Grace Mudombi-Rusinamhodzi
Leonard Rusinamhodzi- 1University of Kassel, International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance section, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, Witzenhausen, Germany
- 2Natural resources management department, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Accra, Ghana
The recent discourse on food sovereignty places much emphasis on democracy in determining localized food systems, and whether the food is culturally appropriate while leaning heavily on sustainable agricultural practices such as organic agriculture, ecological intensification, agroecology, nature-based solutions, and regenerative agriculture. Sustainable agricultural practices are intended to ensure that the land is managed without the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, while going further by focusing on improvements on soil and land health. However, what are the practicalities of food activism and relying entirely on nature while yields are still very low in much of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)? We attempt to answer this question in four main sections: (a) we start by defining the concept of food sovereignty and the associated practices, (b) we highlight some of the main socio-ecological conditions that are common in SSA, and (c) we present evidence of some of the limitations of food sovereignty due to the diversity in ecological, political, cultural, and socio-economic contexts that characterize SSA; finally, (d) we focus on food preferences, marketing and certification aspects. We conclude that agroecology alone cannot solve the multiple objectives of increasing crop productivity and replenishing soil nutrients especially on small farms and relying on natural rainfall. There is an urgent need to combine superior crop varieties and judicious use of external inputs in tandem with the manipulation of the agroecological processes to increase the efficiency of input use and achieve higher food productivity, resilience to climate change, and preservation of the natural resource base in specific locations.
Introduction
Food sovereignty (FS) is the right of peoples to sufficient, nutritious, healthy, and culturally accepted food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and allowing producers to have a right to define their own food and agriculture systems (Dekeyser et al., 2018; Carlile et al., 2021). Though the original definition of food sovereignty has evolved since the food sovereignty movement’s official inception, Schanbacher (2010) states that the core elements have remained the same. FS tends to hinge on a broad advocacy for farming systems that are both food secure and ecologically sustainable (Edelman et al., 2014). As such, interpretations of the term food sovereignty revolve around agroecology, sustainable intensification, ecological intensification, nature-inclusive agriculture, nature-based solutions, organic agriculture, and/or fair trade-oriented agriculture, and some include views of more industrial but localized farming systems (Ajl, 2018). The basic principles for food sovereignty are to localize food systems and work with nature by offering a strategy to change the current structure and function of trade, human diets, and eating habits and creating new pathways for food production systems that are environmentally sustainable for local producers and consumers (Connor, 2008). The discourse on food sovereignty places much emphasis on democracy in determining localized food and agricultural systems, and whether the food is culturally appropriate (Edelman et al., 2014; Carlile et al., 2021).
Food sovereignty has thrived as a ‘dynamic process’; however, there has been insufficient attention to the practical challenges of implementation (Edelman et al., 2014) and consequently the discourse does not offer a useful practical framework for public authorities particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. FS comes in multiple dimensions and territorial scales (Patel, 2009; Edelman, 2014; Loudiyi, 2018), and as with sovereignty in general, the various kinds of FS do not necessarily co-vary (Krasner, 1999). As stated by Edelman et al. (2014) one of the unanswered questions so far is what it would take to implement FS now and in the future in economically, politically, and ecologically diverse contexts. As FS was declared a logical precondition for the existence of food security (Patel, 2009), the question is how relevant and practical are the FS concepts and approaches to the attainment of food and nutrition security in sub-Saharan Africa?
