Shonil A. Bhagwat- Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, School of Social Sciences and Global Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
This perspective article highlights the need for transformation in food and farming at three scales to promote a food system that meets UN Sustainable Development Goals. Food insecurity is still a persistent problem globally because of how food and farming sector is currently organized vs. how it should be organized if cultural traditions, environmental concerns, and nutritional needs of the world's growing population were foregrounded. The article argues that system-wide transformations are needed at different scales: landscape (macro), species (meso) and genes (micro). It suggests alternatives available for food and farming sector and identifies transformative pathways that are more sustainable in cultural, social and environmental terms. A better management of farming landscapes; diversification of the food system to include a wider range of species; and better use of neglected and underutilized species, varieties and cultivars of plants, and breeds of animals, in the food system can help to catalyze such a transformation. This can go a long way in promoting global sustainability by achieving three key UN Sustainable Development Goals: 2 (Zero Hunger), 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing) and 15 (Life on Land).
Introduction
Global food security is seen as the challenge of feeding more than 9 billion people by 2050 (Godfray et al., 2010; Strange, 2015; Fróna et al., 2019). A natural response to this challenge is to increase food production and some estimates suggest that the world will need to produce over 50% more food by 2050 than we currently do (e.g., Searchinger et al., 2019). The last 60 years of the so-called “Green Revolution” has increased food production dramatically. However, the Green Revolution has not only harmed the environment through excessive use of agrochemicals to enhance food production, but it has also failed to solve the problem of hunger and malnutrition in the world. Global food insecurity has progressively worsened year on year and in 2021 over 2 billion people were still food insecure, i.e., without access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food (FAO et al., 2021). Also, it has become increasingly clear that global food and nutrition security is not a matter of increasing food production alone, but of the “four betters”—better production, better nutrition, better environment and better life—as identified in FAO's (2021) Strategic Framework 2022–2031. What are the key concerns in feeding the growing population of the world and how can we rethink agriculture and food security to address those concerns?
In this Perspective, I suggest that the global food insecurity is still a persistent problem because of how the food and farming sector is currently organized vs. how it should be organized if cultural traditions, environmental concerns, and nutritional needs of the world's growing population were foregrounded. The popular literature over the last decade has articulated the need for paying attention to cultural traditions, environmental concerns, and nutritional needs when thinking about global food security. It is suggested that the current focus of food and farming is on commercial mass production at the cost of the severance of food from cultural traditions of farming and agriculture (Shiva, 2016). The lack of recognition of environmental harms caused by the intensification of agriculture and the impact of heavy use of agrochemicals on soils under such forms of agriculture have also been discussed in the popular literature (e.g., Monbiot, 2022). It has also been suggested that the long-held attraction of technological solutions (Huesemann and Huesemann, 2011) such as the use of genetically modified organisms to “fix” the global food system has ignored the diversity that nature presents. Collectively, this popular literature has suggested that the problem of food insecurity has been addressed through ever-more production rather than approaching food and farming in a manner that is sensitive to cultural traditions, environmental concerns, and the nutritional needs. But what scientific evidence is there that the alternatives available to food and farming sector can be more sustainable in cultural, environmental and nutritional terms? Here I present my analysis of why the transformation in food and farming is needed at three scales, how it can be conceptualized in the context of global food insecurity, and how we can develop pathways for transformative futures to produce better outcomes for global sustainability (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the transformation in food and farming sector at three scales. The arrows indicate alternative pathways to promote a food system that is more sustainable in cultural, nutritional and environmental terms.
First the landscape-scale transformation (macro-scale). The industrial agriculture claims vast landscapes and uses advanced technologies to increase food production primarily of cereal grains. On the other hand, 80% of food is produced on family farms by smallholder farmers (FAO and IFAD, 2019) and these farms are known to make more efficient use of land to produce a wider variety of food that is also nutritious. This calls for a better management of farming landscapes (Fischer et al., 2017; van Noordwijk et al., 2018). Such management can help with the transformation from farming methods currently used for commercial food production toward more sustainable options available to produce food.
