damage created the PoU objective leads to selection of the point O. We can also generate such a result by specifying our social utility function, or preference, within the space of these two variables. Here, the curve represented is also a “reverse” iso-utility function, since the origin of the graph is the absolute best point for the social planner (0 PoU and 0 GHG, but still an unachievable utopia). The tangency between what is possible (green frontier) and what is desired (orange curve) is the optimal way to achieve our various objectives.

The representation introduced in Panel c has additional implications and mathematical properties, but we will not discuss them in the present document.

## Illustrating Risk

In this appendix, based on Laborde et al. (2020a, 2021a), we illustrate how using 40 years of past data on weather could be used to assess the risk exposure of various populations (here, the example of select provinces in the DRC) using our analytical framework (Figs. A.3 and A.4).

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Fig. A.3 Poverty, yield changes and land rents: a 40-year simulation exercise in the DRC</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. A.4** Value of production changes as a share of income for vulnerable farmers in select years</figcaption></figure>

## References

* Arrow K, Cropper ML, Gollier C, Groom B, Heal GM, Newell RG, Nordhaus WD, Pindyck RS, Pizer WA, Portney PR, Sterner T, Tol RSJ, Weitzman ML (2014) Should Governments use a declining discount rate in project analysis? *Rev Environ Econ Policy* 8:2:145–163

* Bleischwitz R, Spataru C, VanDeveer SD, Obersteiner M, van der Voet E, Johnson C, Andrews-Speed P, Boersma T, Hoff H, van Vuuren DP (2018) Resource nexus perspectives towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. *Nat Sustain* 1:737–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0173-2
Decreux Y, Valin H (2007) MIRAGE, updated version of the model for trade policy analysis focus on agriculture and dynamics. CEPII working paper 2007-15, (CEPII, 2007)

Laborde DD (2011) Assessing the land use change consequences of European biofuel policies. IFPRI mimeo

Laborde DD, Martin W (2018) Implications of the global growth slowdown for rural poverty. Agric Econ 49:325-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12419

Laborde D, Valin H (2012) Modeling land-use changes in a global CGE: assessing the EU biofuel mandates with the MIRAGE-BioF model. Clim Chang Econ 03(03). https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007812500170

Laborde D, Robichaud V, Tokgoz S (2013) MIRAGRODEP 1.0: technical documentation. AGRODEP technical note (IFPRI, 2013)

Laborde D, Bizikova L, Lallemant T, Smaller C (2017) What is the link between hunger and migration. Int J Sustain Dev 197

Laborde M, Martin P, Vos R (2020a) Modeling the impacts of agricultural support policies on emissions from agriculture. World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/694451599729050318/modeling-the-impacts-of-agricultural-support-policies-on-emissions-from-agriculture

Laborde D, Parent M, Smaller C (2020b) Ending hunger, increasing incomes, and protecting the climate: what would it cost donors? Ceres 2030 sustainable solutions to end hunger. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/72864/ending-hunger-2.0-V4.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Laborde D, Mamun A, Martin W et al (2021a) Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions. Nat Commun 12:2601. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22703-1

Laborde D, Martin W, Vos R (2021b) Impacts of COVID-19 on global poverty, food security and diets: insights from global model scenario analysis. Agric Econ 52:375-390. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12624

Lucas R (1976) Econometric policy evaluation: a critique. In: Brunner K, Meltzer A (eds) The Phillips curve and labor markets, Carnegie-Rochester conference series on public policy, vol 1. American Elsevier, New York, pp 19-46. ISBN 0-444-11007-0

Muhammad A, D'Souza A, Meade B et al (2017) How income and food prices influence global dietary intakes by age and sex: evidence from 164 countries. BMJ Glob Health 2:e000184. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000184

Muscat A, de Olde EM, de Boer IJM, Ripoll-Bosch R (forthcoming) The battle for biomass: a systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Global Food Security

Preston AJ (1974) A dynamic generalization of Tinbergen's theory of policy. Rev Econ Stud 41(1):65-74

Tinbergen J (1952) On the theory of economic policy, 2nd edn. North Holland, Amsterdam

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>
Part III

Actions for Equity and Resilience
in Food Systems
<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Lynnette M. Neufeld, Jikun Huang, Ousmane Badiane, Patrick Caron, and Lisa Sennerby Forsse

# 1 Introduction

Food system transformation provides the opportunity to shift current trends in all forms of malnutrition, prioritizing nutritious food availability and affordability for all – from shifting priorities in agricultural production to facilitating improved food systems that favor nutrition and sustainability.

The purpose of the Action Track 4 science group is to provide the scientific basis for the work of the Action Track (AT). Our task as the science group encompasses reviewing both the evidence arising from studies of the nature of the issues and the potential solutions said evidence underpins. It also helps to identify uncertainty and the gaps in our knowledge. The central issue identified by the AT 4 team has been stated as:

L. M. Neufeld (✉)

International Union of Nutrition Scientists (IUNS), Knowledge Leadership, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Ottawa, Canada

e-mail: lynnetten@gmail.com

J. Huang

School of Advanced Agricultural Sciences and China Center for Agricultural Policy (CCAP), Peking University, Beijing, China

O. Badiane

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Dakar, Senegal

P. Caron

University of Montpellier, Agropolis International and Montpellier Advanced Knowledge Institute on Transitions, Montpellier, France

L. S. Forsse

Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA) and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden
*Inequality and power imbalances – at the household, community, national and global levels – are consistently constraining the ability of food systems to deliver poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods.*

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

In developing solutions, AT 4 explicitly calls out inequities related to gender, age (both the youth and the elderly), minority status, migrant status, and indigenous people status. These solutions focus on small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) across the food value chain, but also equitable access to employment and livelihoods for wage earners, extending the concerns of inequality to rural/urban and other social and geographic divides. Efforts to address inequality and power imbalances must build agency, change relations, and transform the structures that underpin this imbalance of power and result in inequalities, as illustrated in the following figure (Figure credit: Action Track 4 Discussion Starter, October 2020):

The most effective way to sustainably eradicate poverty and inequality is to boost the opportunities and capacities of the poor and those living in situations of vulnerability, through the more equitable redistribution of resources (e.g., land, incomes, social protection), assurance of quality education, progressive and not regressive taxation, and state infrastructure investments, among other approaches. Reducing inequalities requires that gains in productivity, production and income be assessed against their positive impact on marginalized groups. Decision-making must also become more participatory and accountable to those who are most negatively affected by our current food systems and their outcomes. Progress in advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution therefore involves several key areas, including expanding access to assets, infrastructure and services, as well as other required measures to enhance the quality of living spaces. Interventions to produce real change on the ground need to empower the poor and those living in situations of vulnerability.

To fulfill our task as the science group, we need to step back and consider the evidence related to the drivers of inequality and power imbalances as they relate to livelihoods *across* the food system. We use the conceptual framework of food systems developed by the High Level Panel of Experts of the UN Committee on World Food Security in 2017 (HLPE 2017), updated in 2020 (HLPE 2020), and
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Conceptual framework of sustainable food systems. (Reduced from HLPE 2020)</figcaption></figure>

structure this review around the six drivers of food systems (as highlighted in the red box in Fig. 1).

Framed around the drivers of sustainable food systems (combining them where the nature of the evidence warrants), the following sections provide an overview of the nature of the issue as it relates to drivers of inequality and power imbalances. Our intent is to explore these drivers as they relate to livelihoods among those living in situations of vulnerability, including consumers and producers and all types of workers across all types of food systems and food system contexts (see von Braun et al. (2021) for definitions and concepts related to food systems). In the final section, we provide examples from the literature that can inform potential solutions to address the issues.

## 2 Biophysical and Environmental Drivers, Particularly Soil, Water and Climate Change

In the rural areas of many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), natural resources are an important source of food, both through direct consumption and through providing the basis for income-generating activities (e.g., food and no-food cash crops, forest, and fishery products). Access to natural resources like land, water, forests and fisheries is a key element of livelihood strategies (“natural capital”), together with other elements such as access to employment and/or credit (“financial
capital”). Because of this, measures to improve access to resources are an important element of strategies for the realization of the right to food (see conclusion section below for further discussion) (Cotula 2008). Small and medium-sized producers and people whose livelihoods depend on food systems in rural and urban areas are disproportionately affected by all biophysical and environmental drivers, including soil and water resources. Unequal opportunities for access to all types of resources defer overall production, resilience, and rural transformation, thus directly affecting the livelihoods of all actors across food value chains via diverse pathways.

The number of people whose livelihoods depends on degraded lands has been estimated to be about 1.5 billion worldwide (IPCC 2020). In India, for example, 146.8 million out of the estimated 329 million hectares of total geographical area is reported to be degraded (Sandrasekaran et al. 2017). People living in degraded areas depend directly on natural resources for subsistence, food security and income. Women and youths often have limited options and are especially vulnerable to land degradation and climate change. Land degradation reduces productivity and increases the workload of managing the land, disproportionately affecting women in some regions (OECD 2020a). Land degradation and climate change act as threat multipliers for already precarious livelihoods, with consequences for increased risks of poverty, food insecurity and, in some cases, migration, conflict and the loss of cultural heritage (IPCC 2021). The major anthropogenic drivers of erosion are land use and climate change, in particular, through a more intense hydrological cycle (O’Neal et al. 2005). While much research attention has focused on arable agriculture (Boardman and Poesen 2006), seminatural systems such as water may account for nearly half of global soil erosion (Borrelli et al. 2017). There are many indications that water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource, a point often made over the last 10 years (Molden et al. 2007; Falkenmark 1997). Access to water is now recognized as a prerequisite for poverty reduction (Sullivan and Meigh 2003). However, competition for water from many different sectors can divert attention from its role in the improvement of human livelihoods (Rogers et al. 2017).

Marine ecosystems are increasingly affected by fishing and climate change, including reduced ocean productivity, changes in species distributions, and increased disease, among other effects (Bindoff et al. 2019). These and the other climate-related changes discussed above may be especially challenging for the security and livelihoods of coastal communities, particularly for indigenous people and those in LMICs (Bindoff et al. 2019; FAO 2018).

Climate change is the defining issue of our time, and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. The adverse effect of climate change and variability has become an environmental and socio-economic problem that is increasingly subjecting people around the world to climate-driven hazards (Scholze et al. 2006). The effects of climate change are likely to be more serious among countries with fewer capacities to respond and adapt and, within these countries, among the poorest and most vulnerable. Climate change serves as a serious inhibitor to the attainment of food security and the fulfillment of major development agendas in
the majority of global economies. Climate change could undermine social welfare, equity, and the sustainability of future development. It is generally believed that LMICs, and disadvantaged groups within all countries, are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change as a result of limited resources and low adaptive capacity (Munasinghe 2020).

## 3 Technology, Innovation, and Infrastructure Drivers

For both short and long distance value chains, infrastructure strongly influences the way food is produced, processed, transported, distributed, sold, conserved, and ultimately consumed. Infrastructure is required for food to move long distances and increase food security in areas of shortages, stabilize food prices, and minimize food-borne disease and food waste. Roads, railroads, shipping and cold chain facilities play an essential role. Poorly developed infrastructure impacts all dimensions of livelihoods for urban and rural populations. In particular, it affects the quality and safety of nutritious foods, limits access to them, and exacerbates issues of food loss and waste (HLPE 2014). In South Sudan and Somalia, for example, poor road infrastructure is a major barrier to food access (ACAPS 2017). Infrastructure improvements, technological advances and mechanization in the food value chain may generate positive externalities for production, trading and consumption, with the potential to generate off-farm employment in rural and, potentially, in urban areas. Examples may include factories located near the farm where the technology will be used, technicians and mechanics hired to operate and repair machinery and devices, other business-related employment, such as bookkeepers, sales staff, etc. They may also generate negative externalities.

Innovation, technology and infrastructure improvements have been and will be major drivers for food system transformation (HLPE 2017). Advances in all three have had important impacts on food production and sustainability, transportation and processing along food value chains, marketing, and ultimately diets, including consumption of both nutritious and unhealthy foods (Pingali 2012; Hueston and McLeod 2012). They can also generate risks to human and environmental health and may not yield equitable benefits for farmers or other food system workers (HLPE 2017). This raises questions about targeting technology policies and interventions according to their impact on improving livelihoods among the poor and those living in situations of vulnerability. The need to produce healthier and more accessible food and address SDG 2 and other SDGs through food system transformation will thus require innovative, responsible and targeted efforts by the actors in the world's food supply chains. Nonetheless, many breakthrough technologies spark disputes and sociotechnical controversies (Latour 1987), which increasingly generate dual oppositions and polarized polemics. This may distract from the goal of ensuring that the livelihood and equity impacts from modern biotechnology are widely shared. In some socio-ecological contexts, this requires measures to prevent such technology from resulting in market concentration in the industries that provide inputs to
agriculture, prohibitively high seed prices or reduced farmer participation in breeding (HLPE 2019). It may also be necessary to ensure that the technology does not favor larger farm economic units with the likely accompanying displacement of smallholder farmers (Mascarenhas and Busch 2006; World Bank 2007; Glenna and Cahoy 2009; Heinemann et al. 2014). Whatever the controversial issue, evidence highlights how institutional environments are essential for directing technology and innovation impact. Ultimately, the potential for impact depends not only on characteristics of the technological advancement itself, but on access patterns, arrangements, and governance about who controls it (HLPE 2019).

Innovations in breeding methods, chemical synthetic inputs and food processing have changed the way food is produced, stored, distributed and consumed. Many agricultural innovations have prioritized yield and productivity, often disproportionately favoring high income country food systems, but some notable exceptions exist. Since 2004, HarvestPlus, in collaboration with CGIAR centers, has facilitated the release of 211 crop varieties in 30 countries, varieties that have been bred with increased content of one or more nutrients. An estimated 7.6 million farming households are now growing these crops, estimated to be benefiting some 38 million rural consumers (HarvestPlus 2018). This number will be enhanced as crops are sold in urban markets and used in various processed or pre-prepared foods. Another example promotes the better incorporation of fruit into local food systems, meeting the challenge of seasonal availability. McMullin et al. (2019) developed a methodology based on 'fruit-tree portfolios,' which selects, in partnership with farmers, the fruit-tree species for production that are both socio-ecologically suitable and nutrient-rich. Both examples have the dual advantage of potentially improving livelihoods and favoring nutrition outcomes through enhanced production and access to nutritious foods. Modern biotechnology can also improve livelihoods through increased crop production for smallholder farmers. Millions of small farmers in many LMICs (e.g., China and India) have benefited from adoption of Bt cotton since this technology was approved for commercialization in the late 1990s (Areal et al. 2013; Huang et al. 2002; Kathage and Qaim 2012; Qiao et al. 2017). Nonetheless, the impact of such technology on livelihoods, particularly for farmers in situations of vulnerability, is disputed and has been shown to depend on differentiated practices (Vognan and Fok 2019). Among the issues to be resolved in this regard is the ongoing debate related to access to seeds, as well as mechanisms to ensure that commercial interests in seed-line access do not negatively affect producers' and consumers' livelihoods (Kloppenburg 2010; Bonny 2017).

According to the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (Dinesh et al. 2017), some of the most promising innovations in rural agriculture are technology- and service-based. With access to data, markets and financial services, farmers can plant, fertilize, harvest, and sell products more effectively. These approaches are gradually gaining favor as more people in emerging economies connect to mobile networks (Pew Research Center 2016) and applications designed to collect and share agricultural information become increasingly accessible (Qiang et al. 2012). Of course, the mere existence of this technology will not generate better livelihoods. Access to such technology has been highly
constrained and must be resolved before this potential can be realized (World Bank 2016; Deichmann et al. 2016; Salemink et al. 2017; OECD 2019a) Similarly, tools must meet the needs of the farmers who use them, as well as expectations towards improving livelihood, including addressing power asymmetries. This demands that mobile technologies take into account differences in gender, education, and resource levels among farmers and consumers (Vesper 2021), and that they are responsive to changing circumstances. The impact and success of these tools and programs should be monitored and evaluated (Baumüller 2018), with ineffective approaches being improved or replaced (Samberg 2021). Capacitated endogenous institutions are vital to achieving an inclusive approach.

## 4 Economic and Political Drivers

Many economic and political factors are essential causes of inequality and power imbalances at the household, community, national and global levels, constraining the ability of food system transformation to deliver poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods (International Monetary Fund 2014; Rodríguez-Pose and Ezcurra 2011). Improved education and literacy levels and access to public services and infrastructure, among other factors, help to address the issue (OECD 2019b, 2020b).

**Social protection** is a menu of policy instruments for addressing poverty and vulnerability, through social assistance, social insurance and efforts at social inclusion, with a eye towards addressing both long-standing and crisis-induced poverty (HLPE 2012). The precarity of the food systems in most countries, and particularly that of food system workers living in situations of vulnerability, is illustrated by the current COVID-19 crisis (Box 1). The lessons and experience from global efforts fighting the COVID-19 pandemic show the importance of developing a strong social network in coping with the fragility of food systems.

**Conflicts and crises**, usually resulting from an unstable political system and uncertain property rights arrangements, damage trust and social cohesion among the stakeholders throughout food systems, discourage public and private investment, and cause slowdowns in economic growth and less inclusive rural and structural transformations (Putnam 2000; Bourguignon and Dessus 2009). This does harm to vulnerable smallholder farmers, consumers and those engaged in micro enterprises and SMEs along food value chains, particularly those run by and employing youths, women, the disabled, and indigenous peoples.

The inclusive development of food systems is also constrained by lack of representative leadership, reflected in inequality in access to productive resources, working opportunities, market participation rights and public services. Studies in almost all LMIC contexts, except for Latin America and the Caribbean, indicate a large proportion of total farmland belongs to small holders (less than 2 ha) (Lowder et al. 2016), and that in these places and for all food system workers, resources and public services are unequally allocated (de Pryck and Termine 2014). Barriers to
active participation in leadership and decision-making must be broken down (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2017).