Food sovereignty is closely associated with organic agriculture, sustainable intensification, ecological intensification, nature-inclusive agriculture, nature-based solutions, and agro-ecology (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2012). We define these terms upfront for clarity as in many cases in literature; these terms may be used interchangeably. The broader organic agriculture concept refers to an agricultural system that uses ecologically based pest controls and biological fertilizers derived largely from animal and plant wastes and nitrogen-fixing cover crops, promotes crop rotations, and focuses on soil fertility and localized nutrient cycles (Muller et al., 2017). Sustainable intensification (SI) is defined as an agricultural production system where yields are increased and maintained while limiting the negative environmental impacts and without the need to convert additional non-agricultural land (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014). Ecological intensification (EI) focuses on environmentally friendly replacement of man-made inputs and/or enhancement of crop productivity, by including, regulating, and supporting ecosystem services management in agricultural practices (Bommarco et al., 2013). On the other hand, nature-inclusive agriculture (NIA) refers to innovations in farm management, technology, and resource use that have the potential to address farmland biodiversity decline beyond solely focusing on yields (Vermunt et al., 2022). Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are cost-effective interventions that use the ability of nature to provide ecosystem services that can enhance resilience in agriculture and food production, while mitigating climate change and enhancing the environment (Sowińska-Świerkosz and García, 2022). Agroecology is an approach to farming that maximizes ecological processes and does not degrade the natural resource base (Carlile et al., 2021). Agroecology is based on local and traditional agricultural knowledge, environmentally safe and culturally significant sustainable development, organic rather than capital and chemical intensive inputs, and biodiversity (Schanbacher, 2010). A recent buzz word, regenerative agriculture is considered a re-framing of sustainable and ecological intensification with a focus on restoration of soil health, carbon sequestration, climate change mitigation, and reversal of biodiversity loss (Giller et al., 2021a).
Our main contention is that local food sovereignty is not urgent for the generality of the developing world population especially in SSA characterized by declining yields, declining soil fertility, and diminishing returns to labor, and where first phase conservation and productivity gains are overtaken by population growth (Bernstein, 2013) but rather relevant in higher income situations where consumers are able to make choices driven by ecological citizenship (Seyfang, 2005).
Socio-ecological context of Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa is characterized by diverse socio-ecological conditions. This diversity is underpinned by an interplay of biophysical factors such as soils and climate, socioeconomic factors such resource ownership and access to capital and markets, as well as farmers’ production objectives. Soil degradation and unpredictable rainfall synergistically constrain food production and the viability of smallholder agriculture in SSA, where 90% of main crop production is under rain-fed conditions. The situation is compounded by poor capital outlay, limited labor, small and dwindling land sizes, and an insecure land tenure faced by most smallholder farmers (Sanginga and Woomer, 2009). In addition, population is increasing, diets are changing, and arable land is shrinking due to land degradation and soil fertility loss (Giller, et al., 2008) while climate variability and change are becoming more and more acute (Challinor et al., 2007).
Cereals especially maize dominate production and are intended mostly for food but can be used as cash crops when farmers produce a surplus (Giller, et al., 2008). On the other hand, livestock are also important in the farming system, with cattle closely integrated with crop production. Cattle is used for draught power, for food through milk and meat, for nutrient management through the manure, and increasingly as an insurance in times of urgent cash needs and often a symbol of wealth (Thornton and Herrero, 2001). At the household level where decisions are made, inadequate resources such as labor, cattle manure, and purchased fertilizers lead to multiple nutrient deficiencies and soil fertility gradients within and across farms (Tittonell et al., 2007; Zingore et al., 2007).
In SSA, women produce up to 80% of basic foodstuffs both for household consumption and for sale, and the figure can be higher in some of the least developed countries (Glazebrook and Opoku, 2020). Women in agricultural production suffer drudgery in addition to low returns on labor (Doss, 2018). Also, as in many areas, women are the main custodians of neglected and under-utilized crops and the associated traditional knowledge; men in many cultures concentrate on producing staple and commercial crops (Kuhnlein et al., 2009; Padulosi et al., 2013).
Another characteristic that hampers smallholder farmers is limited market participation especially in specialized markets. The reasons are many but center on lack of reliable market information, poor market access, high transaction costs, poor infrastructure, and weak institution. In addition, usage of certification services in Sub-Saharan Africa by smallholders is low, and many smallholders do not receive price premiums for producing higher quality staples (Abate et al., 2021).