Second, the species-scale transformation (meso-scale). A large proportion of calories consumed in the world come from only a dozen or so plant and animal species (Bioversity International, 2017). On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of species that are suitable for human consumption. This calls for diversification of the food system to include a wider range of species from which food comes (e.g., Bisht et al., 2018; Islam et al., 2018). Such diversification can help with the transformation from the small number of species that global food supply is dependent on toward the large number of species that are potentially suitable for more sustainable supply of food.
Third, the genes-scale transformation (micro-scale). Genetically modified organisms are seen as a cure for “fixing” the problem of providing food to the growing population of the world. Yet, there are vast numbers of local cultivars of crops and breeds of animals—known as “agrobiodiversity”—that have been long known to protect genetic variation (FAO, 1999). This agrobiodiversity is a product of selection and breeding over thousands of years of history of food and farming. This calls for better use of neglected and underutilized varieties and cultivars of plants, and breeds of animals, in the food system (Padulosi et al., 2013; Joshi et al., 2020). The use of such neglected and underutilized species can help with the transformation from commonly promoted technological solutions for food security toward the vast pool of genetic traits that are potentially suitable for more sustainable food and farming.
Catalyzing system-wide transformation at three scales
I suggest that the system-wide transformation can be achieved through a reorganization of food and farming sector in ways that heed cultural traditions, environmental concerns and nutritional needs. I will illustrate with examples pathways for such transformation. I will conclude by suggesting that the consideration of issues at landscape, species and genetic scales is important for achieving the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goals 2 (Zero Hunger), 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing) and 15 (Life on Land).
The landscape-scale transformation
Although the intensification of agriculture over the last 60 years has produced vast agricultural landscapes, often cultivated with monocultures of cereal grains, there are many examples of multifunctional landscapes where farming and biodiversity thrive (Bhagwat et al., 2008; McGranahan, 2014; Montoya et al., 2020). These multifunctional landscapes provide numerous other benefits to people defined by the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as “ecosystem services” (MEA, 2005). A more recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) articulates this as Nature's Contribution to People (NCP) which highlights the value of multifunctional landscapes to human wellbeing (Diaz et al., 2018). One iconic example of such multifunctional landscapes is culturally protected forests which are often situated at the heart of traditional agroforestry landscapes (Bhagwat et al., 2005; Tscharntke et al., 2011; Roux et al., 2022). These forests are common across the world, are found on every single continent, and are instrumental in supporting biodiversity (Bhagwat and Rutte, 2006). These forests are typically embedded in agricultural landscapes and they also provide a range of different ecosystem services such as groundwater storage, carbon sequestration or pollination of crops (Box 1).
Box 1. Ecosystem services from church forests in Ethiopia.
Church forests in Ethiopia (Eshete, 2007) are purposefully protected and nurtured by people are associated with the Ethiopian Orthodox churches in rural landscapes. Based on the modeling of pollination services provided by these church forests (Marks et al., 2022) suggest that church forests provide pollination services to nearly all of the cropland in South Gondar region of Ethiopia. In other words, without these pollination services, the small-scale farming in Ethiopia cannot function and as a result the farming communities in this region will become far more food insecure than they currently are. The church forests exist today because of cultural norms and if these norms are removed, then a collapse of agriculture is not inconceivable. On the other hand, if the cultural norms are recognized, they will continue to provide vital ecosystem services (e.g., LoTemplio et al., 2017). The example of Ethiopian Orthodox church forests is good reminder that such landscapes are ultimately ‘cultural landscapes’ shaped jointly by humans living in their environment. Such cultural landscapes can be the key to catalyzing the landscape transformation.
Such “cultural landscapes” are also known to be the guardians of “biocultural diversity,” the diversity of life in all its manifestations within a complex social-ecological system (Maffi, 2007; Pungetti and Bhagwat, 2012). The UNESCO World Heritage Convention attributes special significance for cultural landscapes, many of which are also places of outstanding natural beauty (UNESCO, 2022). If industrial agriculture claims vast stretches of such landscapes consisting of forests and other natural vegetation, their ability to provide ecosystem services can be significantly compromised. Landscapes where cultural norms are upheld can produce food more sustainably whilst also supporting human wellbeing.
The species-scale transformation
The global food supply comes from a relatively small number of species. Out of the estimated 390,000 plant species globally, there are at least 7039 edible plant species, 417 of which have been considered crops. Worryingly, however, only 3 crops—rice, maize and wheat—provide 50% of world's calories from plants, and only 12 plants and 5 animals provide 75% of the world's food (Antonelli et al., 2020). This dependence on a small number of species for food points to the vulnerability of the global food system which is underpinned by large scale and commercial production of food. In contrast, 9 out of 10 farms are family farms and they produce over 80% of food in the world (FAO and IFAD, 2019). Family farms are also very important for protecting the varieties of plants and animals that provide unique ingredients in world's cuisines that make food rich and diverse. Conservation of neglected and underutilized species has other benefits such as their role in fighting hunger and malnutrition during “lean” periods when the harvest of staple crops has been consumed (e.g., Li et al., 2020). The dietary diversity that these species offer can also promote nutrition, health and wellbeing in parts of the world where malnutrition and hunger are prevalent (e.g., Chivenge et al., 2015; Li and Siddique, 2018).
Beyond the currently neglected and underutilized species, there is also potential in non-native invasive species to provide sources of food. These species pose a serious problem for environmental managers because once they take hold they are difficult to control or eradicate. Although an unconventional, controversial and “outside the box” solution, their use as food can potentially help the environment as well as diversifying the food supply (Box 2). This so-called “frontier food” holds promise as an important component of global sustainability alongside better use of neglected and underutilized species. A global food system that does not depend on a small number of species can become more resilient to shocks and also offer environmentally more sustainable options for global food and nutrition security.
Box 2. An example of non-native invasive species used for food to illustrate unconventional ways in which food supply can be diversified.
North American Crayfish or signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1976 and it soon spread throughout the British waterways driving out the native crayfish (Chadd and Eversham, 2010). The trapping of this crayfish is legally permitted by the UK Environment Agency. One environmental campaigner, Crayfish Bob, has been supplying potted crayfish at pop-up restaurants, music festivals, and other events across the United Kingdom (Crayfishbob, 2022). Making use of invasive species in this way not only solves the problem of non-native invasive species, perceived as one of major environmental problems today, but it also helps make our food diverse and possibly more nutritious. Although this is an unconventional and controversial solution to diversifying the food supply, there is an increasing number of examples to suggest that where natural resource managers have ‘given up’ on controlling non-native invasive species, ‘consuming’ them can provide a potential solution to keep their populations under control (Bhagwat et al., 2012; Hoag, 2014; Cerveira et al., 2022).
The genes-scale transformation
As opposed to applying technological solutions to the challenge of increasing global food production and or fortifying food with nutrients, it is important to recognize the genetic variability and diversity that already exists in nature. Hundreds of varieties and cultivars of plants and breeds of animals that exist today are a product of thousands of years of selection and breeding by people (Bioversity International, 2017). This rich “agrobiodiversity” is important for food and nutrition security of a large proportion of the world's farming population. Yet, technological solutions such as genetically modifying crops pay very little attention to this already existing diversity. Gene editing tools, for example, are used to generate changes to the native genetic material to introduce commercially desirable traits. Similarly, the technologies that produce genetically modified organisms, introduce novel configurations of genetic materials typically derived from other organisms. These technologies are used to generate commercially attractive traits such as pesticide resistance (e.g., Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). Yet, traits such as drought resistance are, arguably, far more useful to farmers than pesticide resistance (Box 3). Such useful traits are common among wild relatives of cultivated plants as well as among the cultivars of plants and breeds of animals that have been produced through careful selection and breeding (e.g., Mammadov et al., 2018). Biotechnology is seen as an important part of food and farming, as exemplified by EU's Farm to Fork strategy (Purnhagen et al., 2021). However, it is important to recognize that technologically-driven approaches do not undermine the genetic variation that exists naturally.