Livelihood inequalities across the food system, including among smallholder farmers, small businesses and workers across the food value chain, can be reduced only if inequalities in *access to land, water, employment*, financial services, infrastructure, technology, markets, and other economic opportunities are resolved. Food system transformation that does not address these inequalities and specific vulnerabilities runs the risk of reinforcing and deepening inequalities into the future and undermining the resilience of food systems. Inequitable economic opportunities are usually caused by rigid institutional arrangements in land, water, credit and labor markets, a lack of information, market segregation/ monopoly, discriminative treatment, and distorted policies, among other things (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2017). Subdivision among siblings makes it harder for rural youths to obtain as much land as their parents had; in many contexts, youths have historically been marginalized economically, socially and politically (Jayne et al. 2014). Research shows that respecting/upholding collective forms of land ownership and customary property regimes has important positive implications for livelihood equity (Vandergeten et al. 2016; King 1977). However, the nature of public goods such as water resources makes fair allocation difficult. Removing barriers to employment and other economic opportunities, in addition to various actions for reducing discrimination towards migrant workers, also works to increase income and improve livelihoods (IFPRI 2019).

As pointed out by the HLPE (HLPE 2017), *globalization and trade* have a critical role to play in ensuring food security and nutrition (FSN) and reducing inequalities. Trade can positively and negatively affect all four pillars of FSN (availability, access, utilization, stability). Evidence suggests that globalization and international trade may help to extend the value chain and generate opportunities to create wealth and equitable livelihoods among countries (OECD 2020b; Greenville et al. 2019a; Greenville et al. 2019b) International trade and financial flows are also associated with changes in production and consumption patterns that require taking into account the way livelihood is affected, in particular, through employment access, incomes and wealth distribution. Measures are needed to avoid unwanted outcomes, including increases in income inequality (Feenstra and Hanson 1996; Feenstra and Hanson 2008). While some farmers can improve their livelihoods by tapping into exportable agricultural production, considerable research shows that becoming part of export markets can make farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, more vulnerable to shocks in global commodity markets (González 2021; Oya 2012). These risks can be mitigated through collective action and policy support to soften the impact of such shocks among smallholders and other actors in the food system that lack the capacity to respond adequately.

*Stabilizing food prices* will help to reduce the risk of all stakeholders along food supply chains and will bring benefits to those small holders who are more vulnerable in the production system and consumers in rural and urban areas. In general, food supply is much more stable at the regional and global levels than it is within a given country (Badiane and Odjo 2016). This is because an efficient market provides the
opportunity to supplement supplies in cases of domestic production shortfall or rapidly expanding demand, and thereby helps prevent sharp price increases that would affect access to food negatively. Inversely, in cases when rising domestic supplies threaten to depress local prices, an appropriate political regulation and management of stocks (in both the national and international dimensions), plus a transparent trade mechanism, would be appropriate.

The informal food processing sector has grown significantly over the last decade, thanks to rapid urbanization and growing middle classes, and has become one of the most dynamic segments of food staple value chains (Reardon 2020). In Africa, it is currently the fastest growing export sector, both for regional and outside markets (Bouët et al. 2020). It is estimated that upward of two-thirds of staple foods consumed in Africa by 2040 will be in processed form (Tschirley et al. 2015). The emerging staple food processing sector is currently characterized by a large and growing number of primarily female-headed small enterprises. Future strategies for promoting equitable livelihoods and value distribution in domestic food systems will need to reverse the current formality and size bias in order to tap into the employment and income opportunities resulting from the rapidly transforming staple food value chains for the benefits of farmers, unskilled workers, and consumers in urban centers and rural towns.

These political and economic factors may cause inequality and imbalances through a complex mechanism, but may also be the consequence of such inequality and imbalance. On the one hand, both political instability and poor economic performance are believed to contribute to rural poverty and inequality of livelihood in rural sectors of many LMICs in all regions (Dutt and Mitra 2008; Alesina 1996). On the other hand, a burgeoning literature illustrates that rapid economic growth is not a sufficient condition for inclusive development (Putnam 2000; Bourguignon and Dessus 2009; Acemoglu and Robinson 2002). In addition, the political and economic drivers may also interact with innovation, technology and infrastructure to influence food systems, as well as inequality and power imbalances affecting women, youths, smallholders and indigenous people. Consequently, the question is not only *whether* but also *how* economic growth and institutional/policy arrangements may affect inequality in access to production, employment and fair share opportunity (OECD 2020a; Losch et al. 2012; Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) 2014; IMF 2015). This calls for considering the way agency conditions or prevents the development of inclusive, equitable livelihoods (UNDESA 2020), in particular, through access to public services, before proper decision-making and agenda-setting could be brought about.

The pace of future improvement in livelihoods will depend on the ability of governments to find ways to maximize the impact of economic growth and investments in social sectors, such as health, education, and social protection towards enhancing capacities among the poor and vulnerable. This calls not only for better coordination of interventions across government, but also for recognition and effective exploitation of the fact that differences in services and how they are bundled produce different impacts on the livelihoods of the poor and those living in vulnerable situations. For instance, the impact of a given dollar amount spent on
educational services on smallholder and low-skilled off-farm and urban labor productivity will depend on the extent to which it targets vocational training and other efforts to upgrade and develop skills in the relevant sectors (Ulimwengu and Badiane 2010). Against the background of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the same concept can be illustrated using the example of health services (Box 1). Furthermore, there is evidence that morbidity has a bigger impact on the productivity of the poor and vulnerable than among better off segments of the population (Badiane and Ulimwengu 2013). It has also been shown that different types of health services have different impacts on disease prevalence and morbidity (Wouterse and Badiane 2019). It is therefore possible to allocate public investment in health services such as to target diseases that have the largest effects on the productivity of smallholders and low-skilled laborers and excluded communities. Allen and co-authors (Allen et al. 2014). show that morbidity not only affects labor availability and productivity, but also the choice of technologies and decisions to return to the use of fertilizers and mechanization. More importantly, different health services have different impacts on disease prevalence, which affects efficiency, and thus livelihoods, differently, even among the poor, those living in vulnerable situations, and across gender (Badiane and Ulimwengu 2013; Quisumbing et al. 2019). The current COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the need and opportunity to rethink the delivery of social services in order to maximize their benefit and impact among the poor and vulnerable (Box 1). This applies equally to social protection policies in which the experience of productive safety nets in Ethiopia offers valuable lessons for designing programs that work for the poor and vulnerable (Knippenberg and Hoddinott 2017).

# 5 Socio-cultural and Demographic Drivers

Vast evidence illustrates that several socio-cultural drivers underpin inequalities among and within societies and constrain the potential for some to benefit from actions to improve livelihoods, particularly women, youths, the disabled, the elderly, and indigenous peoples (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2017; International Fund for Agricultural Development 2016; Research Institute (IFPRI) IFP 2019). For example, there are approximately 185 million indigenous women in the world, belonging to more than 5000 different indigenous peoples. Despite the broad international consensus about the important role indigenous women play in eradicating hunger and malnutrition, there are still limitations in the recognition and exercise of their rights (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO 2020). Due to the long-term and ongoing impacts of colonialism and environmental degradation, many indigenous peoples, regardless of their geographic location, face high levels of obesity and chronic disease and are disproportionally affected by poverty and food insecurity (Batal and Decelles 2019; Domingo et al. 2020; Valeggia and Snodgrass 2015; Stephens et al. 2005). Past and present social and environmental injustices have led to the loss of food sovereignty, through dispossessing indigenous peoples from their traditional territories and undermining
the transmission of intergenerational knowledge of cultural practices related to their food systems (Desmarais and Wittman 2014; Vernon 2015), and have been linked, as in the case of the experience of hunger in residential schools in Canada, to the rise of diabetes in these populations (Mosby and Galloway 2017).

Socio-cultural drivers also impact and set the norms for the dynamics of the other drivers, including political and economic drivers, demography, and innovation/technology, among others. As such, structural barriers for several groups, particularly women and youths, affect a number of potentially beneficial aspects of life, including land rights and access to financial services, among others. In addition, inequality of opportunity is an important constraint. Social protection has an important role to play in protecting those living in vulnerable situations and, depending on the nature of that action, seeking to address the underlying causes of poverty and exclusion (Levy 2006). Programs that direct resources to women have shown a greater impact on food security and other household-linked benefits (HLPE 2012). However, social and structural barriers may limit women's access to several types of social protection program, including public works and agricultural input and support (HLPE 2012). In addition to these considerations, language, culture and tradition may influence the willingness to participate and potential to benefit from social protection programs, unless national programs are adequately adapted to such sub-national contexts (Théodore et al. 2019).

Few, if any, economic or social transformations over the past decades can be brought into focus without explicit attention being paid to the demographic transition that is inextricably linked to several socio-cultural drivers. The growth of the urban sector, driven by both natural increase (fertility exceeding mortality) and rural-to-urban migration (Dyson 2011; United Nations 2001), helps to fuel agricultural transformation. The proportion of the population living in rural areas is declining in many countries, yet numbers are increasing in some, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Both fertility and mortality have been falling in rural areas, converging from levels higher than those in urban areas towards meeting those urban levels. Pressure and opportunity lead certain parts of growing rural cohorts to migrate to cities or to seek diversified livelihoods within the rural sector. This raises concerns, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where urban growth and the economic sectors are not in a position to cope with such a rapid transition and offer employment to rural dwellers, as has occurred historically on other continents (Losch et al. 2012).

Predominantly male migration among youths and young adults over the course of the urban transition may have additional impacts on the gendered nature of economic roles and the overall status of women (Lastarria-Cornhiel 2008; Gray 2009). Increased urbanization means a growing gap between the locations of food production and food consumption. It may also mean a change in lifestyle, including dietary changes. As a result, there is a growing need for food processing, transportation, and transformation beyond the farm level, providing opportunities for jobs and entrepreneurship. In Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, the transformation of the food systems is forecast to add more jobs by 2025 than any other sector of the economy (Gustafson 2018). This is an opportunity to see that these jobs are also accessible to rural women and youths who may disproportionately
live in vulnerable situations. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that women entrepreneurs face many additional barriers compared to their male counterparts, including lack of mobility, less access to finance, less access to business networks and mentors, limited leadership experience, lower literacy and numeracy, and discriminatory gender norms and stereotypes (Nordhagen and Condes 2020). Experience from other regions also illustrates the risks to nutrition as dietary traditions are lost and reliance on processed, often highly unhealthy food increases (Popkin and Reardon 2018).

Today, there are significant knowledge gaps concerning rural out-migration trends that need to be tackled. This is particularly the case for migration driven by distress, when people come to perceive that there is no other viable livelihood option except to migrate. Reliable data, disaggregated by sex, age, origin and destination, are necessary to understand the socio-economic conditions associated with migration. At the moment, these data are scarce (Carletto et al. 2015).

**Box 1: The Unprecedented Range of COVID-19 Disruptions to the Food System and Livelihoods**

The breadth and reach of the complex ramifications and disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic are unprecedented (Bron et al. 2021). The impact from the pandemic parallels or exceeds the impact of major shocks over the past few decades, whether caused by natural disasters, disruption of financial and commodity markets, or conflict and civil strife. More challenging is the fact that, under Covid-19, all of these various shocks happened concurrently and engulfed the entire globe, with no regions left untouched, and thus poised to help fuel a possible recovery (Badiane and Collins 2020). There are therefore important lessons to be learned from the current pandemic as to how to help shape more effective strategies for managing future shocks and their impact on the livelihood of the excluded and marginalized.

*The Effects of Covid on Marginalized Communities: Income, Poverty, and Nutrition*

Policies of social distancing and other measures adopted by governments to contain the spread of the pandemic have drastically affected food supply chains, with serious repercussions for the poor and vulnerable, particularly in LMICs (Hobbs 2020; Barrett 2020; OECD 2021; Fei et al. 2020; Hatab et al. 2021). There is evidence that disruptions are more serious for the operation of the informal market networks that dominate supply chains for traditional food staples that people living in poverty and situations of vulnerability depend on more heavily (Resnick n.d.) Prices in these markets have reacted sharply to measures undertaken to control the pandemic (Matchaya et al. 2020; Guthiga et al. 2020). Moreover, higher food prices, the closing of informal markets and other disruptions to staple food supply chains have been shown to impact the

(continued)
**Box 1** (continued)

micronutrient intake and nutritional status of the poor (Ulimwengu and Magne-Domgho 2020). Finally, the effects of the pandemic on global commodity markets and trading systems are shown to have had a significant impact on economic growth, and thus incomes and poverty levels, likely with a disproportionate burden on the same vulnerable communities in both urban and rural areas (Fofana and Sall 2020). This is almost certain to worsen inequalities, food insecurity and undernutrition, including child wasting (Headey et al. 2020). COVID-19 therefore will likely have substantial implications for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in LMICs, in particular, SDG 2 (End hunger) and SDG 12 (Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns) (Jribi et al. 2020).

*Equity and Policy Responses to Covid and Similar Shocks*

The Covid-19 crisis has particularly impacted already-marginalized segments of the population such as indigenous peoples, migrant workers, and informal sector employees (Gamlen 2020; International Labour Organization 2020; Marschke et al. 2021). High vulnerability to changing economic conditions is linked partly to a host of pre-existing barriers ranging from weak legal status to racism to a lack of access to health, social security and educational services, all leading to disproportional impacts of the pandemic among the poor and disadvantaged.

Persistent and chronic vulnerability, a major manifestation of marginalization and exclusion, not only exacerbates the human cost of shocks, but also complicates the search for effective responses. Resistance to confinement, curfews and other mitigation measures reported in the media across the world often arise from the considerable threat to livelihoods among the poorest and those living in situations of vulnerability (Resnick n.d.) Successful strategies for dealing with future shocks require having a better handle on equity and vulnerability before said shocks strike.

*Lessons for Managing Future Shocks to Protect Livelihoods*

Just like pre-existing conditions among humans raise the risk of serious consequences, chronic vulnerability patterns also raise the risk of exposure and the extent of damage among excluded and marginalized communities in cases of shocks such as Covid-19. Community vulnerability is determined by factors ranging from pre-existing levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, disease prevalence, poor health and education services to high population density (Ulimwengu and Collins 2020). Investment in the capacity to develop a good understanding of the patterns of vulnerability across various communities is therefore a major requirement for future preparedness, especially among LMICs.

(continued)
**Box 1** (continued)

For example, a report from the Indigenous Navigator (IWGIA 2020) highlights the impact of Covid-19 on indigenous communities in 11 countries (Africa and Asia). On the one hand, the report identifies how pre-existing barriers in access to health, social security and education are fueling disproportional impacts of the pandemic on indigenous peoples. It also indicates a rise in food insecurity, related to loss of livelihoods and a lack of access to land and natural resources. On the other hand, it underlines the central role played by communities in building their response and recovery to the global crisis resulting from the pandemic. The emphasis on Covid-19 response and recovery measures springs from the fact that they need to be respectful of the rights of indigenous peoples and support their livelihoods, economies, and resilience.

Equally important is a good understanding of the nature of the operation of local food systems. Control measures that are not aligned with the basic features of food systems along complete value chains are certain to create second generation disruptions, leading to more serious impacts on livelihoods (Liverpool-Tasie et al. 2021).

Finally, boosting preparedness capacities will require investment in a minimum infrastructure for real-time data access and management. New development in remote sensing and machine learning offers real opportunities for better targeting and tracking in order to raise the effectiveness of response and mitigation measures to protect the poor and vulnerable (Ly et al. 2020).

**6 Conclusions and Implications for the Development of Game-Changing Solutions That Will Enhance Equitable Livelihoods in Food Systems**

The growth of food systems presents enormous employment opportunities (Gustafson 2018), but achievement of equitable livelihoods in food systems resulting from changes in said systems will require that substantial progress be made to address the drivers of inequality. Food system transformation must also find a balance to help create systems that favor and support healthy diets (i.e., those that minimize the risk of both undernutrition and overweight and obesity) (Neufeld et al. 2021), and do so in ways that are sustainable for the planet. We must transform not only the food systems, but also the structures and systems that continue to enable and exacerbate inequities. While we have reviewed and discussed the evidence related to drivers of inequitable livelihoods in relation to food system transformation within their respective categories, they are interconnected, and progress to address one driver will likely require change across several. For example, globalization and trade interact with other powerful drivers, especially technology resource mobilization and demographic trends, which shape food production, distribution and consumption (HLPE 2017).
We believe, therefore, that enhancing equitable livelihoods will require
solutions that:

1. **Are rights-based:** Solutions must recognize and hold stakeholders to account for human rights, including a living wage and the right to food (UN 1948), and advance the agenda towards the right to a healthy diet. Implications include not only a shift in policy and programmatic action, but also an increase in public pressure and the creation of monitoring and accountability mechanisms that hold governments, businesses, and all stakeholders to account to uphold rights.

2. **Ensure long-term investment for structural changes:** Dismantling inequitable systems and structures that enable and exacerbate inequalities for food system workers and consumers requires long-term investment, while achieving short term gains. A long-term vision should inform investment priorities in needed structural changes across food systems, including those that will result in:

* Dismantling barriers to expanded access to resources, technology, infrastructure and productive services among smallholders and other less powerful actors along food systems,

* Policies and institutions that make sure that markets and trading regimes work for producers and consumers, including by raising agricultural incomes and improving food access,

* Regulatory and administrative arrangements and other instruments for ensuring equitable access to productive assets.

3. **Directly inform local and national policy and programs:** Transformational change towards healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems will require a breaking down of current policy silos in favor of coordinated policy agendas that permit the mapping and balancing of benefits, harms and trade-offs to human and planetary health, including but not limited to agriculture, trade and food policies that simultaneously foster healthy diets, equitable opportunity and fair pay while also protecting the environment, complemented with strengthened and well-targeted social protection.