Local environmentally sustainable food production systems?
The transformation toward the ecological intensification of agriculture is an interaction of several socio-economic and environmental factors which may result in unpredictable outcomes. Ecological intensification systems rely on (a) on-farm renewable resources such as compost manure, green manure, and bone meal for nutrient management; (b) natural pest control through the management of ecological and biological processes such as crop rotation, mixed cropping and fostering insect predators; and (c) exclusion of external synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (Tittonell, 2014). When a full understanding of the ecological relationships and process in agricultural systems is established, it is possible to manipulate these systems to increase productivity, reduce loses, and limit environmental damage through ecological intensification (Schanbacher, 2010). Though ecological intensification has little to no artificial fertilization, herbicides, and pesticides, it requires greater expertise and more time to optimize farm management and achieve high productivity (Geertsema et al., 2016).
The political food sovereignty movement has largely adopted agroecology as a strategy of resistance to industrial agriculture and is centered on agroecology as a normative form of production (Edelman et al., 2014). Prescribing FS based on agroecology as a ‘silver bullet’ solution to end hunger and malnutrition in SSA is problematic due to the diversity of farms and farming systems (Vanlauwe & Giller, 2006) as earlier mentioned. Agroecology strives for a deep understanding of ecosystems, such as how plant and animal life interact with the human production of foods and resources (Schanbacher, 2010). Taking an objective look at the low-input, low-output characteristics of local production in SSA (Sheahan and Barrett, 2017), we also ask ourselves, will low-input agricultural production meet global food security (De Ponti et al., 2012; Giller et al., 2008)? Existing analyses of organic agriculture have put the carrying capacity of organic agriculture at 3–4 billion, well below the present population of 8.0 billion, and 10 billion projected for 2050 (United Nations, 2019). With the world’s population set to increase, the farming spectrum should seek to optimize the use of factors of production, inputs for productivity, and environmental sustainability (Ponisio et al., 2015). So far, the trend in SSA has been cereal yields growing more slowly than population and demand resulting in a total cropland area increase of 14% between 2004 and 2013 through deforestation, conversion of marginal grazing land, and more crop cycles per year on the same field (Van Ittersum et al., 2016).
For illustrative purposes, we use the term organic agriculture in reference to ecological intensification practices. Schader et al. (2021) reported that in SSA, the potential for organic agriculture is often not utilized due to poorly implemented organic interventions, and that a differentiation is needed to distinguish between desirable and objectionable ways of organic agriculture. De Ponti et al. (2012) reported that balanced nutrition in purely organic systems is difficult to maintain, which contributes to a significant large yield gap. For example, De Ponti et al. (2012) compiled and analyzed a meta-dataset of 362 publications and showed that organic yields were on average 80% of conventional yields depending on the type of crop and production region. However, a recent paper by Connor (2022) pointed out that the crop yield gap of 20%–25% of organic versus conventional agriculture is only part of the full gap: at systems level (including the land that is needed to produce organic inputs such as N from N fixing crops and manure) the yield gap between both types of agriculture is much larger. In case of nitrogen (N) fertilization, it might not be practical to rely solely on the natural process of biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) as the BNF process may be hampered by multiple-nutrient deficiencies inherent in most soils of SSA. There is an urgent need for judicious use of external inputs in tandem with the manipulation of the ecological processes to increase the efficiency of input use to achieve higher food productivity and preservation of the natural resource base (Buresh & Giller, 1998; Sanchez, 2002; Rusinamhodzi et al., 2012).
The need of an enormous productivity increase and associated nutrient requirements for SSA to be self-sufficient in the future has been assessed and previously reported (van Ittersum et al., 2016; ten Berge et al., 2019). In addition, literature is replete with evidence on the relevance and urgency to incorporate integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) in production systems especially on small farms that dominate SSA. ISFM is defined as a set of practices related to cropping, improved varieties, synthetic fertilizers, organic resources and other amendments on smallholder farms to increase production, input use efficiency and resilience (Vanlauwe et al., 2010). ISFM is better placed than organic agriculture alone to achieve food security, soil health, and self-reliance. ISFM does not demand copious quantities of each form of fertilizer (organic + chemical), and this increases the chances of widespread adoption and a positive spiral effect on the environment (Vanlauwe et al., 2010). External inputs, especially soil nutrients, are needed in the short term following the 4Rs (right source, right rate, right time, right place) of nutrient stewardship (Johnston & Bruulsema, 2014) to correct the severe nutrient imbalances and raise baseline productivity that can trigger other positive ecological processes.
The world needs a highly productive agriculture that can save as much land as possible for nature and at the same time meet global food security (Connor, 2008). From a resilience and sustainable production systems point of view, the production of minor crops (neglected and underutilized crops) and livestock species (Blench, 1997) could be promoted; however, the resultant complex production systems with diverse neglected and underutilized crops and livestock species in diverse landscapes would require different value chains and policies and legislation for some of the products (Padulosi et al., 1999; Windfuhr and Jonsén, 2005).
Local preferences mean a focus on “local”, “traditional”, neglected, and underutilized crops and livestock species (mostly chickens) which inherently have lower productivity than the modern main staple crops and improved animal breeds. Indigenous crops and animals may be better adapted to local conditions in the face of climate change, and some crops may be more nutrient dense than the modern crops (Akinola et al., 2020), but in some instances, the crops are difficult to collect, e.g., leafy vegetables such as Cleome gynandra; tedious to process, e.g., small grains such as sorghum, pearl, and finger millet; and take long to cook, e.g., legumes such as Bambara nut, which implies that food might not appeal to most individuals/households (Kuhnlein et al., 2009; Padulosi et al., 2013). For example, smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe identify labor demands associated with the processing of small grains (sorghum and millet) as one of the limiting factors. This implies that food sovereignty might not only be about defending food cultures but also about reinvigorating or even rebuilding them, and consciously working to enhance ‘food literacy’ and modify consumer tastes (Edelman et al., 2014). Also, relying entirely on local production raises the question of competing claims on land and competition over other resources needed for food, feed, the bio-based economy, and nature conservation (Giller et al., 2008).
Women play key roles in food production, procurement, and preparation (Park et al., 2015). For these rural women, focusing on “local”, “traditional”, neglected, and underutilized food crops and livestock species implies less free time as they spend more time cultivating, gathering, preparing, and storing foods as well as fetching fuelwood (Thies, 2000 et al., 2013). Unfortunately, any additional work often falls on the shoulders of women, who contribute to most of the agriculture labor (Phiri et al., 2019). This reinforces what Carlile et al. (2021) pointed out that while a food sovereignty agenda might benefit small-scale farmers, it would not necessarily have positive impacts for women and girls who are often particularly marginalized in family farming systems.