Box 3. Genetically modified cotton vs. traditional variety of “tree cotton”.
One example where genetic modification technology has come under sharp focus is cotton farming in India where genetically modified cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) has been linked to farmers' suicides (Gutierrez et al., 2020). Bt cotton is a genetically modified pest resistant variety that produces an insecticide to combat bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). In this type of cotton, strains of a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis are introduced to produce Bt toxins harmful to insects. As a water-thirsty plant, cotton is heavily reliant on irrigation. Bt cotton does well where farmers have access to irrigation, but it does not do so well where artificial irrigation is unavailable. Studies have shown that Bt cotton increases the risk of farmer bankruptcy, and therefore suicides, in smallholder rainfed cotton farms (e.g., Gutierrez et al., 2015). However, a traditional variety of deep-rooted ‘tree cotton’ (Gossypium arboreum) does very well in environments where water is scarce. It is these kinds of traits that can help farmers, as opposed to traits that seek to maximize profit through, for example, the introduction of pesticide resistance in order to promote commercial interests through the increased sale of pesticides in cotton farming.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this Perspective suggests that a system-wide transformation in food and farming at landscape, species, and genes scales will go a long way in achieving global food and nutrition security. The revitalization of cultural traditions of farming and agriculture and moving away from commercial mass production toward multifunctional food landscapes can help with the landscape-scale transformation. The introduction of a greater diversity in the food system and making use of neglected and underutilized species as well as exploring the uses of non-native invasive species in food can help with the species-scale transformation. Moving away from technological solutions to increase food production and adopting the already existing varieties, cultivars and breeds that are better adapted to local environments can help with the genes-scale transformation. The status quo in the food system currently compromises the possibility of achieving the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2, 3, and 15. SDG2 pledges to “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”. The system-wide transformation in food and farming can reduce the environmental harms from agriculture as well as producing sufficient and nutritious food for those facing hunger. SDG3 strives to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. Such transformation can also help reimagine the modern-day relevance of traditional practices in food and farming for health, wellbeing and better quality of life. SDG15 commits to “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. Such transformation can promote the conservation of cultural landscapes and biocultural diversity dependent on such landscapes. Food is the building block of life and an important part of our society. If we get the food right, then we would have made good progress toward global sustainability.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the editors of this Special Issue for constructive comments on the initial draft.
Conflict of interest
The author declares 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.
References
Antonelli, A., Smith, R. J., Fry, C., Simmonds, M. S., Kersey, P. J., Pritchard, H. W., et al. (2020). State of the World's Plants and Fungi 2020. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens.
Bhagwat, S. A., Breman, E., Thekaekara, T., Thornton, T. F., and Willis, K. J. (2012). A battle lost? Report on two centuries of invasion and management of lantana camara L. in Australia, India and South Africa. PLoS ONE 7, e32407. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032407
Bhagwat, S. A., Kushalappa, C. G., Williams, P. H., and Brown, N. D. (2005). A landscape approach to biodiversity conservation of sacred groves in the Western Ghats of India. Conservat Biol. 19, 1853–1862. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00248.x
Bhagwat, S. A., and Rutte, C. (2006). Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management. Front Ecol Environ. 4, 519–524. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[519:SGPFBM]2.0.CO;2
Bhagwat, S. A., Willis, K. J., Birks, H. J., and Whittaker, R. J. (2008). Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evolut. 23, 261–267. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.005
Bioversity International (2017). Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index. Rome, Italy: Bioversity International.