4. **Enhance the development of and equitable deployment of contextually relevant innovation and technology:** The potential of innovation and technology to do good for human and planetary health is vast, but systems must be strengthened to ensure that it does not exacerbate inequalities and that the balance of potential benefits and harms can be assessed. The research, development and deployment of innovation and technology must meet the needs of both smallholder producers and small businesses across the food value chains and vulnerable consumers. Doing so requires enhanced processes and investments to develop such innovations and technologies, drawing on all forms of scientific evidence along with indigenous, local and contextual knowledge.

In the following section, we provide several general and more specific recommendations that can inform priorities for game-changing solutions, bearing in mind the four criteria above. This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather to focus
priorities that surface from the evidence review. Where feasible, we have included
specific examples that illustrate the potential gains and pitfalls.

## 6.1 Alter Power Structures to Enhance Inclusive Decision-Making

- At the global and regional levels, strengthen and enhance the existing institutional architecture to generate recommendations, good practice models, and technical support guidance for enhanced inclusive decision-making processes related to food systems within governments and organizations. Examples of key international organizations include FAO, IFAD, WFP, the World Bank Group, and CGIAR, among others.

- Engage a coalition of local, regional and international research institutions to generate and test a framework and parsimonious set of indicators that can be used to track progress towards inclusive decision-making processes and monitor livelihood improvements within international, national, regional and local governments and organizations.

- Create or build on an existing accountability mechanism with a mandate and resources to track progress towards and hold to account inclusive decision-making related to food system transformations and their impacts within governments and organizations.

- Strengthen producer, vender, market and consumer organizations and other forms of collective action across food systems to enhance effective, non-tokenistic participation in decision-making processes related to rural and food system transformation.

- Through all of these processes, explore demographic, social and cultural aspects that may influence participation in decision-making (Gustafson 2018) (e.g., gender, age, status as indigenous peoples) and ensure that mechanisms are developed to address and track progress responsive to these unique contextual factors.

• Dimitra Clubs seek to transform gender relations, bringing women and men together to become more aware of gender inequalities in households and communities and work to transform gender relations. The over 3400 clubs that currently exist have reached an estimated two million rural people. Examples of success include fighting malnutrition by challenging dietary taboos, reconciling long-standing political disputes, mobilizing to meet environmental challenges and establishing a credit cooperative so that people can avoid debt (FAO 2021).

• The model of mutual accountability developed by the African Union as part of its Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is an innovative and effective approach to promoting transparency, participation and accountability for results. It involves two main components:
Country-level joint sector reviews (JSRs) that allow governments, farmer organizations, private sector actors, civil society organizations and development partner organizations, at least once a year, to collectively review policy and program implementation performance, as well as progress towards outcomes for the agricultural sector. The outcome is an action plan to deal with any major issues that emerge.

The continental-level biennial review (BR) based on formally agreed-upon target commitments related to agricultural sector investment, hunger and poverty, gender, youth, intra-African trade, and climate-smart agriculture. Every two years, a report is prepared by each member state and submitted to the African Union Commission, which uses it to rate each country on each of the target commitments. The report is submitted to Heads of State at their January Summit to debate the findings (Ulimwengu et al. 2020).

## 6.2 Protect the Livelihoods of Those Living in Situations of Vulnerability, While Creating Opportunities

- Expand the effective coverage of well-targeted social protection systems that uphold the livelihoods of those living in situations of vulnerability, using social protection instruments that can alleviate short-term crises, but go beyond sheer poverty reduction to enhance opportunities to build assets and create wealth.

* One promising model of boosting productivity and improving livelihoods through skill development and advisory services financial transfer is the FOMENTO model from Brazil. Research looking into the impact of its transfer to the African setting has provided solid evidence on its effectiveness to raise assets and increase the earning potential of beneficiary farmers. This idea holds promise as a scalable approach to empowering and equipping the poor and those living in situations of vulnerability to integrate into the higher value segments of the food system value chains (Ambler et al. 2018).

- Using existing or enhanced technology, develop and deploy better models for predicting climate and other agricultural risks and use this data effectively to pre-empt and mitigate the impact of such risks on the production and livelihoods of small-scale agriculture and other producers in situations of vulnerability.

* Climate Information Services (CIS) involve the production, translation (e.g., advisories, decision support), and communication and use of climate information. Appropriate information enables farmers to understand the role of climate vs. other drivers in perceived productivity changes and manage climate-related risks throughout the agricultural calendar. Econometric studies highlight CIS as one of the most important factors influencing the adaptation
and transformation of farming systems. For example, an analysis across more
than 5000 households in East and West Africa, South Asia, and Central
America found access to CIS is a positive determinant of adaptation through
agricultural diversification, and one of agricultural intensification in
Bangladesh and India (Loboguerrero et al. 2019).

6.3 Adapt Institutions and Policies to Favor Equitable Food System Livelihoods

- At the global, national, sub-national and local levels, develop and implement a cohesive set of policy actions that will enable sequential food system transformations that favor the production, distribution and consumption of nutritious over unhealthy foods, produced with territorial approaches that favor planetary health (Caron et al. 2017) and ensure equitable livelihoods for producers and wage earners across the food system.

* Africa's Regional Economic Communities (RECs) are key actors working in collaboration with the African Union (AU) to ensure peace and stability in their regions (Adepoju 2002). The RECs have been central to various transformative programs on the continent, including the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) adopted in 2001. RECs have the immense challenge of working with governments, civil society, and the AU Commission in raising the standard of living of the people of Africa and contributing towards the progress and development of the continent through economic growth and social development (Office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA) 2021).

- Adapt institutions and adopt policies that eliminate barriers in access to the fundamental services needed to enable those living in situations of vulnerability to take advantage of opportunities, ensuring, for example, the right to food, shelter and health. Facilitate more and better educational investments that enable and empower youths as part of the productive rural and urban labor force (UNICEF 2019; Menashe-Oren and Stecklov 2018).

* The German dual training system for agricultural and horticultural professions is a good model for an institutional infrastructure that creates a path to good paying jobs and better livelihoods. It is a country-wide system that offers a mixture of practical, multi-year on-the-job training of apprentices by “master-farmers,” ongoing theoretical training for active and aspiring farmers, and modular, usually short-term courses on specific skills and good practices (Thiele 2021).

- Adapt institutions and adopt policies that eliminate barriers in access to the natural (e.g., land (FAO 2016), water, forests), economic (e.g., credit, business
planning) and technological resources (e.g., digital, appropriate modern biotech-
nology) needed to enhance and ensure equitable livelihoods for producers and
SMEs across the food value chain. Such policy and institutional arrangements
should explicitly favor those who have been traditionally excluded, particularly
women, youths, and indigenous peoples.

* The Land Matrix Initiative (Land Matrix 2021) is an independent global land monitoring initiative made up of a number of global and regional partners, originally established in 2009 to address the lack of robust data on large scale land acquisitions and investments. The initiative now covers almost 100 countries. It captures intended and failed attempts to acquire land through purchase, lease or concession and demonstrates the complexity and political dimension of land acquisition.

- Enhance the effectiveness of international organizations to facilitate global trade arrangements that promote and protect livelihoods and the right to food. An enhanced role for the World Trade Organization is particularly salient.

6.4 Increase Investment to Realize the Potential of Improved
Institutional and Policy Actions

- More coordination among government entities would internalize externalities across sectors and address trade-offs such as to deliver the most impactful and site-adapted interventions for the poor and those living in vulnerable situations (Badiane and Makombe 2015; De Pinto and Ulimwengu 2017; IFPRI 2019). Increasing investment in public infrastructure (e.g., roads, markets, irrigation, etc.) also helps to enhance the livability of communities, while favoring the production, sale and consumption of nutritious food.

- Expand and use innovative financial mechanisms (e.g., impact investment) for small and medium-sized farmers and businesses along the food value chains to expand and intensify their production and improve safety, quality and sustainability, prioritizing nutritious over unhealthy foods.

* There are two models for nurturing and supporting the development of the emerging processing processor and other segments of food system value chains to boost profits and employment for low-skilled workers. The first, with a well-documented impact (Sonobe and Otsuka 2011), is the model of cluster-based industrialization, which provides a critical mass of infrastructure, services and networking opportunities. The second is the Kaizen model from Japan, which has recently been tested in Africa with promising results (Sonobe et al. 2020).
## 6.5 Hold Governments, Businesses and Organizations to Account for Ensuring Equitable Livelihoods

- Engage a coalition of local, regional and international research institutions to generate and test a framework and parsimonious set of indicators and metrics that can be used to track progress towards equitable livelihoods within business, international, national, regional and local governments and organizations.

- Create or build on an existing accountability mechanism with a mandate and resources to track progress towards and hold to account equitable livelihoods in food systems across all businesses, governments and organizations, ensuring data can be and are presented disaggregated for women, youths, indigenous peoples, migrant workers, and others as appropriate.

## 6.6 Realize the Potential of Science, Innovation, Technology, and Evidence to Favor Equitable Livelihoods

- Apply advances in bioscience innovations, including genetic engineering and genome editing, as well as soil, plant and animal husbandry and health technologies and practices, for a successful transformation of food systems. Meeting food system challenges related to raising production, improving efficiency and saving and restoring production resources in the face of a changing climate will require that benefits from advances in these areas are broad-based and inclusive of the poor and marginalized actors in food system value chains. This, in turn, will require investing in adapting technology advances to local conditions for greater accessibility and affordability for, as well as safe utilization by, smallholder farmers.

- Develop and deploy digital innovations to advance the efficiency and inclusiveness of food systems. Both the digital services platform from eCommerce and financial and technology support services help link farmers and rural communities to actors and service providers in domestic and global value chains. Lower income countries can also overcome, at lower cost and within a shorter period of time, a number of institutional, infrastructural and financial obstacles to transforming food systems through the strategic deployment of remote sensing, big data, machine learning, artificial intelligence, robotics, drones and digital technologies for more efficient cropping systems.

- Improve the availability, quality, accessibility and use of data that can map and inform actions to reduce inequalities in food systems.

• The newly developed food systems dashboard (Food Systems Dashboard - Diets and Nutrition 2021) is an important advance in this regard. The dashboard consolidates existing data from multiple sources, provides useful tools for visualizing and understanding the data, and is developing a set of
diagnostics that will permit the identification of potential policy and program priorities. That said, many data gaps exist, particularly at the national and sub-national levels, and the full potential of such tools will be realized only once such data gaps are filled (Fanzo et al. 2020).

- Assess deployment pathways (e.g., extension services, farmer schools, etc.) and the potential for those traditionally excluded (e.g., women, youths, small holders, indigenous peoples) to benefit when setting priorities for and making investment decisions related to the development of innovations and new technologies for food systems.

* For example, new technologies are being used to very positive effect to ensure that nutrition does not “exit” the food supply chain (Fanzo et al. 2017). Improving traditional products and processes by reengineering the unit operations can be an efficient way to both generate rural employment in SMEs and incomes for family farmers and increase the safety and nutritional quality of foods while maintaining or improving the organoleptic characteristics of traditional products (Obodai et al. 2015; Pintado et al. 2016). Nonetheless, evaluation has also shown that several “good ideas” may have harmful side effects when a comprehensive approach to understanding all different pathways leading from agricultural interventions towards the nutrition of individuals is insufficiently considered (Dury et al. 2015).

- Develop and use creative approaches to learning, building on, and documenting indigenous knowledge related to food production, processing, consumption, and natural resource management in ways that such knowledge can be shared, adapted, and adopted and tested in new contexts if appropriate, as well as drawn on in the establishment of recommendations, guidance and good practice (Lugo-Morin 2020; Blanchet et al. 2020; Okanagan Nation Alliance 2021). New approaches are instrumental in order to revitalize indigenous food systems and produce, process and consume food in culturally relevant (Cree Hunters and Trappers Income Security Board 2021) and ecologically sustainable ways (Sherwood 2019).

* Several examples exist illustrating the potential and power of mobilizing available indigenous knowledge for the establishment of policy recommendations (Grey and Patel 2014; Mabhaudhi et al. 2018; Kurashima et al. 2019; Asogwa et al. 2017), guidance (Ministerio de Salud Pública del Ecuador, FAO 2021) and good practice (Sherwood et al. 2017; Deaconu et al. 2019).

* With the threat of climate change and the need to adapt to its adverse effects, indigenous communities are proving to be an important source of climate history and baseline data and are already playing a valuable role by providing local-scale expertise, monitoring impacts, and implementing adaptive responses at the local level. For example, on-farm conservation of crops is a dynamic process, in which varieties managed by indigenous farmers continue to evolve in response to natural and human selection, leading to crops with better adaptive potential. For instance, “kreb” is a mixture of wild and
cultivated species (such as Digitaria exilis or “fonio”) that is traditionally used in the Sahel by pastoralists. The latter harvest these seeds from the open grasslands and manage the wild species to ensure sustainable seed production for human consumption and fodder (Chianese n.d.).

* Rapid dietary change in indigenous peoples worldwide is posing threats to the use of traditional food and the traditional knowledge required for traditional food system maintenance (Kuhnlein and Receveur 1996). Several foods and combinations have illustrated the potential to decrease risk of micronutrient deficiencies (Kuhnlein 2004). Such traditions may be fundamental for slowing the nutrition transition and the accompanying increase in preventable diet-related non-communicable diseases.

## References

ACAPS (2017) Famine: Northeast Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/20170522_acaps_famineTheme_final_report.pdf.
Accessed 29 Nov 2020

Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2002) The political economy of the Kuznets curve. Rev Dev Econ 6: 183–203

Adepoju A (2002) Fostering free movement of persons in West Africa: achievements, constraints, and prospects for intraregional migration. Int Migr 40:3–28

Alesina (1996) Income distribution, political instability, and investment. Eur Econ Rev 40:1203–1228

Allen S, Badiane O, Sene L, Ulimwengu J (2014) Government expenditures, health outcomes and marginal productivity of agricultural inputs: the case of Tanzania. J Agric Econ 65:637–662

Ambler K, de Brauw A, Godlonton S (2018) Agriculture support services in Malawi: direct effects, complementarities, and time dynamics. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/1037800842

Areal FJ, Riesgo L, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2013) Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. J Agric Sci 151:7–33

Asogwa IS, Okoye JI, Oni K (2017) Promotion of indigenous Food preservation and processing knowledge and the challenge of food security in Africa. J Food Secur 5:75–87

Badiane O, Collins J. AKADEMIYA2063's Multi-Workstream Agenda on Covid-19. AKADEMIYA2063 Covid-19 Bulletin No. 1, July. AKADEMIYA2063, Kigali, 2020

Badiane O, Makombe T (2015) Beyond a middle income Africa: transforming African economies for sustained growth with rising employment and incomes. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896298927

Badiane O, Odjo S (2016) Regional trade and volatility in staple food markets in Africa. In: Food price volatility and its implications for food security and policy. Springer Open, pp 385–412

Badiane O, Ulimwengu JM (2013) Malaria incidence and agricultural efficiency in Uganda. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00626.x

Barrett CB (2020) Actions now can curb food systems fallout from COVID-19. Nat Food 1:319–320

Batal M, Decelles S (2019) A scoping review of obesity among indigenous peoples in Canada. J Obes 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9741090

Baumüller H (2018) The little we know: an exploratory literature review on the utility of mobile phone-enabled services for smallholder farmers. J Int Dev 30:134–154

Bindoff NL, Cheung WWL, Kairo JG, et al (2019) Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities. In: IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate
Blanchet R, Willows N, Johnson S et al (2020) Traditional food, health, and diet quality in syilx okanagan adults in British Columbia, Canada. *Nutrients*:12. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12040927

Boardman J, Poesen J (2006) Soil Erosion in Europe: major processes, causes and consequences. Soil erosion in Europe. Wiley, pp 477–487

Bonny S (2017) Corporate concentration and technological change in the global seed industry. Sustainability 9:1632

Boosting growth to end hunger by 2025: the role of social protection. ReSAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2017–2018. IFPRI, Washington, DC, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896295988

Borrelli P, Robinson DA, Fleischer LR et al (2017) An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat Commun 8:1–13

Bouët A, Odjo SP, Zaki C (2020) Africa agriculture trade monitor 2020. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293908

Bourguignon F, Dessus S (2009) Equity and development: political economy considerations

Bron GM, Siebenga JJ, Fresco LO (2021) In the age of pandemics, connection food systems and health: a global one health approach. Food Systems Summit Brief prepared by Research Parners of the Scientific Group of the Food Systems Summit

Carletto G, Ruel M, Winters P, Zezza A (2015) Farm-level pathways to improved nutritional status: introduction to the special issue. J Dev Stud 51:945–957

Caron P, Valette E, Wassenaar T, Coppens G, d'Eeckenbrugge G, Papazian V (2017) Living territories to transform the world. Quae, Paris. https://doi.org/10.35690/978-2-7592-2731-0

Chianese F The traditional knowledge advantage: indigenous peoples’ knowledge in climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. IFAD, Rome

Cotula L, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2008) The right to food and access to natural resources using human rights arguments and mechanisms to improve resource access for the rural poor. FAO, Rome

Cree Hunters and Trappers Income Security Board. http://www.chtisb.ca/program/. Accessed 22 Mar 2021

De Pinto A, Ulimwengu JM (2017) A thriving agricultural sector in a changing climate: meeting Malabo declaration goals through climate-smart agriculture 2017. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292949

de Pryck JD, Termine P (2014) Gender inequalities in rural labor markets. Gender in Agriculture 343–70

Deaconu A, Mercille G, Batal M (2019) The agroecological farmer’s pathways from agriculture to nutrition: a practice-based case from Ecuador’s highlands. Ecol Food Nutr 58:142–165

Deichmann U, Goyal A, Mishra D (2016) Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries? Agric Econ 47:21–33

Desmarais AA, Wittman H (2014) Farmers, foodies and first nations: getting to food sovereignty in Canada. J Peasant Stud 41:1153–1173

Dinesh D, Campbell BM, Bonilla-Findji O, Richards M (2017) 10 best get innovations for adaptation in agriculture: a supplement to the UNFCCC NAP technical guidelines. CGIAR Research Program on Climate change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Wageningen, The Netherlands. www.ccafs.cgiar.org

Domingo A, Spiegel J, Guhn M, et al (2020) Predictors of household food insecurity and relationship with obesity in First Nations communities in British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario. Public Health Nutrition 1–13

Dury S, Alpha A, Bichard A (2015) The negative side of the agricultural-nutrition impact pathways: a literature review. World Food Policy 2:78–100

Dutt P, Mitra D (2008) Inequality and the instability of polity and policy*. Econ J 118:1285–1314

Dyson T (2011) The role of the demographic transition in the process of urbanization on JSTOR. Population and Development Review, Population Council 37:34–54
Falkenmark M (1997) Meeting water requirements of an expanding world population. *Philos Trans R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci*; published online July 29. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1997.0072

Fanzo JC, Downs S, Marshall QE, de Pee S, Bloem MW (2017) Value chain focus on Food and nutrition security. In: de Pee S, Taren D, Bloem M (eds) Nutrition and health in a developing world. Humana Press, Cham, pp 753–770

Fanzo J, Haddad L, McLaren R et al (2020) The food systems dashboard is a new tool to inform better food policy. *Nat Food* 1:243–246

FAO (2016) Developing gender-equitable legal frameworks for land tenure. A legal assessment tool. FAO

FAO (2018) Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. Synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 627

FAO Dimitra project: Gender, rural women and development. http://www.fao.org/dimitra/about-dimitra/en/. Accessed 20 Mar 2021

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en

Feenstra RC, Hanson GH (1996) Globalization, outsourcing, and wage inequality. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w5424

Feenstra RC, Hanson GH (2008) Global production sharing and rising inequality: a survey of trade and wages. In: Handbook of international trade. Wiley, pp 146–185

Fei S, Ni J, Santini G (2020) Local food systems and COVID-19: an insight from China. Resour Conserv Recycl 162:105022

Fofana I, Sall LM (2020) Impact of trade shocks on growth and poverty in selected countries. Covid-19 Bulletin No. 13, November. AKADEMIYA2063, Kigali

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, editor. The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017

Food Systems Dashboard - Diets and Nutrition. Food Systems Dashboard. https://foodsystemsdashboard.org/. Accessed 22 Mar 2021

Gamlen A (2020) Migration and mobility after the 2020 pandemic: the end of an age? International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva

Glenna LL, Cahoy DR (2009) Agribusiness concentration, intellectual property, and the prospects for rural economic benefits from the emerging biofuel economy. South Rural Sociol 24:111–129

González H. Specialization on a global scale and agrifood vulnerability: 30 years of export agriculture in Mexico. Development Studies Research An Open Access Journal 2014; published online Oct 15. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21665095.2014.929973. Accessed 16 Mar 2021

Gray C (2009) Environment, land, and rural out-migration in the southern Ecuadorian Andes. World Dev 37:457–468

Greenville J, Kawasaki K, Jouanjean M-A (2019a) Dynamic changes and effects of agro-food GVCS. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/43b7bcec-en

Greenville J, Kawasaki K, Flaig D, Carrico C (2019b) Influencing GVCs through agro-food policy and reform. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9ce888e0-en

Grey S, Patel R (2014) Food sovereignty as decolonization: some contributions from indigenous movements to food system and development politics. Agric Hum Values 32:431–444

Gustafson S (2018) The Global Food System and Employment | Food Security Portal. Published online Feb 13. https://www.foodsecurityportal.org/blog/global-food-system-and-employment. Accessed 14 Mar 2021

Guthiga P, Kirui L, Karugia J (2020) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on staples food prices in local markets: The case of cooking banana ('Matooke') in Uganda. Covid-19 Bulletin No. 12, October. AKADEMIYA2063, Kigali

HarvestPlus (2018) Catalyzing Biofortified Food Systems: 2018 Annual Report. Washington, DC: HarvestPlus. https://www.harvestplus.org/sites/default/files/publications/153613_HarvestPlus_AR_2018_Proof.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2021
Hatab AA, Lagerkvist C-J, Esmat A (2021) Risk perception and determinants in small- and medium-sized agri-food enterprises amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Egypt. Agribusiness 37:187–212

Headey D, Heidkamp R, Osendarp S et al (2020) Impacts of COVID-19 on childhood malnutrition and nutrition-related mortality. Lancet 396:519–521

Heinemann JA, Massaro M, Coray DS, Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Wen JD (2014) Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest. Int J Agric Sustain 12:71–88

HLPE (2012) Social protection for food security. A report of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome

HLPE (2014) Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome

HLPE (2017) Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome

HLPE (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome

HLPE (2020) Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security

Hobbs JE (2020) Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Agric Econ/Revue canadienne d'agroéconomie 68:171–176

Huang J, Rozelle S, Pray C, Wang Q (2002) Plant biotechnology in China. Science 295:674–676

Hueston W, McLeod A (2012) Overview of the global food system: changes over time/space and lessons for future food security. In: Improving food safety through a one health approach: workshop summary. National Academies Press (US), Washington, DC

IFPRI (2019) Global Food Policy Report. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293502

IMF (2015) International monetary fund annual report 2015. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC

Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) (2014) The World Bank Group and the Global Food Crisis: an evaluation of the World Bank Group response. The World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0091-7

International Fund for Agricultural Development (2016) Rural development: report 2016: fostering inclusive rural transformation. IFAD, Roma

International Labour Organization (2020) Protecting migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations for policy-makers and Constituents

International Monetary Fund (2014) Fiscal policy and income inequality. Policy Papers 14. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498343671.007

IPCC (2020) Special report on climate change and land. An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPCC. Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/. Accessed 14 Mar 2021

IWGIA, ILO (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on indigenous communities: Insights from the Indigenous Navigator. The International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs, and the International Labour Organization

Jayne T, Chamberlin J, Headey D (2014) Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in Africa: a synthesis. Food Policy 48:1–17

Jribi S, Ismail HB, Doggui D, Debbabi H (2020) COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: what impacts on household food wastage? Environ Dev Sustain 22:3939–3955

Kathage J, Qaim M (2012) Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. PNAS 109:11652–11656
King R (1977) Land reform: a world survey. Routledge

Kloppenburg J (2010) Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession: biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. J Agrar Chang 10:367–388

Knippenberg E, Hoddinott J (2017) Shocks, social protection, and resilience: evidence from Ethiopia. IFPRI, Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI), Ethiopia

Kuhnlein HV (2004) Karat, Pulque, and Gac: three shining stars in the traditional food galaxy. Nutr Rev 62:439–442

Kuhnlein HV, Receveur O (1996) Dietary change and traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Annu Rev Nutr 16:417–442

Kurashima N, Fortini L, Ticktin T (2019) The potential of indigenous agricultural food production under climate change in Hawai'i. Nat Sustain 2:191–199

Land Matrix. https://landmatrix.org/. Accessed 22 Mar 2021

Lastarria-Cornhiel S (2008) Feminization of agriculture: trends and driving forces. Background paper for the World Development Report, Washington, DC

Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Boston

Levy S (2006) Progress against poverty: sustaining Mexico’s Progresa-Oportunidades program. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Reardon T, Belton B (2021) “Essential non-essentials”: COVID-19 policy missteps in Nigeria rooted in persistent myths about African food supply chains. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 43:205–224

Loboguerrero AM, Campbell BM, Cooper PJM, Hansen JW, Rosenstock T, Wollenberg E (2019) Food and earth systems: priorities for climate change adaptation and mitigation for agriculture and food systems. Sustainability 11:1372

Losch B, Freguin-Gresh S, White ET (2012) Structural transformation and rural change revisited – challenges for late developing countries in a globalizing world. World Bank, Washington, DC

Lowder SK, Bertini R, Karfakis P, Croppenstedt A. Transformation in the size and distribution of farmland operated by household and other farms in select countries of sub-Saharan Africa. 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23–26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2016; published online Sept. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae16/246969.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2020

Lugo-Morin DR (2020) Indigenous communities and their food systems: a contribution to the current debate. J Ethn Food 7:6

Ly R, Dia K, Diallo M, Ahid M, Ceesay B. 2020 Pearl millet production forecasts for selected west African countries: Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, and Senegal. Covid-19 Bulletin No. 14, December. AKADEMIYA2063, Kigali

Mabhaudhi T, Chibarabada TP, Chimonyo VGP et al (2018) Mainstreaming underutilized indigenous and traditional crops into Food systems: a South African perspective. Sustainability 11:1–22

Marschke M, Vandergeest P, Havice E et al (2021) COVID-19, instability and migrant fish workers in Asia. Maritime Stud 20:87–99

Mascarenhas M, Busch L (2006) Seeds of change: intellectual property rights, genetically modified soybeans and seed saving in the United States. Sociol Rural 46:122–138

Matchaya G, Nhlengethwa S, Fakudze B, Greffiths J (2020) Maize grain price trends in food surplus and deficit areas of Mozambique under Covid-19. Covid-19 Bulletin No. 7, September. AKADEMIYA2063, Kigali

McMullin S, Njogu K, Wekesa B et al (2019) Developing fruit tree portfolios that link agriculture more effectively with nutrition and health: a new approach for providing year-round micronutrients to smallholder farmers. Food Secur 11:1355–1372

Menashe-Oren A, Stecklov G (2018) Rural/urban population age and sex composition in sub-Saharan Africa 1980–2015. Popul Dev Rev 44:7–35

Ministerio de Salud Pública del Ecuador, FAO (2021) Guías Alimentarias del Ecuador. FAO, Quito. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9928es
Molden D, Burton M, Bos MG (2007) Performance assessment, irrigation service delivery and poverty reduction: benefits of improved system management. Irrig Drain 56:307–320

Mosby I, Galloway T (2017) "Hunger was never absent": how residential school diets shaped current patterns of diabetes among indigenous peoples in Canada. CMAJ 189:E1043-E1045

Munasinghe M (2020) Development, equity and sustainability (DES) in the context of climate change. In: Pichs R, Swart R, Leary N, Ormond F (eds) Development, sustainability and equity. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva

Neufeld LM, Hendriks S, Hugas M. Healthy diet: a definition for the United Nations Food systems summit. 2021

Nordhagen S, Condes S. Supporting gender-equitable food systems through access to finance for small- and medium-sized companies. Geneva, Switzerland: Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), 2020

O'Neal M, Nearing M, Vining R, Southworth J, Pfeifer R (2005) Climate change impacts on soil erosion in midwest United States with changes in crop management. Catena 61:165-184

Obodai M, Uduro-Yeboah C, Amoa-Awua W et al (2015) Kenkey production, vending, and consumption practices in Ghana. Food Chain 4:275–288

OECD (2019a) Innovation, productivity and sustainability in food and agriculture: Main findings from country reviews and policy lessons. OECD Publishing, OECD Food and Agricultural Reviews. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/c9c4ec1d-en

OECD (2019b) Linking indigenous communities with regional development. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/3203c082-en

OECD (2020a) Rural well-being: geography of opportunities. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/d25cef80-en

OECD (2020b) Global value chains in agriculture and food: a synthesis of OECD analysis. OECD Publishing

OECD (2020) Food supply chains and COVID-19: impacts and policy lessons. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus. Accessed 9 Mar 2021

Office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA). https://www.un.org/en/africa/osaa/. Accessed
22 Mar 2021

Okanagan Nation Alliance – ali kwu_swiwi-numtax, ali kwu_suknaqinx, ali axa/ L/tmxwula/xw. https://www.syilx.org/. Accessed 22 Mar 2021

Oya C (2012) Contract farming in sub-Saharan Africa: a survey of approaches, debates and issues. J Agrar Chang 12:1–33

Pew Research Center (2016) Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/

Pingali PL (2012) Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:12302

Pintado A, Monteiro M, Talon R et al (2016) Consumer acceptance and sensory profiling of reengineered kitoza products. Food Chem 198:75–84

Popkin BM, Reardon T (2018) Obesity and the food system transformation in Latin America. Obes Rev 19:1028–1064

Putnam P (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York

Qiang CZ, Kuek SC, Dymond A, Esselaar S (2012) Mobile applications for agriculture and rural development. ICT Sector Unit, World Bank, Washington, DC

Qiao F, Huang J, Wang X (2017) Fifteen years of Bt cotton in China: results from household surveys. World Dev 98:351–359

Quisumbing AR, Meinzen-Dick RS, Njuki J (2019) Annual trends and outlook report: Gender equality in rural Africa: From commitments to outcomes. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293649
Reardon. Transformation of African Agrifood Systems in the New Era of Rapid Urbanization and the Emergence of a Middle Class. https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll2/id/130005. Accessed 25 Oct 2020

Resnick D. 16. COVID-19 lockdowns threaten Africa's vital informal urban food trade. 2

Rodríguez-Pose A, Ezcurra R (2011) Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries. J Econ Geogr 11:619–643

Rogers V, Meara P, Barnett-Legh T, Curry C, Davie E (2017) Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests. J Eur Second Language Assoc 1:49–60

Salemink K, Strijker D, Bosworth G (2017) Rural development in the digital age: a systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. J Rural Stud 54: 360–371

Samberg L (2021) How new technology could help to strengthen global good security. World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/food-security-s-social-network/. Accessed 15 Mar 2021

Sandrasekaran M, Kasthuri T, Singh KO (2017) Soil and water conservation in India: strategies and research challenges-Indian journals. J Soil Water Conserv 16:312–319

Scholze M, Knorr W, Arnell NW, Prentice IC (2006) A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. PNAS 103:13116–13120

Sherwood S (2019) Strengthening impact of the healthy food consumption campaign: 250,000 families in Ecuador. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/59373

Sherwood S, Arce A, Paredes M (eds) (2017) Food, agriculture and social change. The everyday vitality of Latin America. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315440088

Sonobe T, Otsuka K (2011) Cluster-based industrial development a comparative study of Asia and Africa United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230295124

Sonobe T, Jin K, Otsuka K (2020) Applying the Kaizen in Africa. Saint Philip Street Press

Stephens C, Nettleton C, Porter J, Willis R, Clark S (2005) Indigenous peoples’ health—why are they behind everyone, everywhere? Lancet 366:10–13

Sullivan C, Meigh J (2003) Considering the water poverty index in the context of poverty alleviation. Water Policy 5:513–528

Théodore FL, Bonvecchio Arenas A, García-Guerra A et al (2019) Sociocultural influences on poor nutrition and program utilization of Mexico’s conditional cash transfer program. J Nutr 149: 2290S–2301S

Thiele H. Deula: presentation of our Institution. https://www.deula.de/fileadmin/Redakteure/Witzenhausen/Presentation_institution.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2021

Tschirley DL, Snyder J, Dolislager M et al (2015) Africa's unfolding diet transformation: implications for agrifood system employment. J Agribusiness Dev Emerg Econ 5:102–136

Ulimwengu J, Badiane O (2010) Vocational training and agricultural productivity: Evidence from Rice production in Vietnam. J Agric Educ Ext 16:399–411

Ulimwengu JM, Collins J (2020) Assessing community vulnerability to Covid-19 in the Sahel Covid-19 Bulletin No. 10, October. AKADEMIYA2063, Kigali

Ulimwengu J, Magne-Domgho L (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on hidden hunger in Senegal. Covid-19 Bulletin No. 8, August. AKADEMIYA2063, Kigali

Ulimwengu JM, Matchaya G, Makombe T, Oehmke JF (2020) Mutual accountability in African agricultural transformation. In: Resnick D, Diao X, Tadesse G (eds) ReSAKSS annual trends and outlook report. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and AKADEMIYA2063, Washington, DC and Kigali, pp 182–194

UN. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

UNDESA World Social Report | DISD. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/world-social-report.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2020

UNICEF (2019) Every Child Learns. UNICEF Education Strategy 2019–2030. UNICEF, New York
United Nations (ed) (2001) Replacement migration: is it a solution to declining and ageing populations? United Nations, New York

Valeggia CR, Snodgrass JJ (2015) Health of indigenous peoples. Annu Rev Anthropol 44:117–135

Vandergeten E, Azadi H, Teklemariam D, Nyssen J, Witlox F, Vanhaute E (2016) Agricultural outsourcing or land grabbing: a meta-analysis. Landsc Ecol 31:1395–1417

Vernon RV (2015) A native perspective: food is more than consumption. *I* 2015; 5: 137–42

Vesper I (2021) Evidence patchy on value of mobile apps for farmers. SciDev.Net. https://www.scidev.net/global/news/evidence-patchy-on-value-of-mobile-apps-for-farmers/. Accessed 9 Mar 2021

Vognan G, Fok M (2019) Performance différenciée du coton Bt en début de diffusion : cas du Burkina Faso. Cah Agric 28:26

von Braun J, Afsana K, Fresco L, Hassan M, Terero M. Food systems – definition, concept and application for the UN food systems summit. A paper from the Scientific Group of the UN Food Systemts Summit 2021. https://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ScGroup_Food_Systems_paper_March-5-2021.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2021

World Bank (2007) World development report 2008. Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6807-7

World Bank. World development report 2016: digital dividends | world development report. 2016

Wouterse F, Badiane O (2019) The role of health, experience, and educational attainment in agricultural production: evidence from smallholders in Burkina Faso. Agric Econ 50:421–434

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

Jemimah Njuki, Sarah Eissler, Hazel Malapit, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Elizabeth Bryan, and Agnes Quisumbing

# 1 Introduction

Women are key actors in food systems as producers, wage workers, processors, traders, and consumers. They do this work despite many constraints and limitations, including lower access to opportunities, technologies, finance and other productive resources, and weak tenure and resource rights. These constraints and limitations are shaped and reinforced by social and structural inequalities in food systems. Stark gender inequalities are both a cause and outcome of unsustainable food systems and unjust food access, consumption and production. In the agriculture sector, for example, evidence shows that women have unequal access, and, in some cases, unequal rights, to important resources, such as land, water, pasture, seeds, fertilizers, chemical inputs, technology and information, and extension and advisory services, all of which reduces their potential to be productive in agriculture, become empowered to make strategic decisions and act on those decisions, and realize their rights (Doss 2018; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2019a, b; Mulema and Damtew 2016; Madzorera and Fawzi 2020). In addition, compared with men, women are more vulnerable to chronic food and nutrition insecurity, as well as shock-induced food insecurity (Madzorera and Fawzi 2020; Theis et al. 2019).

J. Njuki (✉)

International Food Policy Research Institute, Africa Regional Office c/o ILRI Nairobi,
Nairobi, Kenya

e-mail: jemimah.njuki@gmail.com

S. Eissler

Independent Consultant, Nairobi, Kenya

H. Malapit · R. Meinzen-Dick · E. Bryan · A. Quisumbing

International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
## 2 Conceptual Framing

We conceptualize gender as an important lever for progress across all aspects of food systems (Fig. 1) and draw upon key terms and definitions of women’s empowerment, women’s economic empowerment, and gender-transformative approaches (see definitions in Annex). Food system drivers are anchored in a gendered system with structural gender inequalities and are shaped by shocks and vulnerabilities that affect men and women in different ways. Structural gender inequalities and gendered shocks and vulnerabilities thus influence the ways in which men and women experience these drivers of food systems, which, in turn, shape the three main components of food systems: value chains, the food environment, and consumer behavior.

This conceptualization of gender in food systems recognizes and highlights the linkages and interconnectedness across these three components. For example, strengthened access to nutritious foods (food environment) is an important source and pathway to strengthening individual and household resilience (drivers), particularly as adverse effects of climate change will continue to negatively influence access to and consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods (Fanzo et al. 2018; Theis et al. 2019). And, as food systems are both contributors to and impacted by climate change, nature-positive production schemes (production), such as sustainable agricultural intensification strategies, enable food systems to reduce their contribution to

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Gendered food systems. (Source: Adapted from de Brauw et al. 2019)</figcaption></figure>
and mitigate the impacts of climate change, thus strengthening resilience (drivers) (Campbell et al. 2014).

These three components of the food system interact with gender equality/inequality in a four-dimensional space: individual and systemic, formal and informal. Transforming food systems in equitable ways requires changes in gender equality at the individual and systemic levels and at the formal and informal levels. Changes must occur in: women's and men's consciousness, capacity, behavior and awareness (individual; informal); access to resources, services and opportunities (individual, formal); informal and implicit cultural norms, deep structure and the social values that undergird the way in which institutions operate(informal, systemic); and in formal policies, laws, and institutional arrangements (formal, systemic) in place to protect against social and gender discrimination and advance equality (Gender at Work n.d.). Change must go beyond simply reaching women through interventions, and requires facilitating the empowerment process so that women can benefit from food system activities (namely, increasing wellbeing, food security, income, and health) and can make and act upon strategic life decisions within food systems.<fnref n="1" /> Women's agency, differences in access to and control over resources, gendered social norms, and existing policies and governance influence how men and women can participate in and benefit from food systems, leading to differences in overall outcomes (Fig. 1).

## 3 Methodology

This chapter uses a scoping review (Harris et al. 2021; Liverpool-Tasie et al. 2020) to assess the current evidence on gender issues in food systems. Given the broad range of key topics related to gender in food systems, topically relevant and published systematic reviews were purposively sampled to provide a baseline state of the evidence. After purposively sampling and identifying 16 systematic and scoping reviews to inform the baseline, additional articles were collected. Three databases (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and IFPRI's Ebrary) were used to gather and collect additional articles using key word searches aligned with 42 unique terms cross-referenced with the terms “gender” and “women.” A total of 198 articles were selected from these databases for review after meeting the following inclusion criteria: the articles had to be empirical and peer-reviewed, published in English, and have a geographic focus in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). The article also had to make an explicit reference to gender or women’s empowerment and the key thematic term. For articles meeting these initial criteria, additional criteria were used to exclude some from the review, including if the methodology was inadequate to account for biases, or if the article was not relevant to agriculture or food systems. Duplicate articles from across the searches were eliminated from

<footnote n="1">¹See Johnson et al. (2018) for a discussion of the Reach-Benefit-Empowerment framework.</footnote>
the database. Finally, additional articles were identified for inclusion from the citations in the articles collected above. All collected articles were managed in Zotero reference manager software.<fnref n="2" />

# 4 Findings

This section presents the main findings of evidence relevant to the components of the gendered food system conceptual framework (Fig. 1): drivers and cross-cutting levers, shocks and stressors, food and value chains, food environment, consumer behavior, and outcomes.

In general, the evidence reveals that women are important actors and contributors to food systems, but their contributions are typically undervalued, unpaid, or overlooked in food systems research. A 2021 map of food systems and nutrition evidence from the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) indicates that, although women have a major role in food systems, relatively few studies have examined strategies for or the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving women's decision-making power or have measured outcomes related to empowerment (Moore et al. 2021). Many food system interventions have not collected evidence regarding gender, an oversight that may result in poor outcomes or the inefficient use of funds to improve food systems (Moore et al. 2021).

Overall, the literature is largely in agreement as to how to advance gender equality and women's empowerment in food systems, but offers little evidence on causal pathways or mechanisms (Moore et al. 2021). The existing evidence, in general, offers locally or contextually specific findings; limited evidence exists that applies across contexts or at a geographic scale.<fnref n="3" />

## 4.1 Drivers: Shocks and Stressors

Men and women are differently exposed and vulnerable to shock and stress events. As a result of social norms and differing access to important resources, men and women have different capacities to mitigate risk and respond to these events (Mahajan 2017; Codjoe et al. 2012). The types of capacities needed include absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities, which are built by developing and

<footnote n="2">²All articles reviewed for this paper are compiled in a separate Excel database, with the following metrics collected for each article: author(s) name, article title, year published, journal or organization of publication, national focus (if specified), regional focus, methods used, and main finding(s). Additional information on the search methods and articles selected are included in the full review paper (citation forthcoming).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³The findings presented in this paper are high-level. A further, more nuanced explanation of the findings can be found in the full review paper (citation forthcoming).</footnote>
leveraging resources and networks to reduce the risk of adverse impacts and facilitate faster recovery from shock and stress events. Gendered impacts of shocks are nuanced, context-specific, and often unexpected (Quisumbing et al. 2018; Rakib and Matz 2014; Nielsen and Reenberg 2010). Gendered perceptions of climate change and ensuing effects are based on livelihood activities and household and community roles and responsibilities, and often influence how men and women can leverage adaptation strategies to respond (Quisumbing et al. 2018; Aberman et al. 2015; Nielsen and Reenberg 2010).

Many studies indicate that gender-differentiated access to or ownership of important resources—such as women having fewer assets and lacking access to information services or credit—is linked to different capacities to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shock and stress events (Bryan et al. 2013; de Pinto et al. 2020; Fisher and Carr 2015). However, women’s participation in collaborative farming schemes or group networks facilitates broader access to resources and additional social networks and types of social capital, which strengthen women’s capacity to respond to these events (Vibert 2016). For example, participation in community groups and access to credit options in Mali have been positively associated with an uptake in climate-smart agriculture practices and technologies (Ouédraogo et al. 2019).

Women have fewer adaptation options than men, as social norms restrict women's mobility, freedom of movement, and access to transportation, as do time burdens associated with domestic and care responsibilities (Jost et al. 2016; Naab and Koranteng 2012; de Pinto et al. 2020). However, de Pinto et al. (2020) note evidence that certain components of women’s empowerment led to increased crop diversification among small-scale agricultural producers in Bangladesh, suggesting that women do play an important and positive role in climate change adaptation. Access to context-specific and relevant climate information and appropriate technologies is a key determinant of adopting climate change adaptation practices, and women and men have different needs for and access to such information (see section below on Gendered Access to Services and Technology) (Bryan et al. 2013; Tambo and Abdoulaye 2012; Twyman et al. 2014; Mudege et al. 2017).

## 4.2 Food System Components

### 4.2.1 Agrifood Value Chains

Women are actively engaged across various roles in agricultural value chains, although women’s positions are typically undervalued and overlooked in food systems research (Doss 2013). In Ethiopia, Abate (2018) found that women were predominately responsible for storage preparation, post-harvest processing, milk processing, barn cleaning, care for newborn livestock, cooking, grinding, fetching, and collecting fuelwood, and worked with men to weed, harvest, thresh, and protect crops from wildlife. Qualitative evidence from Benin suggests that women are predominately engaged in agricultural processing activities and, if they have access to land, are also engaged in production activities (Eissler et al. 2021a). Studies from
Benin and Tanzania also found that, regardless of the producer, men manage higher-value sales and marketing, while women only manage the marketing and negotiation of small-value sales (Eissler et al. 2021a; Mwaseba and Kaarhus 2015). Gupta et al. (2017) provided evidence that improving women's market access is strongly correlated with increased levels of women's empowerment in India.

Agriculture both contributes to and is affected by anthropogenic climate change. As population pressures continue to increase and place demands on food production, agricultural livelihoods across agrifood value chains must adapt approaches that will sustainably meet rising demand, reduce risk associated with adverse climatic events, and mitigate contributions to climate change. Such approaches include sustainable intensification (Tilman et al. 2011; Rockström et al. 2017), conservation agriculture (Montt and Luu 2020), and climate-smart and climate-resilient agriculture (Gutierrez-Montes et al. 2020; Duffy et al. 2020), among others. A growing body of evidence indicates that women producers are less able to adopt such sustainable and resilient production practices or methods given their limited access to necessary resources, including land, time, labor, information, and technologies (Theriault et al. 2017; Ndiritu et al. 2014; Grabowski et al. 2020; Farnworth et al. 2016; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2019a, b; Doss et al. 2015; Perez et al. 2015; Pradhan et al. 2019; Parks et al. 2015; Ayantunde et al. 2020; Khoza et al. 2019; Gathala et al. 2021; Montt and Luu 2020; Beuchelt and Badstue 2013; Halbrendt et al. 2014).

### 4.2.2 Food Environment

Several themes emerge from the evidence linking gender equality and women's empowerment with improving the availability of and access to safe and nutritious food. First, the affordability of nutritious food is an important issue for accessing nutrient-rich foods to advance gender equality and women's empowerment. Available evidence indicates that women are less likely than men to be able to afford a nutritious diet, as women often occupy lower-paying wage positions than men, earn and control smaller incomes than men, have less autonomy over household financial decisions, or have no income at all. For example, Raghunathan et al. (2021) estimated that, while nutritious diets have become substantially more affordable for both female and male wage workers in rural India, unskilled wage workers still cannot afford a nutritious diet; unskilled workers account for approximately 80-90% of female and 50-60% of male daily wage workers, and care for 63-76% of poor rural children.

Another important theme is ensuring equitable access to markets where nutritious foods can be purchased. Nutrient-dense foods, such as fruit, milk and vegetables, are difficult to transport and store, and therefore must be purchased locally, particularly in remote and rural areas (Hoddinott et al. 2015; Mulmi et al. 2016). Several articles linked women's mobility and freedom of movement to market access, and thus to positive nutrition and food security outcomes. For example, Aryal et al. (2019) found that physical distance to markets impacted household food security outcomes for female-headed households more than for male-headed households in Bhutan.
Shroff et al. (2011) found women's low autonomy in mobility was positively associated with wasting in children in India. The evidence seems to associate women's limited mobility with stricter social gender norms and religion.

### 4.2.3 Consumer Behavior

Agriculture can influence diets and dietary choices through the consumption of household-produced crops or increased purchasing power derived from the sale of agricultural products. Moore et al. (2021) found that, in research carried out since 2000, women's roles in food systems have mostly been examined in terms of their role as consumers, such as household cooks, or as mothers who are breastfeeding or whose health affects that of their children. Other studies link gender norms, roles and responsibilities to women as food preparers and managers of the quality of household diets (Eissler et al. 2020a; Sraboni and Quisumbing 2018). Komatsu et al. (2018) found a positive association between the amount of time women spent on food preparation and household dietary diversity, and Chaturvedi et al. (2016) found a positive association between the time mothers spent with their children and nutrition status.

There is evidence showing positive effects of nutrition counseling, nutrition education, and maternal education for nutrition, dietary diversity, and health outcomes for women and children (Choudhury et al. 2020; Akter et al. 2020; Kimambo et al. 2018; Reinbott and Jordan 2016; Reinbott et al. 2016; Rakotomanana et al. 2020; Ragasa et al. 2019). Interventions for sustainable and nutritious diets are found to be more effective when they include components on nutrition and communication about health behavior change, women's empowerment, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and micronutrient-fortified products (Ruel et al. 2018). Gelli et al. (2017) found preliminary evidence that WASH components of a nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention in Burkina Faso may have mitigated the potential harm, such as the health risks, of introducing and enhancing small livestock production. However, more evidence is needed to understand the best practices for reducing potential harm of increased livestock production and management in nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs (Ruel et al. 2018).

## 4.3 Food System Outcomes

Recent research has examined the link between maternal mental health and psychosocial indicators and nutrition outcomes. There is mixed evidence regarding the link between maternal depression and mental health symptoms and child or household nutrition. Wemakor and Iddrisu (2018) found no association between maternal depression and child stunting in northern Ghana, whereas Wemakor and Mensah (2016) and Anato et al. (2020) found positive associations between women experiencing depressive symptoms and child undernutrition in Ghana and Ethiopia.
Wemakor and Mensah (2016) observed that women experiencing the highest levels of depression were also those with the lowest incomes or from the lowest-income households. Cetrone et al. (2020) found that food security improvements resulting from participation in a nutrition-sensitive agriculture program mediated women's depression symptoms in Tanzania. Such evidence, which is both mixed and limited, suggests that further studies are needed to understand the psychosocial impacts of women's empowerment and mental health on household nutrition and health outcomes.

Evidence links access to resources and empowerment to outcomes in nutrition and children's education. For example, evidence indicates that female livestock ownership or production diversity, combined with market access and women's empowerment, are important drivers of diverse household consumption and nutritional status (Sibhatu et al. 2015; Mulmi et al. 2016; Hoddinott et al. 2015). Additionally, Malapit et al. (2019) found in Bangladesh that, while gaps in parental empowerment had only weak associations with children's nutrition status, mother's empowerment is positively associated with girls' education and keeping older children in school in general.

A growing body of research has examined the pathways through which women's empowerment is linked with household nutrition outcomes and access to nutritious foods (Alaofè et al. 2017; Reinbott and Jordan 2016; Bellows et al. 2020; Malapit and Quisumbing 2015; Heckert et al. 2019; Lentz et al. 2019). These pathways are contextual and vary across countries and regions (Na et al. 2015; Ruel et al. 2018; Quisumbing et al. 2021). Ruel et al. (2018) observe that, while the current evidence broadly associates women's empowerment and nutrition outcomes, this evidence is generally context-specific, given that women's empowerment and gender roles and norms are closely linked. As more evidence is generated from cross-context evaluations, future research can create typologies to better explain how gender roles more broadly interact with nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions (Ruel et al. 2018).

Specific to equitable livelihood outcomes, evidence indicates that women face disproportionate barriers in accessing finance and credit options compared with men (Adegbite and Machethe 2020; Ghosh and Vinod 2017; Dawood et al. 2019; Kabir et al. 2019). For example, Kabir et al. (2019) found that in Bangladesh, a lack of access to credit is the most significant barrier women producers faced, followed by a lack of need-based training, high interest rates, insufficient land access, and a lack of quality seeds. Women's ability to earn incomes and participate in income-generating activities is strongly mediated by restrictive gender norms, a lack of access to resources, and time burdens arising from normative roles and responsibilities. In a study of urban women vegetable traders in Viet Nam, Kawarazuka et al. (2017) found that women were able to work in less socially respected spaces, such as street trading, but still needed to negotiate their access to informal employment spaces with their husbands.

Supporting women's entrepreneurship is suggested as an important pathway to advancing gender equality and women's empowerment in food systems. Malapit et al. (2019) suggest that this is not necessarily the case if these businesses are small and home-based; such businesses typically make little profit and tend to add to
women's existing time burdens. And in a systematic literature review, Wolf and Frese (2018) emphasized the need to recognize that spousal support is a key factor for women's entrepreneurship or engagement in income-generating activities.

# 5 Cross-Cutting Gender and Food System Issues

## 5.1 Gendered Social Norms and Expectations

Social and cultural norms shape and reinforce the ways in which women and men can participate in, access, and benefit from opportunities and resources (Kristjanson et al. 2017; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2019a, b; Rao et al. 2019; Moosa and Tuana 2014). This has important consequences across all aspects of advancing women's empowerment and gender equality in food systems. For example, norms can hinder women's ability to access or adopt new agricultural practices (Kiptot and Franzel 2012; Njuki et al. 2014). Importantly, gender norms vary within contexts, such as by religious identity or social class. Kruijssen et al. (2016) noted that different normative expectations of women in Hindu and Muslim communities in Bangladesh influenced the ways in which these women were constrained or enabled in participating in aquaculture value chains.

In general, women often experience restrictive social norms that hinder their empowerment and full participation in household or community activities and value chains (Huyer and Partey 2020; Kruijssen et al. 2018). In a review of evidence on gender issues in global aquaculture value chains, Kruijssen et al. (2018) found that contextual gender norms shape the ways in which women and men participate in aquaculture value chains around the world, often limiting women's ability to participate in and benefit from aquaculture value chains equally.