Changing the current structure and function of trade
The ability of communities to produce food sustainably leans strongly on economic growth and competitiveness. Economic growth and competitiveness depend on productivity, demand for the products, and on the extent to which consumer prices reflect costs of externalities (Buttel, 2003). In this case, societal externalities include the potential environmental and health-related costs. A meta-analysis of smallholder farmers in Africa revealed that farmers sell a large proportion of their produce and are in the business of farming to improve their livelihoods (Cock et al., 2022). However, FS advocacy tends to be driven by strong preferences for ‘local’ (Edelman et al., 2014) with local trade being hinged upon barter exchange (Marti and Pimbert, 2006; Pimbert, 2009). Yet, barter exchange faces challenges emanating from the absence of money and by the presence of indivisibility (Fujishige and Yang, 2021). In cases of excesses, connecting peasants to global markets may mean a complete set of certification procedures, creation of brands and appropriate standard setting, and benefit from excess produce marketed as specialty e.g., organic or community-traded products. Introduction of grades and standards can play an important role in helping rural enterprises succeed in increasingly liberalized and unprotected markets (Chiputwa et al., 2015). Even as fair-trade certification attempts to deliver fair prices to producers, producer organizations must pay application, initial certification, as well as certification renewal fees (Dragusanu et al., 2014); certification costs place trading beyond the reach of most small-scale producers (Marshall et al., 2006). Additionally, there is no guarantee that certification programs will offer high enough price premiums to offset the costs of certification (Blackman & Rivera, 2011). Barriers in the form of taxes and certification of origin are significant for local producers and are on the increase, causing them to abandon their trade or continue it in a clandestine manner. Consumers need to be certain that food has been produced under good farming practices and should be able to verify, meaning that standardization is inevitable (Rigby & Cáceres, 2001). In cases where ecologically sound food production systems can be used, the costs of such food are often at least 10% more than conventionally produced foods (Peng, 2019), throwing food out of the reach of the majority consumers and violating one of the tenets of food security – access. Food insecure regions in sub-Saharan Africa which experience frequent droughts and total crop failures are often saved by food imports whose origins the recipients do not know. We do not make a case that the end justifies the means, but in many cases those acute interventions to avert hunger often take precedence over the need to define how the food was produced.
Finally, ethical purchase behavior as advocated for under food sovereignty is severely constrained by limited disposable income among consumers resulting in these practices being limited to the wealthier consumers. When consumers have limited budgets because of low income, they have lower willingness to pay and the perception of price as a barrier (Aschemann-Witzel & Zielke, 2015). High prices are a typical feature of specialty foods and constitutes a deterrent to their purchase, i.e., food sovereignty tends to be driven by strong preferences for local production (“indigenous”, “traditional”, “neglected and underutilized crops and livestock species”) and underestimates the influence of changing food culture (Edelman et al., 2014).
Conclusions
Given the above, food sovereignty, though having some positive attributes, is challenging to practice at present and unlikely to solve the immediate food security needs in SSA where current crop productivity remains low or decreasing and the population is growing. External synthetic nutrient inputs are needed in combination with organic inputs, elite germplasm, along with improved water management strategies to initiate an increase in productivity and resilience against climate variability and change. Smallholder farmers who choose to go purely organic will need to be supported by better certification schemes and access better markets for improved returns to investments.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
LR: conceptualized, paper outline and write-up and review. GMR: conceptualized, literature review, write-up and review. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Author disclaimer
This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the affiliated organizations.
References
Abate G. T., Bernard T., de Janvry A., Sadoulet E., Trachtman C. (2021). "Introducing quality certification in staple food markets in Sub-Saharan Africa: Four conditions for successful implementation.". Food Policy 105, 102173. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102173
Ajl M. (2018). "Delinking, food sovereignty, and populist agronomy: notes on an intellectual history of the peasant path in the global south.". Rev. Afr. Political Economy 45 (155), 64–84. doi: 10.1080/03056244.2018.1443437
Akinola R., Pereira L. M., Mabhaudhi T., de Bruin F. M., Rusch L. (2020). "A review of indigenous food crops in Africa and the implications for more sustainable and healthy food systems.". Sustainability 12 (8), 3493. doi: 10.3390/su12083493
Aschemann-Witzel J., Zielke S. (2015). Can't buy me green? a review of consumer perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food. J. Consumer Affairs 51(1), 211–251. doi: 10.1111/joca.12092
Bernstein H. (2013). "Food sovereignty: a skeptical view.". Food Sovereignty: A Crit. Dialogue Int. Conf. 17 (39), 276–336.
Blackman A., Rivera J. (2011). Producer-level benefits of sustainability certification. Conserv. Biol. 25 (6), 1176–1185. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01774.x
Blench R. (1997). Neglected species, livelihoods and biodiversity in difficult areas: how should the public sector respond. ODI Natural Resour. Paper 23.
