., Meier, S.M., Grenz, J., and Stolze, M. 2014. The trade-off between scope and precision in sustainability assessments of food systems. Ecology and Society 19(3):42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, A. and Bowler, C. 1997. Beyond the requirements: Improving public participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40(6):725–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, B. 2001. Using nominal group technique to explore competence in occupational therapy and physiotherapy students during first-year placements. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 64(6):298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technoserve and IDH/Sustainable Trade Initiative 2013. Uganda: A business case for sustainable coffee production. An industry article. Available at Web site www.sustainablecoffeeprogram.com/site/getfile.php?id=212. (verified 28 January 2015).Google Scholar
The Future of Food and Farming 2011. Final Project Report. Government Office for Science, London, UK. Foresight. Available at Web site https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288329/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf (verified 29 January 2015).Google Scholar
Thomas, B. 1983. Using nominal group technique to identify researchable problems. Journal of Nursing Education 22(8):335–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torero, M. 2011. A Framework for Linking Small Farmers to Markets, paper presented at the IFAD Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture, 24–25 January, IFAD Rome UNCTAD (2008), Cocoa Article: Industry Structures and Competition, Mimeo, Geneva.Google Scholar
Tuffrey-Weijne, I., Bernal, J., Butler, G., Hollins, S., and Curfs, L. 2007. Using Nominal Group Technique to investigate the views of people with intellectual disabilities on end-of-life care provision. Journal of Advanced Nursing 58(1):80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UCDA 2012. Coffee's contribution to Uganda's economic development since independence. Available at Web site http://www.ugandacoffeetrade.com/documents/UgandaCoffeeYearbook2011_12.pdf verified 15 December 2015).Google Scholar
UNDP 2012. The Market and Nature of Coffee Value Chains in Uganda –Value Chain Analysis of the Coffee Sub-sector in Uganda: Development of Inclusive Markets in Agriculture and Trade (DIMAT) project. Available at Web site http://www.ug.undp.org/content/dam/uganda/docs/UNDPUg_PovRed_ValueChainAnalysisReportCoffee2013Report.pdf (verified 15 December 2015).Google Scholar
van Calker, K.J., Berentsen, P.B.M., Giesen, G.W.J., and Huirne, R.B.M. 2005. Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and Human Values 22:53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Mierlo, B., Arkesteijn, M., and Leeuwis, C. 2010. Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses. American Journal of Evaluation 31:143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, N., Jassogne, L., van Asten, P.J.A., Mukasa, D., Wanyama, I., Kagezi, G. and Giller, K.E. 2014. Evaluating coffee yield gaps and important biotic, abiotic, and management factors limiting coffee production in Uganda. European Journal of Agronomy 63:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WCED 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar