SummaryMotivated by donor interest in innovative thinking on food security, we conducted an interdisciplinary, triangulation analysis of four divergent conceptual frameworks, each relevant to diagnosing food insecurity in developing countries. We found notable tensions as well as synergistic interactions between agroecology, agricultural innovation systems, social–ecological systems, and political ecology. Cross-framework interactions enhance our understanding of how sectoral and macro-economic development strategies impact on livelihoods, availability, and access. Re-invigorated, more profound dialog between divergent conceptual frameworks enables diagnosis of complex food insecurity problems, and context-specific interventions and innovations. Informed use of divergent approaches constitutes a new ambition for research and practice

Rural households in developing countries face a range of pressures to secure their livelihoods. Households feel the effects of changing rainfall patterns, droughts, cyclones, floods and increased temperatures, and draw on a wide range of resources to adapt but some households are better equipped than others. We explore the extent to which smallholder rural households might be able to adapt to the processes of increased climate variability or climate change through assessing their adaptive capacity using elements of the rural livelihoods framework. We involved almost 600 participants in discussions and interviews in India, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Lao PDR to explore the factors that condition their ability to adapt. We identified 36 key indicators of adaptive capacity, half were specifically related to climate change or climate variability, with others recognized as important in terms of overall livelihoods. “Experience”, “health” and “labour” (Human capital), “access to market” and “farmer networks/groups” (Social capital) were considered strongly enabling of adaptation, whereas “lack of training” (Human capital) and “soil quality/condition” (Natural capital) constrained adaptation. It takes time for households to recover from climatic events, but, households with better access to diverse resources, and a more balanced livelihood portfolio were better able to cope. Mechanisms to support adaptation involved supporting farmer groups, novel information networks, better access to markets and value chains, land ownership, improved financial and economic management, and credit options.

The importance of stakeholder engagement for the success of natural resources management processes is widely acknowledged, yet evaluation frameworks employed by administrators of environmental programmes continue to provide limited recognition of or insistence upon engagement processes. This paper presents a framework for monitoring and evaluation of engagement that aims to better incorporate community engagement into mainstream environmental programmes, in particular in remote regions such as arid and desert regions of the world. It is argued that successful monitoring of engagement should not only comprise a generic set of indicators but rather, in addition to the principles of good monitoring practice, should take into account a variety of the stakeholder interests as well as key regional drivers, addressing them at right geographic, institutional and time scale.

Supporting smallholder households to adapt to climate variability is a high priority for development agencies and national governments. Efforts to support climate adaptation in developing countries occur within highly dynamic contexts. Macro-level changes in national and regional economies manifest in dynamic local conditions, such as migration, changing household labour dynamics, market access and land-use options. Research aimed at developing adaptation options is often focused on particular activities or industries and struggles to take into account the broader, interrelated suite of household livelihood activities or the non-climate stressors driving change and adaptation. This paper explores the use of household types to (a) understand the diversity of household circumstances and (b) place agricultural adaptation options within the broader context of household livelihoods. Results from application in four countries are discussed, which highlight the utility of the method and identify broader level trends and drivers that are common challenges (experienced differently) across multiple contexts.