Bommarco R., Kleijn D., Potts S. G. (2013). "Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security.". Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 (4), 230–238. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012
Buresh R. J., Giller K. E. (1998). “Strategies to replenish soil fertility in African smallholder agriculture,” in Soil fertility research for maize-based farming systems in Malawi and Zimbabwe (Soil Fertility Network and CIMMYT), 13–19. S. R. Waddington, H. K. Murwira, J. D. T. Kumwenda, D. Hikwa, & F. Tagwira (Bemelmans-Videc, Rist et al.).
Buttel F. H. (2003). "Internalizing the societal costs of agricultural production.". Plant Physiol. 133 (4), 1656–1665. doi: 10.1104/pp.103.030312
Carlile R., Kessler M., Garnett T. (2021). "What is food sovereignty?". TABLE Explainer Ser. doi: 10.56661/f07b52cc
Challinor A., Wheeler T., Garforth C., Craufurd P., Kassam A. (2007). "Assessing the vulnerability of food crop systems in Africa to climate change.". Climatic Change 83 (3), 381–399. doi: 10.1007/s10584-007-9249-0
Chiputwa B., Spielman D. J., Qaim M. (2015). Food standards, certification, and poverty among coffee farmers in Uganda. World Dev. 66 (0), 400–412. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.006
Cock J., Prager S., Meinke H., Echeverria R. (2022). "Labour productivity: The forgotten yield gap.". Agric. Syst. 201, 103452. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103452
Connor D. J. (2008). Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field Crops Res. 106 (2), 187–190. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.11.010
Connor D. J. (2022). "Relative yield of food and efficiency of land-use in organic agriculture - a regional study.". Agric. Syst. 199. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103404
Dekeyser K., Korsten L., Fioramonti L. (2018). Food sovereignty: shifting debates on democratic food governance. Food Secur. 10 (1), 223–233. doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0763-2
De Ponti T., Rijk B., Van Ittersum M. K. (2012). The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 108, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2011.12.004
Doss C. R. (2018). "Women and agricultural productivity: Reframing the issues.". Dev. Policy Rev. 36 (1), 35–50. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12243
Dragusanu R., Giovannucci D., Nunn N. (2014). The economics of fair trade. J. economic Perspect. 28 (3), 217–236. doi: 10.1257/jep.28.3.217
Edelman M. (2014). "Food sovereignty: Forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges.". J. Peasant Stud. 41 (6), 959–978. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2013.876998
Edelman M., Weis T., Baviskar A., Borras J. S.M., Holt-Giménez E., Kandiyoti D., et al. (2014). Introduction: critical perspectives on food sovereignty. J. Peasant Stud. 41 (6), 911–931. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2014.963568
Fujishige S., Yang Z. (2021). "Barter markets, indivisibilities, and markovian core.". Bull. Economic Res. 74(1), 39–48. doi: 10.1111/boer.12279
Geertsema W., Rossing W. A. H., Landis D. A., Bianchi F. J. J. A., van Rijn P. C. J., Schaminée J. H. J., et al. (2016). "Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture.". Front. Ecol. Environ. 14 (4), 209–216. doi: 10.1002/fee.1258
Giller K. E., Delaune T., Silva J. V., van Wijk M., Hammond J., Descheemaeker K., et al. (2021). "Small farms and development in sub-Saharan Africa: Farming for food, for income or for lack of better options?". Food Secur. 13 (6), 1431–1454. doi: 10.1007/s12571-021-01209-0
Giller K. E., Hijbeek R., Andersson J. A., Sumberg J. (2021). Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric. 50 (1), 13–25. . doi: 10.1177/0030727021998063
Giller K. E., Leeuwis C., Andersson J. A., Andriesse W., Brouwer A., Frost P., et al. (2008). Competing claims on natural resources: What role for science? Ecol. Soc. 13 (2). http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-58749116865&partnerID=40.