Social gender norms are contextually and culturally specific and are strongly linked to women's empowerment (Eissler et al. 2020a, b, 2021a; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2019a, b; Bryan and Garner 2020). Emic understandings of an empowered woman and an empowered man vary, but importantly inform the understanding of cultural nuances and expectations of the roles and responsibilities of women (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2019a, b; Bryan and Garner 2020). Men are generally considered to be the household financial providers and decision-makers, whereas women are responsible for domestic chores, childcare, food preparation, and other unpaid care tasks. In rural agricultural settings, women may also provide household labor on their husbands' agricultural plots in addition to their domestic work, yet are not remunerated for this labor (Picchioni et al. 2020; Nahusenay 2017; Ghosh and Chopra 2019). Recent evidence also suggests that patterns of male dominance in the household are linked to individuals' gender norms, but are not necessarily correlated with intergenerational transfers of male dominance in intrahousehold decision-making (Leight 2021).
## 5.2 Gendered Access to and Control over Resources, Services and Technology

A large body of literature has examined differences in men's and women's access to, ownership of, and control over resources in the food system (Johnson et al. 2016; Uduji et al. 2019; Perez et al. 2015; Gebre et al. 2019; Fisher and Carr 2015; Lambrecht and Mahrt 2019). Evidence indicates that perceived or effective ownership of resources may be more important than actual ownership for women's empowerment and nutrition outcomes (Eissler et al. 2020b). Studies have found positive associations between women's land ownership and their participation in community groups or co-operative networks, suggesting that access to important resources, such as land, facilitates access to other resources, such as increased bargaining power and pooled assets. Further evidence indicates that when women's previously less lucrative or lower-valued activities begin to rise in value or earn higher incomes, control over the activity or resource may be transferred from women to men (Mwaseba and Kaarhus 2015).

Existing literature shows that women face social, cultural and institutional barriers to accessing and adopting agricultural technologies, information and services (Peterman et al. 2014; Peterman et al. 2011; Perez et al. 2015; Mudege et al. 2017; Ragasa et al. 2013; de Pinto et al. 2020; Raghunathan et al. 2019; Duffy et al. 2020). Men and women have different needs for and access to such information and technologies; gender analyses are therefore needed to tailor communication strategies so as to ensure that information and dissemination are adequately targeted towards men and women (Tall et al. 2014; Peterman et al. 2014; Diouf et al. 2019; Ragasa et al. 2013; Jost et al. 2016; Mudege et al. 2017; Duffy et al. 2020). Women have access to disproportionately less information than men overall, but they have access to more information regarding certain topics relevant to their gender-normative roles and responsibilities, such as post-harvest handling and small livestock production (Twyman et al. 2014).

Gender-sensitive program designs that aim to increase access to technologies have positive impacts on women's nutrition and health outcomes (Kassie et al. 2020; Alaofè et al. 2016a, b, 2019). An evaluation of a gender-sensitive irrigation intervention in northern Benin found that women in the program had higher dietary diversity, increased intake of vegetables, reduced rates of anemia, higher body mass indexes (BMI), and improved household nutritional status through direct consumption as a result of women's increased crop diversification and increased income that allowed them to make economic decisions (Alaofè et al. 2016a, b, 2019).

Interventions to benefit or empower women may overlook the time trade-offs required for women's participation or for intended outcomes (Picchioni et al. 2020; Komatsu et al. 2018; van den Bold et al. 2021). Importantly, measuring time use itself does not address women's agency over said time use or the intrahousehold decision-making surrounding how and on what activities women may spend their time (Eissler et al. 2021b). There is little research to show how women can control
their own time use or how interventions can support women in managing their own
time to advance their strategic choices in food systems.

**5.3 Women's Agency: Decision-Making and Leadership**

**5.3.1 Household Level**

Evidence suggests that there are positive nutrition, livelihood, wellbeing, and resilience outcomes when women are more involved and have greater influence in household decision-making. Several studies find that when women own or have joint title to land, they are significantly more involved or have greater influence in household decision-making, particularly regarding agricultural or productive decisions (Wiig 2013; Mishra and Sam 2016). And while Fisher and Carr (2015) found that women farmers in Ghana and Malawi were less likely to adopt drought-tolerant maize varieties due to differences in resource access, women strongly influenced the adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties on plots controlled by their husbands.

**5.3.2 Community Level**

Diiro et al. (2018) found evidence that increases in women's empowerment, including women's participation in community leadership, is associated with higher agricultural productivity; and women from more food-secure households are more likely to participate in community leadership roles. Niewoehner-Green et al. (2019) found that, for women in rural Honduras, social norms and structural biases hindered their participation in leadership positions in agricultural groups and limited their influence and voice in community decisions. There is some evidence to suggest that men and women value and participate in different types of community groups. For example, women place a higher value on savings and credit groups than men and may have greater access to hyper-local institutions, whereas men have greater access to institutions and services from outside of their immediate community (Cramer et al. 2016; Perez et al. 2015). Other evidence suggests that women may participate in fewer groups than men (Mwongera et al. 2014).

**5.3.3 Food Systems Level**

Increasing women's voices and integrating their preferences into agricultural solu-
tions, including technology design and implementation, is an under-researched
pathway to empowerment and gender equality in food systems. For example, there
is evidence that women may have different preferences than men with regard to crop
varietals (Gilligan et al. 2020; Teeken et al. 2018), but there is limited evidence that
breeders' consider these preferences in varietal design and profiles (Tufan et al. 2018; Marimo et al. 2020).

## 5.4 Institutional Barriers, Policy, and Governance

The prevalence of gender-based violence (GBV) is a systemic barrier for women's empowerment in food systems. There is extensive research in health literature on GBV; however, research on violence against women in the context of food systems is limited. Some studies find evidence that women's asset ownership deters GBV, suggesting that when women own assets, their status may increase, making it easier for them to leave harmful relationships (Grabe 2010; Grabe et al. 2014). Buller et al. (2018) and Lees et al. (2021) found that cash transfer programs decrease the incidence of GBV. The new project-level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index for Market Inclusion (pro-WEAI+MI) includes indicators on sexual harassment and violence against women in composite measurements of empowerment for women in agricultural value chains (Ragasa et al. 2021; Eissler et al. 2021a), providing a tool to measure the incidence of GBV and its impact on women's empowerment in food systems.

Institutions and policies that support gender equality and women's empowerment in food systems are generally lacking in low-income countries (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2013). Bryan et al. (2018) observed that a lack of policies and institutional capacity hinders research and gender integration into climate change adaptation programs across a range of contexts, specifically noting a lack of staff capacity on gender, a lack of funding to support gender integration, and sociocultural constraints as key barriers to gender integration. Some evidence suggests a tension between formal legislation and practiced law. Pradhan et al. (2019) found that, in practice, women's joint and personal property rights differ from legal definitions. Eissler et al. (2021a) observed that, while Benin has formal gender equality and antidiscrimination laws, these are poorly enforced and do not align with social norms toward GBV or harassment. For example, women working in agricultural value chains often may not report incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace for fear of upsetting their husbands, suggesting that women may feel a sense of responsibility for inviting the harassment.

## 6 Conclusions

This scoping review aimed to elucidate evidence and identify evidence gaps for advancing gender equality and women's empowerment in food systems. We see evidence that women have differing access to resources compared with men, such as essential services, knowledge and information, technology dissemination, land, credit options, time, and markets. This differing level of access is shaped and
reinforced by contextual social gender norms. Existing evidence shows that context-
specific pathways link women's empowerment to important outcomes, such as
household nutrition and dietary diversity, noting that these pathways may vary
between and within contexts. Cross-contextual evidence exists of positive associa-
tions between maternal education (and specifically, access to nutrition education)
and positive outcomes for child and household nutrition and diet quality.

While this review was not systematic, it appears that only limited studies address important areas of inquiry regarding gender equality and women’s empowerment in food systems. Specifically, only a few studies included in this review examined gender considerations in food systems for women in urban areas or aquaculture value chains. There have been few studies geared at understanding best practices and effective pathways for engaging men in the process of women’s empowerment in food systems, or addressing issues of migration, crises or indigenous food systems. Additionally, while there are gender-informed evaluation studies examining the effectiveness of gender- and nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs, there is limited evidence to indicate the long-term sustainability of such impacts.

In conclusion, this review suggests that there is substantial agreement about
pathways to improve women’s empowerment and gender equality in food systems,
but the actual evidence to support these pathways, specifically cross-contextual
evidence, is limited. Existing evidence is extremely localized and context-specific,
limiting its application beyond the focus area of the study. And finally, relatively few
studies included a gender-informed design and conceptual framework to best under-
stand mechanisms for promoting equality and empowerment. Moving forward,
further research is required to produce stronger evidence on cross-contextual path-
ways to improve gender equality and women’s empowerment in food systems.

7 Recommendations for Investment

## 7.1 Invest in Maternal Education, Particularly Nutrition-Focused Education and Counseling

Cross-contextual evidence indicates that maternal education and experiences with
nutrition counseling are positively associated with improved diet quality and diver-
sity, leading to better nutrition outcomes at the household level. For example,
Choudhury et al. (2019) found a positive association of maternal education and
maternal health, household dietary diversity, and nutrition and health outcomes for
household members in 42 countries, suggesting that dietary diversity may be driven
by preferences and knowledge. In Tanzania, Kimambo et al. (2018) found positive
associations between women's nutrition knowledge and consumption of African
vegetables. Rakotomanana et al. (2020) found that, in Madagascar, children of
mothers with knowledge and positive attitudes about complementary nutrient-rich
foods had more nutrient-diverse diets, while those with mothers who had lower
incomes and greater time burdens had less nutrient-diverse diets. Studies also found
benefits from involving grandmothers in nutrition counseling, education and di-
logues in Sierra Leone (Aidam et al. 2020; MacDonald et al. 2020) and Nepal
(Karmacharya et al. 2017). Investments should focus on increasing women's edu-
cational attainment, coupled with nutrition-focused counseling.

## 7.2 Invest in Programs/Interventions that Aim to Improve Women's Influence and Role in Decision-Making and Leadership at All Levels of the Food System (Household, Community, and Systems)

Women's influence and role in decision-making is associated positively with nutrition, women's empowerment, and livelihood outcomes at all levels of food systems. At the household level, in northern Ghana, for example, women are less likely to have decision-making autonomy over productive decisions, purchasing, selling or transferring assets, and speaking in public (Ragsdale et al. 2018). In Bangladesh, de Pinto et al. (2020) found that households have higher levels of crop diversification when women have more influence in productive household decision-making, suggesting that an increase in women's bargaining power can lead to more resilient agricultural livelihoods. At the community level, evidence indicates that women's participation in community groups also enhances resilience, increases access to important resources such as land and labor, builds and facilitates social networks, and increases their influence and participation in community-level decision-making (Kumar et al. 2019; Aberman et al. 2020). For example, Kabeer (2017) found that women in Bangladesh who expand their active social networks through community groups have higher levels of empowerment. Raghunathan et al. (2019) found that Indian women's participation in self-help groups was positively associated with increased levels of information and participation in some agricultural decisions, but did not affect agricultural production or outcomes, possibly because of women's limited time, financial constraints, or restrictive social norms. At the systems level, there is limited evidence to suggest that technology development (including crop breeding, for example) incorporates women's different preferences and needs into design (Tufan et al. 2018; Marimo et al. 2020). Investments should be made in interventions that address and facilitate improvements for women's influence and participation in decision-making at all levels.

## 7.3 Invest in Interventions that Promote Positive and Equal Gender Norms at the Household, Community, and Systems Levels

Gender norms and associated expectations vary by context; however, restrictive gender norms shape and, in many ways, hinder women's empowerment across contexts and limit their ability to participate in and act upon strategic decisions or
activities to advance their own empowerment across all components of food sys-
tems. For example, a study in Egypt found that a woman's normative role as an
unpaid household caregiver limited her ability to sell fish compared with her
husband, who did not face time burdens associated with caregiving and who
maintained decision-making control over his and his wife's activities (Kantor and
Kruijssen 2014). In Papua New Guinea, Kosec et al. (2021) found that men are more
likely to support women challenging normative gender roles in terms of their
economic participation during periods of household economic stress because this
can raise household income, not because they support transforming women's role in
society more generally. Contextual gender norms may also shape women's food
allocation preferences, which hold important implications for nutrition. In Ethiopia,
for example, women may favor sons over daughters for more nutrient-dense foods
(Coates et al. 2018). Sraboni and Quisumbing (2018) found that women's prefer-
ences in allocating nutritious foods were influenced heavily by social norms in
Bangladesh, where women favored sons over daughters because of male advantage
in labor markets and property rights. Investments should be made to promote
positive and equal gender norms for and with men and women across contexts and
scales from the household to system levels.

7.4 *Invest in Interventions and Efforts that Improve Women's Access to Important and Necessary Resources*

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that, across contexts, women have less
access to important resources than men. These resources include, but are not limited
to, land, agricultural inputs, financing options, financial services, technology, tech-
nical services, and time. Nuanced variations exist across and within contexts. For
example, in sub-Saharan Africa, studies indicate that women may rely on informal
sources of information, such as personal connections, whereas men rely on formal
sources of information, such as extension or the private sector; however, in Colom-
bia, men may have more access to information overall compared to women, but both
rely on the same sources of information (Twyman et al. 2014; Mudege et al. 2017).
With regard to time, Komatsu et al. (2018) found that women's time allocation and
household nutrition outcomes varied by local context, such that women's time in
domestic work was positively associated with diverse diets in Bangladesh, Cambo-
dia, Ghana, Mozambique and Nepal, but in Mozambique, the relation between
women's time in agricultural work and children's diet quality varied with women's
asset poverty. Picchioni et al. (2020) found that, in India and Nepal, women and men
participate equally in productive work that requires high levels of energy, but women
shoulder most of the reproductive work at the expense of leisure opportunities. Van
den Bold et al. (2021) found that a nutrition-sensitive agricultural intervention in
Burkina Faso significantly increased the time women spent on agriculture and led to
improved maternal and child nutrition outcomes, and that women's increased time
spent on agriculture did not have deleterious effects on their own or their children's nutrition. Investments should be made to target improving women's access to and control and ownership over such resources so as to ensure that they are able to effectively benefit from these resources.

## 7.5 Target Research to Yield More Cross-Contextual Evidence for Advancing Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in Food Systems

Finally, the overall outcome of this review revealed that the current evidence on advancing women's empowerment and gender equality in food systems is locally specific and linked to contextual gender norms. Developing cross-contextual typologies can support the development of evidence that has broader application. More targeted research is required to identify patterns of successful and effective interventions and pathways to advance women's empowerment and gender equality in food systems with contextual norms. The outcome of such research would be clear typologies that link successful interventions and recommendations by gender norms.

## Annex: Key Terms and Definitionsª

<table><thead><tr><td>Term</td><td>Definition</td><td>Source</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Women's empowerment</td><td>One's ability to make and act upon strategic and meaningful choices and decisions related to one's life.</td><td>Kabeer (1999)</td></tr><tr><td>Power within</td><td>One's subjectivity, consciousness, and sense of self-worth, self-awareness, self-knowledge and aspirations</td><td>Rowlands (1998)</td></tr><tr><td>Power to</td><td>One's access to and ability to use important resources (material, human, social) to employ greater control over key aspects of one's life and realize one's own aspirations</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Power with</td><td>Collaborative and collective power with others that occurs through mutual support, collaboration, and collective action that recognizes and respects differences</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women's economic empowerment</td><td>"The process which increases women's real power over economic decisions that influence their lives and priorities in society. Women's economic empowerment can be achieved through equal access to and control over critical economic resources and opportunities, and the elimination of structural gender inequalities in the labor market including a better sharing of unpaid care work"</td><td>Törnqvist and Schmitz (2009, p. 9)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><thead><tr><td>Term</td><td>Definition</td><td>Source</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender-transformative</td><td>Approaches that “go beyond the ‘symptoms’ of gender inequality to address the social norms, attitudes, behaviors, and social systems that underlie them”</td><td>Hillenbrand et al. (2015, p. 5)</td></tr></tbody></table>

ªWe acknowledge that a fourth type of power—power over—is also addressed in the literature as one’s control over people, resources, or others’ lives (Rowlands 1998)

## References

Abate N (2018) An investigation of gender division of labour: the case of Delanta District, South Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. J Agric Ext Rural Dev 9(9):207–214

Aberman N, Ali S, Behrman J, Bryan E, Davis P, Donnelly A, Gathaara V, Kone D, Nganga T, Ngugi J, Okoba B, Roncoli C (2015) Climate change adaptation assets and group-based approaches: gendered perceptions from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Mali, and Kenya. IFPRI discussion paper 01412. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Aberman N, Birner R, Odoyo EAO, Oyunga M, Okoba B, Okello G (2020) Gender-inclusive governance of ‘self-help’ groups in rural Kenya. IFPRI discussion paper 01986. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Adegbite O, Machethe C (2020) Bridging the financial inclusion gender gap in smallholder agriculture in Nigeria: an untapped potential for sustainable development. World Dev 127 (March):104755

Aidam B, MacDonald C, Wee R, Simba J, Aubel J, Reinsma K, Girard A (2020) An innovative grandmother-inclusive approach for addressing suboptimal infant and young child feeding practices in Sierra Leone. *Current Developments in Nutrition* 4(12):nzaa174

Aker R, Yagi N, Sugino H, Thilsted SH, Ghosh S, Gurung S, Heneveld K, Shrestha R, Webb P (2020) Household engagement in both aquaculture and horticulture is associated with higher diet quality than either alone. Nutrients 12(9):2705

Alaofè H, Burney J, Naylor R, Taren D (2016a) Solar-powered drip irrigation impacts on crops production diversity and dietary diversity in Northern Benin. Food Nutr Bull 37(2):164–175

Alaofè H, Burney J, Naylor R, Taren D (2016b) The impact of a solar market garden programme on dietary diversity, women’s nutritional status and micronutrient levels in Kalalé District of Northern Benin. Public Health Nutr 22(14):2670–2681

Alaofè H, Zhu M, Burney J, Naylor R, Douglas T (2017) Association between women’s empowerment and maternal and child nutrition in Kalale District of Northern Benin. Food Nutr Bull 38(3):302–318

Alaofè H, Burney J, Naylor R, Taren D (2019) The impact of a solar market garden programme on dietary diversity, women’s nutritional status and micronutrient levels in Kalalé district of northern Benin. Public Health Nutr 22(14):2670–2681

Anato A, Baye K, Tafese Z, Stoecker BJ (2020) Maternal depression is associated with child undernutrition: a cross-sectional study in Ethiopia. Matern Child Nutr 16(3):e12934

Aryal JP, Rahut DB, Motaleb KA, Ali A (2019) Gender and household energy choice using exogenous switching treatment regression: evidence from Bhutan. Environ Dev 30(June):61–75

Ayantunde AA, Oluwatosin BO, Yameogo V, van Wijk M (2020) Perceived benefits, constraints and determinants of sustainable intensification of mixed crop and livestock systems in the Sahelian Zone of Burkina Faso. Int J Agric Sustain 18(1):84–98

Bellows AL, Canavan CR, Blakstad MM, Mosha D, Noor RA, Webb P, Kinabo J, Masanja H, Fawzi WW (2020) The relationship between dietary diversity among women of reproductive age and agricultural diversity in rural Tanzania. Food Nutr Bull 41(1):50–60
Beuchelt TD, Badstue L (2013) Gender, nutrition- and climate-smart food production: opportunities and trade-offs. Food Secur 5(5):709–721

Bryan E, Garner E (2020) What does empowerment mean to women in northern Ghana? Insights from research around a small-scale irrigation intervention, IFPRI discussion paper 01909. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Bryan E, Ringler C, Okoba B, Roncoli C, Silvestri S, Herrero M (2013) Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: household strategies and determinants. J Environ Manag 114(January):26–35

Bryan E, Bernier Q, Espinal M, Ringler C (2018) Making climate change adaptation programmes in sub-Saharan Africa more gender responsive: insights from implementing organizations on the barriers and opportunities. Clim Dev 10(5):417–431

Buller AM, Peterman A, Ranganathan M, Bleile A, Hidrobo M, Heise L (2018) A mixed-method review of cash transfers and intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries. World Bank Res Obs 33(2):218–258

Campbell B, Thornton P, Zougmoré R, van Asten P, Lipper L (2014) Sustainable intensification: what is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8(October):39–43

Cetrone H, Santoso M, Petito L, Bezner-Kerr R, Blacker L, Kassim N, Mtinda E, Martin H, Young S (2020) A participatory agroecological intervention reduces women's risk of probable depression through improvements in food security in Singida, Tanzania. Curr Dev Nutr 4(Supplement 2):819–819

Chaturvedi S, Ramji S, Arora NK, Rewal S, Dasgupta R, Deshmukh V (2016) Time-constrained mother and expanding market: emerging model of under-nutrition in India. BMC Public Health 16(July):632

Choudhury S, Headey DD, Masters WA (2019) First foods: Diet quality among infants aged 6–23 months in 42 countries. Food Policy 88:101762.