Bisht, I. S., Mehta, P. S., Negi, K. S., Verma, S. K., Tyagi, R. K., and Garkoti, S. C. (2018). Farmers' rights, local food systems, and sustainable household dietary diversification: a case of Uttarakhand Himalaya in north-western India. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 42, 77–113. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2017.1363118
Cerveira, I., Baptista, V., Teodósio, M. A., Morais, P. (2022). What's for dinner? Assessing the value of an edible invasive species and outreach actions to promote its consumption. Biol Invasions. 24, 815–829. doi: 10.1007/s10530-021-02685-3
Chadd, R., and Eversham, B. (2010). “Other invertebrates,” in Silent Summer: The State of Wildlife in Britain and Ireland, ed N. Maclean (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press), 556–575. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511778230.033
Chivenge, P., Mabhaudhi, T., Modi, A. T., and Mafongoya, P. (2015). The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 12, 5685–5711. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120605685
Crayfishbob. (2022). Available online at: http://crayfishbob.co.uk/ (accessed July, 2022).
Diaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Mart'in-Lo'pez, B., Watson, R. T., Molna'r, Z., et al. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science 359:270–272 doi: 10.1126/science.aap8826
Eshete, A. W., (2007). Ethiopian Church Forests: Opportunities and Challenges for Restoration. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research.
FAO and IFAD (2019). United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019–2028. The Future of Family Farming in the Context of the 2030 Agenda. Rome. p. 16.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all.
FAO. (1999). Background Paper 1: Agricultural Biodiversity. Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land Conference, Maastricht, September 1999. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/mfcal/pdf/bp_1_agb.pdf (accessed July, 2022).
FAO. (2021). Strategic Framework 2022–2031. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/strategic-framework/en (accessed September, 2022).
Fischer, J., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C. (2017). A plea for multifunctional landscapes. Front Ecol Environ. 15:59–59. doi: 10.1002/fee.1464
Fróna, D., Szenderák, J., and Harangi-Rákos, M. (2019). The challenge of feeding the world. Sustainability 11, 5816. doi: 10.3390/su11205816
Godfray, H. C., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., et al. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 327:812–818. doi: 10.1126/science.1185383
Gutierrez, A. P., Herren, H. R., and Kenmore, P. E. (2020). The failure of GMO cotton in India. p. 1–18. Available online at: https://www.resilience.org/ (accessed October, 2022).
Gutierrez, A. P., Ponti, L., Herren, H. R., Baumgärtner, J., Kenmore, P. E. (2015). Deconstructing Indian cotton: weather, yields, and suicides. Environ Sci. Eur. 27, 12. doi: 10.1186/s12302-015-0043-8
Hoag, H. (2014). Invasive-species control: bounty hunters. Nature. 513, 294–295. doi: 10.1038/513294a
Huesemann, M., and Huesemann, J. (2011). Techno-fix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Islam, A. H. M., von Braun, J., Thorne-Lyman, A. L., and Ahmed, A. U. (2018). Farm diversification and food and nutrition security in Bangladesh: empirical evidence from nationally representative household panel data. Food Security. 10, 701–720. doi: 10.1007/s12571-018-0806-3
Joshi, B. K., Shrestha, R., Gauchan, D., and Shrestha, A. (2020). Neglected, underutilized, and future smart crop species in Nepal. J. Crop Improve. 34, 291–313. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2019.1703230
Li, X., and Siddique, K. H. (2018). Future Smart Food. Rediscovering hidden treasures of neglected and underutilized species for Zero Hunger in Asia, Bangkok. doi: 10.18356/23b5f7ab-en
Li, X., Yadav, R., and Siddique, K. H. M. (2020). Neglected and underutilized crop species: the key to improving dietary diversity and fighting hunger and malnutrition in asia and the Pacific. Front Nutr. 7, 593711. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2020.593711
LoTemplio, S., Reynolds, T. W., Wassie Eshete, A., Abrahams, M., Bruesewitz, D., and Wall, J. A. (2017). Ethiopian Orthodox church forests provide regulating and habitat services: evidence from stream sediment and aquatic insect analyses. African J. Ecol. 55, 247–251. doi: 10.1111/aje.12329
Maffi, L. (2007). Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability. The SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society. SAGE Publication: London. p. 267–277. doi: 10.4135/9781848607873.n18
Mammadov, J., Buyyarapu, R., Guttikonda, S. K., Parliament, K., Abdurakhmonov, I. Y., and Kumpatla, S. P. (2018). Wild relatives of maize, rice, cotton, and soybean: treasure troves for tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 886. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00886
Marks, A. M., Reynolds, T. W., Hamann, S., Eshete, A. W., Lowman, M. D., and Nogué, S. (2022). “Ethiopian orthodox tewahedo church forests and pollination services across an agricultural landscape,” in Religion and Nature Conservation: Global Case Studies, eds R. Borde, A. O. Alison, M. A. Stephen, and G. G. Andrew (London: Taylor and Francis). Available online at: https://oro.open.ac.uk/85134/ (accessed October, 2022).