Giller K. E., Delaune T., Silva J. V., van Wijk M., Hammond J., Descheemaeker K., et al (2021). “Small farms and development in sub-Saharan Africa: Farming for food, for income or for lack of better options?” Food Security 13(6), 1431–1454
Glazebrook T., Opoku E. (2020). "Gender and sustainability: Learning from women’s farming in africa.". Sustainability 12 (24). doi: 10.3390/su122410483
Holt-Giménez E., Altieri M. A. (2012). "Agroecology, food sovereignty and the new green revolution.". J. Sustain. Agric. 37(1), 2013. doi: 10.1080/10440046.2012.716388
Johnston A. M., Bruulsema T. W. (2014). 4R nutrient stewardship for improved nutrient use efficiency. Proc. Eng. 83, 365–370. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.029
Krasner S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. (Princeton University Press) PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. United States of America.
Kuhnlein H. V., Erasmus B., Spigelski D. (2009). "Indigenous peoples’ food systems: The many dimensions of culture.". Diversity Environ. Nutr. Health, 1–339.
Loudiyi S. (2018). "The food sovereignty project: Advancing theory and practices.". J. Agriculture Food Systems Community Dev. 8 (2), 1–3. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2018.082.011
Marshall E., Schreckenberg K., Newton A. (2006). Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: Factors influencing success. lessons learned from Mexico and Bolivia and policy implications for decision-makers. Int. Forestry Rev. 8 (3), 368–369. doi: 10.1505/ifor.8.3.368
Marti N., Pimbert M. P. (2006). Barter markets: Sustaining people and nature in the Andes. Sustaining Local Food Systems, Agricultural Biodiversity and Livelihoods. IIED – International Institute for Environment and Development 3 Endsleigh Street, London.
Muller A., Schader C., El-Hage Scialabba N., Brüggemann J., Isensee A., Erb K.-H., et al. (2017). "Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture.". Nat. Commun. 8 (1), 1290. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w
Padulosi S., Eyzaquirre P., Hodgkin T. (1999). Challenges and strategies in promoting conservation and use of neglected and underutilized crop species. Perspect. New Crops New uses, 140–145. doi: 10.1.1.408.4850
Padulosi S., Thompson J., Rudebjer P. (2013). "Fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition with neglected and underutilized species: Needs, challenges and the way forward." Rome: Bioversity International.
Park C. M. Y., White B., Julia (2015). "We are not all the same: taking gender seriously in food sovereignty discourse.". Third World Q. 36 (3), 584–599. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2015.1002988
Patel R. (2009). "Food sovereignty.". J. peasant Stud. 36 (3), 663–706. doi: 10.1080/03066150903143079
Peng M. (2019). “Chapter 1 - the growing market of organic foods: Impact on the US and global economy,” in Safety and practice for organic food. Eds. Biswas D., Micallef S. A. (Academic Press), 3–22. Safety and Practice for Organic Food, Elsevier. Pages 3-2. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812060-6.00001-5
Phiri K., Dube T., Moyo P., Ncube C., Ndlovu S. (2019). "Small grains “resistance”? making sense of Zimbabwean smallholder farmers’ cropping choices and patterns within a climate change context.". Cogent Soc. Sci. 5(1), 1622485. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2019.1622485
Ponisio L. C., M'Gonigle L. K., Mace K. C., Palomino J., de Valpine P., Kremen C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc B. 282(1799). doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396
Pretty J., Bharucha Z. P. (2014). "Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems.". Ann. Bot. 114 (8), 1571–1596. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcu205
Rigby D., Cáceres D. (2001). Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 68 (1), 21–40. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00060-3
Rusinamhodzi L., Corbeels M., Nyamangara J., Giller K. E. (2012). Maize-grain legume intercropping is an attractive option for ecological intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central Mozambique. Field Crops Res. 136, 12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.07.014
Sanchez P. A. (2002). Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295 (5562), 2019–2020. doi: 10.1126/science.1065256
Sanginga N., Woomer P. L. (Eds.) (2009). Integrated soil fertility management in Africa: Principles, practices and developmental process (Nairobi: Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture).