Choudhury S, Shankar B, Aleksandrowicz L, Tak M, Green R, Harris F, Scheelbeek P, Dangour A (2020) What underlies inadequate and unequal fruit and vegetable consumption in India? An exploratory analysis. Glob Food Sec 24(March):100332

Coates J, Patenaude BN, Rogers BL, Roba AC, Woldetensay YK, Tilahun AF, Spielman KL (2018) Intra-household nutrient inequity in rural Ethiopia. Food Policy 81(December):82–94

Codjoe S, Atidoh L, Burkett V (2012) Gender and occupational perspectives on adaptation to climate extremes in the Afram Plains of Ghana. Clim Chang 110(1):431–454

Cramer L, Förch W, Mutie I, Thornton PK (2016) Connecting women, connecting men: how communities and organizations interact to strengthen adaptive capacity and food security in the face of climate change. Gend Technol Dev 20(2):169–199

Dawood TC, Pratama H, Masbar R, Effendi R (2019) Does financial inclusion alleviate household poverty? Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Econ Soc 12(2):235–252

De Brauw A, van den Berg M, Brouwer I, Snoek H, Vignola R, Melesse M, Lochetti G, van Wagenberg C, Lundy M, d'Hotel E, Ruben R (2019) Food system innovations for healthier diets in low and middle-income countries, IFPRI discussion paper 01816. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

De Pinto A, Seymour G, Bryan E, Bhandari P (2020) Women's empowerment and farmland allocations in Bangladesh: evidence of a possible pathway to crop diversification. Clim Chang 163(2):1025–1043

Diiro GM, Seymour G, Kassie M, Muricho G, Muriithi BW (2018) Women's empowerment in agriculture and agricultural productivity: evidence from rural maize farmer households in Western Kenya. PLoS One 13(5):e0197995

Diouf NS, Ouédraogo I, Zougmoré RB, Ouedraogo M, Partey ST, Gumucio T (2019) Factors influencing gendered access to climate information services for farming in Senegal. Gend Technol Dev 23(2):93–110

Doss C (2013) Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries. World Bank Res Obs 28(1):52–78
Doss C (2018) Women and agricultural productivity: reframing the issues. Dev Policy Rev 36(1): 35-50

Doss C, Kovarik C, Peterman A, Quisumbing A, van den Bold M (2015) Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: myth and reality. Agric Econ 46(3):403-434

Duffy C, Toth G, Cullinan J, Murray U, Spillane C (2020) Climate smart agriculture extension: gender disparities in agroforestry knowledge acquisition. Clim Dev 13(January):1-13

Eissler S, Sanou A, Heckert J, Myers EC, Nignan S, Thio E, Pitropia LA, Ganaba R, Pedehombga A, Gelli A (2020a) Gender dynamics, women's empowerment, and diets: qualitative findings from an impact evaluation of a nutrition-sensitive poultry value chain intervention in Burkina Faso, IFPRI discussion paper 01913. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Eissler S, Sanou A, Heckert J, Myers EC, Nignan S, Thio E, Pitropia LA, Ganaba R, Pedehombga A, Gelli A (2020b) Gendered participation in poultry value chains: qualitative findings from an impact evaluation of a nutrition-sensitive poultry value chain intervention in Burkina Faso, IFPRI discussion paper 01928. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Eissler S, Diatta A, Heckert J, Nordhen C (2021a) A qualitative assessment of a gender-sensitive agricultural training program in Benin: findings on program experience and women's empowerment across key agricultural value chains, IFPRI discussion paper 02005. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Eissler S, Heckert J, Myers E, Seymour G, Sinharoy S, Yount KM (2021b) Exploring gendered experiences of time-use agency in Benin, Malawi, and Nigeria as a new concept to measure women's empowerment, IFPRI discussion paper 02003. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Fanzo J, Davis C, McLaren R, Choufani J (2018) The effect of climate change across food systems: implications for nutrition outcomes. Glob Food Sec 18(September):12-19

Farnworth CR, Baudron F, Andersson JA, Misiko M, Badstue L, Stirling CM (2016) Gender and conservation agriculture in east and southern Africa: towards a research agenda. Int J Agric Sustain 14(2):142-165

Fisher M, Carr E (2015) The influence of gendered roles and responsibilities on the adoption of technologies that mitigate drought risk: the case of drought-tolerant maize seed in Eastern Uganda. Glob Environ Chang 35(November):82-92

Gathala MK, Laing AM, Tiwari TP, Timsina J, Rola-Rubzen F, Islam S, Maharjan S et al (2021) Improving smallholder farmers' gross margins and labor-use efficiency across a range of cropping Systems in the Eastern Gangetic Plains. World Dev 138(February):105266

Gebre GG, Isoda H, Rahut DB, Amekawa Y, Nomura H (2019) Gender differences in agricultural productivity: evidence from maize farm households in southern Ethiopia. GeoJournal 86 (November):843-864

Gelli A, Becquey E, Ganaba R, Headey D, Hidrobo M, Huybregts L, Verhoef H, Kenfack R, Zongouri S, Guedenet H (2017) Improving diets and nutrition through an integrated poultry value chain and nutrition intervention (SELEVER) in Burkina Faso: study protocol for a randomized trial. Trials 18(1):412

Gender at Work (n.d.) Gender at work framework. https://genderatwork.org/analytical-framework/

Ghosh A, Chopra D (2019) Paid work, unpaid care work and women's empowerment in Nepal. Contemp South Asia 27(4):471-485

Ghosh S, Vinod D (2017) What constrains financial inclusion for women? Evidence from Indian micro data. World Dev 92(April):60-81

Gilligan D, Kumar N, McNiven S, Meenakshi J, Quisumbing A (2020) Bargaining power, decision making, and biofortification: the role of gender in adoption of orange sweet potato in Uganda. Food Policy 95(June):101909

Grabe S (2010) Promoting gender equality: the role of ideology, power, and control in the link between land ownership and violence in Nicaragua. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy 10(1): 146-170
Grabe S, Grose R, Dutt A (2014) Women's land ownership and relationship power: a mixed methods approach to understanding structural inequities and violence against women. *Psychol Women Q* 39(1):7–19

Grabowski PP, Djenontin I, Zulu L, Kamoto J, Kampanje-Phiri J, Darkwah A, Egyir I, Fischer G (2020) Gender- and youth-sensitive data collection tools to support decision making for inclusive sustainable agricultural intensification. *Int J Agric Sustain*. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1817656

Gupta S, Pingali PL, Pinstrup-Andersen P (2017) Women's empowerment in Indian agriculture: does market orientation of farming systems matter? *Food Secur* 9(6):1447–1463

Gutierrez-Montes I, Arguedas M, Ramirez-Aguero F, Mercado L, Sellare J (2020) Contributing to the construction of a framework for improved gender integration into climate-smart agriculture projects monitoring and evaluation: MAP-Norway experience. *Clim Chang* 158(1):93–106

Halbrendt J, Kimura AH, Gray SA, Radovich T, Reed B, Tamang BB (2014) Implications of conservation agriculture for men's and women's workloads among marginalized farmers in the Central Middle Hills of Nepal. *Mt Res Dev* 34(3):214–222

Harris J, Tan W, Mitchell B, Zayed D (2021) Equity in agriculture-nutrition-health research: a scoping review. *Nutr Rev*. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuab001

Heckert J, Olney DK, Ruel MT (2019) Is Women's empowerment a pathway to improving child nutrition outcomes in a nutrition-sensitive agriculture program? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Burkina Faso. *Soc Sci Med* 233(July):93–102

Hillenbrand E, Karim N, Mohanraj P, Wu D (2015) Measuring gender-transformative change: a review of literature and promising practices, Working paper. CARE USA, Washington, DC

Hoddinott J, Headey D, Dereje M (2015) Cows, missing milk markets, and nutrition in rural Ethiopia. *J Dev Stud* 51(8):958–975

Huyer S, Partey S (2020) Weathering the storm or storming the norms? Moving gender equality forward in climate-resilient agriculture. *Clim Chang* 158(1):1–12

Johnson N, Kovarik C, Meinzen-Dick R, Njuki J, Quisumbing A (2016) Gender, assets, and agricultural development: lessons from eight projects. *World Dev* 83(July):295–311

Johnson N, Balagamwala M, Pinkstaff C, Theis S, Meinzen-Dick R, Quisumbing A (2018) How do agricultural development projects empower women? Linking strategies with expected outcomes. *J Gend Agric Food Secur* 3(2):1–19

Jost C, Kyazze F, Naab J, Neelormi S, Kinyangi J, Zougmoré R, Aggarwal P, Bhatta G, Chaudhury M, Tapio-Bistrom M, Nelson S, Kristjanson P (2016) Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. *Clim Dev* 8(2):133–144

Kabeer N (1999) Resources, agency, achievements: reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. *Dev Chang* 30(3):435–464

Kabeer N (2017) Economic pathways to Women's empowerment and active citizenship: what does the evidence from Bangladesh tell us? *J Dev Stud* 53(5):649–663

Kabir MS, Marković MR, Radulović D (2019) The determinants of income of rural women in Bangladesh. *Sustainability* 11(20):5842

Kantor P, Kruijssen F (2014) Informal fish retailing in rural Egypt: opportunities to enhance income and work conditions for women and men. *WorldFish, Penang*

Karmacharya C, Cunningham K, Choufani J, Kadiyala S (2017) Grandmothers’ knowledge positively influences maternal knowledge and infant and Young child feeding practices. *Public Health Nutr* 20(12):2114–2123

Kassie M, Fisher M, Muricho G, Diiro G (2020) Women's empowerment boosts the gains in dietary diversity from agricultural technology adoption in rural Kenya. *Food Policy* 95(August):101957

Kawarazuka N, Locke C, McDougall C, Kantor P, Morgan M (2017) Bringing analysis of gender and social-ecological resilience together in small-scale fisheries research: challenges and opportunities. *Ambio* 46(2):201–213
Khoza S, Van Niekerk D, Nemakonde LD (2019) Understanding gender dimensions of climate-smart agriculture adoption in disaster-prone smallholder farming communities in Malawi and Zambia. Disaster Preven Manag Int J 28(5):530-547

Kimambo J, Kavoi MM, Macharia J, Nenguwo N (2018) Assessment of factors influencing farmers' nutrition knowledge and intake of traditional African vegetables in Tanzania. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 18(2):13353-13371

Kiptot E, Franzel S (2012) Gender and agroforestry in Africa: a review of women's participation. Agrofor Syst 84(1):35-58

Komatsu H, Malapit HJL, Theis S (2018) Does women's time in domestic work and agriculture affect women's and children's dietary diversity? Evidence from Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, Ghana, and Mozambique. Food Policy 79(August):256-270

Kosec K, Mo CH, Schmidt E, Song J (2021) Perceptions of relative deprivation and women's empowerment. World Dev 138(February):105218

Kristjanson P, Bryan E, Bernier Q, Twyman J, Meinzen-Dick R, Kieran C, Ringler C, Jost C, Doss C (2017) Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: where are we and where should we be going? Int J Agric Sustain 15(5):482-500

Kruijssen F, Rajaratnam S, Choudhury A, McDougall C, Dalsgaard JPT (2016) Gender in the farmed fish value chain of Bangladesh: a review of the evidence and development approaches, Program brief: 2016-38. WorldFish, Penang

Kruijssen F, McDougall C, van Asseldonk I (2018) Gender and aquaculture value chains: a review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture 493(1):328-337

Kumar N, Raghunathan K, Arrieta A, Jilani A, Chakrabarti S, Menon P, Quisumbing AR (2019) Social networks, mobility, and political participation: the potential for women's self-help groups to improve access and use of public entitlement schemes in India. World Dev 114(February):28-41

Lambrecht I, Mahrt K (2019) Gender and assets in rural Myanmar: a cautionary tale for the analyst, IFPRI discussion paper 01894. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Lees S, Kyegombe N, Diatta A, Zogrone A, Roy S, Hidrobo M (2021) Intimate partner relationships and gender norms in Mali: the scope of cash transfers targeted to men to reduce intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women 27(3-4):447-469

Leight J (2021) Like father, like son, like mother, like daughter: intergenerational transmission of intrahousehold gender attitudes in Ethiopia. World Dev 142(June):105359

Lentz E, Narayanan S, De A (2019) Last and least: findings on intrahousehold undernutrition from participatory research in South Asia. Soc Sci Med 232(July):316-323

Liverpool-Tasie L, Wineman A, Young S, Tambo J, Vargas C, Reardon T, Adjognon G, Porciello J, Gathoni N, Bizikova L, Gaile A, Celestin A (2020) A scoping review of market links between value chain actors and small-scale producers in developing regions. Nat Sustain 3(October):799-808

MacDonald CA, Aubel J, Aidam BA, Girard AW (2020) Grandmothers as change agents: developing a culturally appropriate program to improve maternal and child nutrition in Sierra Leone. Curr Dev Nutr 4(1):nzz141

Madzorera I, Fawzi W (2020) Women empowerment is central to addressing the double burden of malnutrition. Clin Med 20(February):100286

Mahajan K (2017) Rainfall shocks and the gender wage gap: evidence from Indian agriculture. World Dev 91(March):156-172

Malapit HJL, Quisumbing AR (2015) What dimensions of women's empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana? Food Policy 52(April):54-63

Malapit HJL, Sraboni E, Quisumbing AR, Ahmed AU (2019) Intrahousehold empowerment gaps in agriculture and children's well-being in Bangladesh. Dev Policy Rev 37(2):176-203

Marimo P, Caron C, Van den Bergh I, Crichton R, Weltzien E, Ortiz R, Tumuhimbise R (2020) Gender and trait preferences for banana cultivation and use in Sub-Saharan Africa: a literature review. Econ Bot 74(2):226-241
Meinzen-Dick R, Bernier Q, Haglund E (2013) The six ‘ins’ of climate-smart agriculture: inclusive institutions for information, innovation, investment, and insurance, CAPRI working paper 114. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Meinzen-Dick R, Quisumbing A, Doss C, Theis S (2019a) Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: framework and review of evidence. Agric Syst 172(June):72–82

Meinzen-Dick R, Rubin D, Elias M, Mulema AA, Myers E (2019b) Women's empowerment in agriculture: lessons from qualitative research, IFPRI discussion paper 1797. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Mishra K, Sam AG (2016) Does Women’s land ownership promote their empowerment? Empirical evidence from Nepal. World Dev 78(February):360–371

Montt G, Luu T (2020) Does conservation agriculture change labour requirements? Evidence of sustainable intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa. J Agric Econ 71(2):556–580

Moore N, Lane C, Storhaug I, Franich A, Rolker H, Furgeson J, Sparling T, Snilstveit B (2021) The effects of food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in low- and middle-income countries, 3ie evidence gap map report 16. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, New Delhi

Moosa CS, Tuana N (2014) Mapping a research agenda concerning gender and climate change: a review of the literature. Hypatia 29(3):677–694

Mudege NN, Mdege N, Abidin PE, Bhatasara S (2017) The role of gender norms in access to agricultural training in Chikwawa and Phalombe, Malawi. Gender Place Cult 24(12):1689–1710

Mulema A, Damtew E (2016) Gender-based constraints and opportunities to agricultural intensification in Ethiopia: a systematic review, ILRI project report. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi

Mulmi P, Block SA, Shively GE, Masters WA (2016) Climatic conditions and child height: sex-specific vulnerability and the protective effects of sanitation and food Markets in Nepal. Econ Hum Biol 23(December):63–75

Mwaseba DJB, Kaarhus R (2015) How do intra-household gender relations affect child nutrition? Findings from two rural districts in Tanzania. Forum Dev Stud 42(2):289–309