McGranahan, D. A. (2014). Ecologies of scale: multifunctionality connects, conservation, and agriculture across fields, farms and landscapes. Land 3, 739–769. doi: 10.3390/land3030739
MEA (2005). A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island Press: Washington DC.
Montoya, D., Gaba, S., de Mazancourt, C., Bretagnolle, V., and Loreau, M. (2020). Reconciling biodiversity conservation, food production and farmers' demand in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Model. 416, 108889. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108889
Padulosi, S., Thompson, J., and Rudebjer, P. (2013). Fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition with neglected and underutilized species: needs, challenges and the way forward. Bioversity International. Available online at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68927 (accessed September 60, 2022).
Pungetti, G., and Bhagwat, S. A. (2012). “Sacred species and biocultural diversity: applying the principles,” in Sacred Species and Sites: Advances in Biocultural Conservation, eds G. Pungetti, G. Oviedo, and D. Hooke (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press), 367–406. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139030717
Purnhagen, K. P., Clemens, S., Eriksson, D., Fresco, L. O., Tosun, J., Qaim, M., et al. (2021). Europe's farm to fork strategy and its commitment to biotechnology and organic farming: conflicting or complementary goals? Trends Plant Sci. 26, 600–606. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2021.03.012
Qaim, M., and Zilberman, D. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science. 299, 900–902. doi: 10.1126/science.1080609
Roux, J. L., Tobias, P., Andreas, B., Shonil, B., Valentino, G., Shingo, S., et al. (2022). Exploring evolving spiritual values of forests in Europe and Asia—a transition hypothesis towards re-spiritualization of forests. Ecol. Soc. (in press).
Searchinger, T., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Lipinski, B., Waite, R., Winterbottom, R., et al. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future. A menu of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050. World resources report 2013–14: interim findings.
Shiva, V. (2016). Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
Strange, R. (2015). Feeding more than 9 billion by 2050: challenges and opportunities. Food Sec. 7, 177–178. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0448-7
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Bhagwat, S. A., Buchori, D., Faust, H., and Hertel, D. (2011). Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes—A review. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 619–629. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01939.x
UNESCO. (2022). UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Cultural Landscapes. Available online at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/ (accessed August, 2022).
Keywords: agriculture food and nutrition, environmental sustainability, food security, health and wellbeing, UN Sustainable Development Goals
Citation: Bhagwat SA (2022) Catalyzing transformative futures in food and farming for global sustainability. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:1009020. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1009020
Received: 01 August 2022; Accepted: 10 October 2022;
Published: 28 October 2022.
Edited by:
Henk Jochemsen, Wageningen University and Research, NetherlandsReviewed by:
Barbora Duží, Institute of Geonics (ASCR), CzechiaCopyright © 2022 Bhagwat. 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: Shonil A. Bhagwat, c2hvbmlsLmJoYWd3YXQmI3gwMDA0MDtvcGVuLmFjLnVr