Schader C., Heidenreich A., Kadzere I., Egyir I., Muriuki A., Bandanaa J., et al. (2021). "How is organic farming performing agronomically and economically in sub-Saharan africa?". Global Environ. Change 70, 102325. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102325
Schanbacher W. D. (2010). The politics of food: the global conflict between food security and food sovereignty PRAEGER SECURITY INTERNATIONAL ABC-CLIO. California, United States of America., ABC-CLIO.
Seyfang G. (2005). "Shopping for sustainability: can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship?". Environ. politics 14 (2), 290–306. doi: 10.1080/09644010500055209
Sheahan M., Barrett C. B. (2017). "Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub-Saharan africa.". Food Policy 67, 12–25. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.010
Sowińska-Świerkosz B., García J. (2022). "What are nature-based solutions (NBS)? setting core ideas for concept clarification.". Nature-Based Solutions 2, 100009. doi: 10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009
ten Berge H. F. M., Hijbeek R., van Loon M. P., Rurinda J., Tesfaye K., Zingore S., et al. (2019). Maize crop nutrient input requirements for food security in sub-Saharan africa.". Global Food Secur. 23, 9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.02.001
Thornton P. K., Herrero M. (2001). "Integrated crop-livestock simulation models for scenario analysis and impact assessment.". Agric. Syst. 70 (2-3), 581–602. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00060-9
Tittonell P. (2014). "Ecological intensification of agriculture–sustainable by nature.". Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 8, 53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006
Tittonell P., Vanlauwe B., de Ridder N., Giller K. E. (2007). "Heterogeneity of crop productivity and resource use efficiency within smallholder Kenyan farms: Soil fertility gradients or management intensity gradients?". Agric. Syst. 94 (2), 376–390. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.10.012
United Nations (2019). "Department of economic and social affairs population division. world population prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423).".
Van Ittersum M. K., Van Bussel L. G., Wolf J., Grassini P., Van Wart J., Guilpart N., et al. (2016). "Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself?". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (52), 14964–14969. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1610359113
Vanlauwe B., Bationo A., Chianu J., Giller K. E., Merckx R., Mokwunye U., et al. (2010). Integrated soil fertility management: Operational definition and consequences for implementation and dissemination. Outlook Agric. 39 (1), 17–24. doi: 10.5367/000000010791169998
Vanlauwe B., Giller K. E. (2006). Popular myths around soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture Ecosyst. Environ. 116 (1-2), 34–46. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.016
Vermunt D. A., Wojtynia N., Hekkert M. P., Van Dijk J., Verburg R., Verweij P. A., et al. (2022). "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming.". Agric. Syst. 195, 103280. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103280
Windfuhr M., Jonsén J. (2005). “Food sovereignty: Towards democracy in localized food systems.” ITDG Publishing The Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development, Bourton Hall Bourton-on-Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV23 9QZ, UK. doi: 10.3362/9781780441160
Keywords: agroecology, regenerative agriculture, rainfed conditions, small farms, food systems, diets, activism, choices
Citation: Mudombi-Rusinamhodzi G and Rusinamhodzi L (2022) Food sovereignty in sub-Saharan Africa: Reality, relevance, and practicality. Front. Agron. 4:957011. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2022.957011
Received: 30 May 2022; Accepted: 16 September 2022;
Published: 07 October 2022.
Edited by:
Pratap Bhattacharyya, ICAR-NRRI, IndiaReviewed by:
Martin Van Ittersum, Wageningen University and Research, NetherlandsCopyright © 2022 Mudombi-Rusinamhodzi and Rusinamhodzi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Leonard Rusinamhodzi, TC5SdXNpbmFtaG9kemlAY2dpYXIub3Jn