Mwongera C, Shikuku KM, Twyman J, Winowiecki LA, Ampaire EL, Koningstein M, Twomlow S (2014) Rapid rural appraisal report of northern Uganda. International Center for Tropical Agriculture/CGIAR research program on climate change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Cali-Palmira/Wageningen

Na M, Jennings L, Talegawkar SA, Ahmed S (2015) Association between women’s empowerment and infant and child feeding practices in sub-Saharan Africa: an analysis of demographic and health surveys. Public Health Nutr 18(17):3155–3165

Naab JB, Koranteng H (2012) Using a gender lens to explore farmers’ adaptation options in the face of climate change: results of a pilot study in Ghana. Working paper 17. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Wageningen

Nahusenay A (2017) An investigation of gender division of labour: the case of Delanta district, South Wollo zone, Ethiopia. J Agric Ext Rural Dev 9(9):207–214

Ndiritu S, Kassie M, Shiferaw B (2014) Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya. Food Policy 49(1): 117–127

Niewoehner-Green J, Stedman N, Galindo S, Russo S, Carter H, Colverson K (2019) The influence of gender on rural Honduran Women’s participation and leadership in community groups. J Int Agric Ext Edu 26(2):48–63

Njuki J, Waithanji E, Sakwa B, Kariuki J, Mukewa E, Ngige J (2014) Can market-based approaches to technology development and dissemination benefit women smallholder farmers? A qualitative assessment of gender dynamics in the ownership, purchase, and use of irrigation pumps in Kenya and Tanzania, IFPRI discussion paper 01357. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Østergaard Nielsen J, Reenberg A (2010) Cultural barriers to climate change adaptation: a case study from northern Burkina Faso. Glob Environ Chang 20(1):142–152
Ouédraogo M, Houessionon P, Zougméoré RB, Tetteh Partey S (2019) Uptake of climate-smart agricultural technologies and practices: actual and potential adoption rates in the climate-smart village site of Mali. Sustainability 11(17):4710

Parks MH, Christie ME, Bagares I (2015) Gender and conservation agriculture: constraints and opportunities in the Philippines. GeoJournal 80(1):61–77

Perez C, Jones EM, Kristjanson P, Cramer L, Thornton PK, Förch W, Barahona C (2015) How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Glob Environ Chang 34(September):95–107

Peterman A, Quisumbing A, Behrman J, Nkonya E (2011) Understanding the complexities surrounding gender differences in agricultural productivity in Nigeria and Uganda. J Dev Stud 47(10):1482–1509

Peterman A, Behrman JA, Quisumbing AR (2014) A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. In: Quisumbing AR, Meinzen-Dick R, Raney TL, Croppenstedt A, Behrman JA, Peterman A (eds) Gender in agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 145–186

Picchioni F, Zanello G, Srinivasan CS, Wyatt AJ, Webb P (2020) Gender, time-use, and energy expenditures in rural communities in India and Nepal. World Dev 136(December):105137

Pradhan R, Meinzen-Dick R, Theis S (2019) Property rights, intersectionality, and women's empowerment in Nepal. J Rural Stud 70(August):26–35

Quisumbing A, Kumar N, Behrman J (2018) Do shocks affect men's and women's assets differently? Evidence from Bangladesh and Uganda. Dev Policy Rev 36(1):3–34

Quisumbing AR, Sproule K, Martinez EM, Malapit H (2021) Do tradeoffs among dimensions of women's empowerment and nutrition outcomes exist? Evidence from six countries in Africa and Asia. Food Policy 100(April):102001

Ragasa C, Berhane G, Tadesse F, Taffesse AS (2013) Gender differences in access to extension services and agricultural productivity. J Agric Educ Ext 19(5):437–468

Ragasa C, Aberman N, Alvarez Mingote C (2019) Does providing agricultural and nutrition information to both men and women improve household food security? Evidence from Malawi. Glob Food Sec 20(March):45–59

Ragasa C, Malapit H, Rubin D, Myers E, Pereira A, Martinez E, Heckert J, Seymour G, Mzungu D, Kalagho K, Kazembe C, Thunde J, Mswelo G (2021) ‘It takes two’: women’s empowerment in agricultural value chains in Malawi. IFPRI discussion paper 02006. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Raghunathan K, Kannan S, Quisumbing AR (2019) Can women's self-help groups improve access to information, decision-making, and agricultural practices? The Indian case. Agric Econ 50(5): 567–580

Raghunathan K, Headey D, Herforth A (2021) Affordability of nutritious diets in rural India. Food Policy 99(February):101982

Ragsdale K, Read-Wahidi MR, Wei T, Martey E, Goldsmith P (2018) Using the WEAI+ to explore gender equity and agricultural empowerment: baseline evidence among men and women smallholder farmers in Ghana's northern region. J Rural Stud 64(November):123–134

Rakib M, Matz J (2014) The impact of shocks on gender-differentiated asset dynamics in Bangladesh. J Dev Stud 52(3):377–395

Rakotomanana H, Hildebrand D, Gates GE, Thomas DG, Fawbush F, Stoecker BJ (2020) Maternal knowledge, attitudes, and practices of complementary feeding and child undernutrition in the Vakinankaratra Region of Madagascar: a mixed-methods study. Curr Dev Nutr 4(11):nzaa162

Rao N, Gazdar H, Chanchani D, Ibrahim M (2019) Women's agricultural work and nutrition in South Asia: from pathways to a cross-disciplinary, grounded analytical framework. Food Policy 82(January):50–62

Reinbott A, Jordan I (2016) Determinants of child malnutrition and infant and Young child feeding approaches in Cambodia. World Rev Nutr Diet 115:61–67
Reinbott A, Schelling A, Kuchenbecker J, Jeremias T, Russell I, Kevanna O, Krawinkel MB, Jordan I (2016) Nutrition education linked to agricultural interventions improved child dietary diversity in rural Cambodia. Br J Nutr 116(8):1457-1468

Rockström J, Williams J, Daily G, Noble A, Matthews N, Gordon L, Wetterstrand H, DeClerck F, Shah M, Steduto P, de Fraiture C, Hatibu N, Unver O, Bird J, Sibanda L, Smith J (2017) Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 6(1):4-17

Rowlands J (1998) Questioning empowerment: working with women in Honduras. Oxfam, Oxford

Ruel M, Quisumbing A, Balagamwala M (2018) Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: what have we learned so far? Glob Food Sec 17(June):128-153

Shroff MR, Griffiths PL, Suchindran C, Nagalla B, Vazir S, Bentley ME (2011) Does maternal autonomy influence feeding practices and infant growth in rural India? Soc Sci Med 73(3): 447-455

Sibhatu KT, Krishna VV, Qaim M (2015) Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm households. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(34):10657-10662

Sraboni E, Quisumbing A (2018) Women's empowerment in agriculture and dietary quality across the life course: evidence from Bangladesh. Food Policy 81(December):21-36

Tall A, Kristjanson PM, Chaudhury M, McKune S, Zougmoré RB (2014) Who gets the information? Gender, power and equity considerations in the design of climate services for farmers, CCAFS working paper 89. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Copenhagen

Tambo JA, Abdoulaye T (2012) Climate change and agricultural technology adoption: the case of drought tolerant maize in rural Nigeria. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 17(3):277-292

Teeken B, Olaosebikan O, Haleegooah J, Oladejo E, Madu T, Bello A, Parkes E, Egesi C, Kulakow P, Kirscht H, Tufan HA (2018) Cassava trait preferences of men and women farmers in Nigeria: implications for breeding. Econ Bot 72(3):263-277

Theis S, Bryan E, Ringler C (2019) Addressing gender and social dynamics to strengthen resilience for all. In: Quisumbing AR, Meinzen-Dick RS, Njuki J (eds) 2019 annual trends and outlook report: gender equality in rural Africa: from commitments to outcomes. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 126-139

Theriault V, Smale M, Haider H (2017) How does gender affect sustainable intensification of cereal production in the west African Sahel? Evidence from Burkina Faso. World Dev 92(April):177-191

Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(50):20260-20264

Törnqvist A, Schmitz C (2009) Women's economic empowerment: Scope for Sida's engagement. Sida

Tufan HA, Grando S, Meola C (eds) (2018) State of the knowledge for gender in breeding: case studies for practitioners, Working paper 3. CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative, Lima

Twyman J, Green M, Bernier Q, Kristjanson P, Russo S, Tall A, Ampaire E, Nyasimi M, Mango J, McKune S, Mwongera C, Ndourba Y (2014) Adaptation actions in Africa: evidence that gender matters, Working paper 83. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Copenhagen

Uduji JI, Okolo-Obasi EN, Asongu SA (2019) Corporate social responsibility and the role of rural women in sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from the Niger Delta in Nigeria. Sustain Dev 27(4):692-703

Van den Bold M, Bliznashka L, Ramani G, Olney D, Quisumbing A, Pedehombga A, Ouedraogo M (2021) Nutrition-sensitive agriculture programme impacts on time use and associations with nutrition outcomes. Matern Child Nutr 17(2):e13104

Vibert E (2016) Gender, resilience and resistance: South Africa's Hleketani community garden. J Contemp Afr Stud 34(2):252-267
Wemakor A, Iddrisu H (2018) Maternal depression does not affect complementary feeding indicators or stunting status of Young children (6–23 months) in northern Ghana. BMC Res Notes 11(1):408

Wemakor A, Mensah KA (2016) Association between maternal depression and child stunting in northern Ghana: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 16(1):869

Wiig H (2013) Joint titling in rural Peru: impact on Women's participation in household decision-making. World Dev 52(December):104–119

Wolf K, Frese M (2018) Why husbands matter: review of spousal influence on women entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr J Manag 4(January):1–32

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

Xinshen Diao, Thomas Reardon, Adam Kennedy, Ruth S. DeFries, Jawoo Koo, Bart Minten, Hiroyuki Takeshima, and Philip Thornton

## 1 Introduction

By 2050, the United Nations projects that 68% of the world population will live in cities (UN DESA 2019). However, with continuous population growth, the number of people living in rural areas of many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) will continue to rise. Two-thirds of the extreme poor live in rural areas (World Bank 2016), and the livelihoods of two to three billion rural people, often the most food insecure and vulnerable, still depend primarily on small farms (Laborde Debucquet et al. 2020; Woodhill et al. 2020).

There are various estimates of the number of small farms in the world, but they all suggest that these farms are numerous. Lowder et al. (2016) used agricultural census data from 167 countries to estimate that, of the total 570 million<fnref n="1" /> farms in the world, 475 million have less than 2 hectares (ha), dominating agriculture in most LMICs, where farm sizes continue to fall. Africa south of the Sahara has the highest rural population growth rate globally, and thus the number of small farms is expected to increase more than in other regions. Africa's share of total world rural poverty is also

X. Diao (✉) · A. Kennedy · J. Koo · B. Minten · H. Takeshima
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA
e-mail: X.DIAO@CGIAR.ORG

T. Reardon
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

R. S. DeFries
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

P. Thornton
International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

<footnote n="1">¹Hickson and Thornton (2020) updated the total to 590 million farms, which probably increases the total of small farms above the Lowder et al. (2016) estimate.</footnote>
expected to rise from 39.6% in 2015 to 58.1% in 2050 (Thurlow et al. 2019). Transforming Africa's agriculture sector is thus a priority embodied in the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods (AU 2014). However, to meet the Malabo goals and achieve multiple SDGs in all LMICs by 2030, creating an enabling environment where small farms are included in and benefit from rapid growth and transformation of agrifood systems is urgent (Barrett et al. 2020a).

Small farms not only contribute to feeding the households that operate them, but also make two broader contributions. First, small farms are important to the overall food security of LMICs. Samberg et al. (2016) noted that farms less than 5 ha are responsible for 53% of the global production of food calories for human consumption. Herrero et al. (2017) reported that, in Africa and South and Southeast Asia, small farms with less than 2 ha produce around 30% of food and make valuable contributions to micronutrient-rich food production. Ricciardi et al. (2018) estimated that farms under 2 ha globally produce 30-34% of the food supply. Nonetheless, small farm households themselves are often unable to afford a nutritious diet.

Second, small farms contribute to the sustainability of agrifood systems by maintaining the genetic diversity of crops and livestock and supporting ecosystem services. Small farms have more crop diversity and harbor greater non-crop biodiversity at the farm and landscape scales than do larger farms (Ricciardi et al. 2021). Subsistence-oriented small farmers plant a greater diversity of traditional crops and maintain genetic resources by cultivating land races (Fifanou et al. 2011; McCord et al. 2015). Small fields have more edges than larger fields, creating a heterogeneous landscape and providing habitat for non-crop species (Quin and Burel 2002). To the extent that small farms have more tree cover than larger farms, they provide above- and below-ground carbon storage, with global benefits for climate mitigation (Ritchie and Roser 2017). Trees on farms can also improve water infiltration, a hydrological service that benefits other water users in the landscape and downstream (Anache et al. 2019).

For small farms to be part of inclusive and sustainable agrifood system transformation, both innovative technology and market institutions are required to support LMICs' diverse agroecological and socioeconomic contexts. Many debates on the future of small farms focus only on farm production, rather than the whole context of farm household livelihoods, which include off-farm activities, or the agrifood system on which farms depend for buying inputs and selling outputs (Reardon et al. 2019; Giller et al. 2020). The future of small farms should instead be assessed using a holistic livelihoods and agrifood system lens.

## 2 Who Will be Small Farmers in the Future?

More than 410 million farms are very small, with less than 1 ha of land, and another 70 million are between 1 and 2 ha (Lowder et al. 2016). However, discussions of farm size often ignore land quality considerations (Eastwood et al. 2010). For
example, a 5 ha farm in a rainfed zone with poor quality soil may support less production than a 1 ha farm in an irrigated zone with good soil. Thus, mere farm size ranges tell us nothing about differences in agroecological land quality, or about the socioeconomic contexts in which they operate, such as market and infrastructural conditions (FAO 2014; Graeub et al. 2016). While the product mix of small farms varies depending on this context, many are diversifying that mix, driven by urbanization, consumers' dietary preferences, technology, infrastructure development, and rural-urban links. Moreover, households that operate small farms tend to have diversified income sources, including non-farm activities, and that diversification is expected to increase over time, although at different rates among different sets of small farmers (Davis et al. 2017).

Despite the strong heterogeneity across small farms, they can be categorized in ways that make our analysis more tractable. Following Vorley (2002) and Hazell (2018), and based primarily on Hazell (2020), we classify small farmers in LMICs into three groups.

**Commercial small farmers** run their farms as businesses. While commercial agriculture is an important source of income for them, many also undertake rural non-farm employment (RNFE). Most commercial small farmers do not specialize in high-value crops or livestock, as many also produce food crops. Their product and activity mix are conditioned by agroecological circumstances, urban market proximity, rural infrastructure, and the agro-processors, logistics, exporters, and wholesale enterprise investment and density in their area. Climate change and economic transformation also condition their farm businesses and will create new challenges and opportunities even over the next 10 years. Some commercial small farms will continue to focus on today's traditional export crops—for example, cocoa in Ghana, cotton in Mali, and coffee in Ethiopia—while increasing numbers will turn to products that cater to the diversifying diets of burgeoning domestic urban markets, including fruits, vegetables, fish, poultry, edible oils, milk, and feed grains such as soy. Non-cereal products are especially labor-demanding and often offer little or no economies of scale, allowing small farms to be competitive. Over time, we expect to see greater specialization in the farming of high-value products and a movement away from the combination of cash and staple crop farming, similar to what one sees among specialized vegetable farmers in the Shandong province of China (Huang et al. 2010) or specialized poultry and pig farmers near Yangon in Myanmar (Belton et al. 2020).

**Small farmers in transition** often depend heavily on RNFE while also maintaining small plots for home food consumption, plus some semi-commercialized food or non-food products. They tend to buy a substantial share of their food. These farmers are in zones where favorable non-farm opportunities exist locally or in near-by towns. With demand growing for high-value farm products in cities, some transitional farmers will commercialize their small farms while continuing their RNFE. However, others may exit agriculture or maintain just small food plots because access to food markets in their area is uncertain, or because the RNFE labor market itself is uncertain or limited (de Janvry and Sadoulet 2006). Thus, many small farmers in this group will continue to have one foot in farming and one foot in
RNFE as their major sources of income, and their number is expected to remain large over the next decade.

**Subsistence-oriented small farmers** are marginalized for a variety of reasons, many of which will be difficult to change in the next decade, such as ethnic discrimination, sickness, age, or their farm's location in a remote area with limited agricultural potential. We expect the number of these small farms to fall with economic transformation, but it is unrealistic to expect most will disappear in the next decade. These farm households tend to undertake some RNFE or farm wage labor (usually the domain of the poorest farmers or the landless), but many of the same factors that constrain their farming also prevent them from undertaking remunerative RNFE to become transition farmers. These subsistence-oriented farmers are typically net buyers of staple foods. While market and technology development will help them improve farm productivity, the above constraints limit even this. They need social protection policies and other public support beyond what the agrifood system and rural labor market can provide.

RNFE is an important income source for rural small farm households and, on average, occupies more of their working time than farming in many African and Asian LMICs (Dolislager et al. 2020). For commercialized and transition small farmers, who are often in places with favorable agroclimates and adequate infrastructure, RNFE helps fund farming by providing cash or collateral for credit to buy inputs and diversifying income risk from agriculture. This can incentivize experimentation with new production technologies and riskier products like vegetables, poultry, and fish that have higher values. Increases in local RNFE activities often lead to rising rural wages (Lanjouw and Murgai 2009), which can induce the adoption of mechanization (Wang et al. 2016). However, in less favorable agroclimatic zones or hinterland areas, where most subsistence-oriented small farmers are located, RNFE is used mainly to fund food purchases and competes with, but also compensates for, unprofitable farming (Davis et al. 2009).

## 3 Innovations for the Future of Small Farms

The future of small farms will depend on technological and institutional innovations that are now appearing in some developed and developing country contexts or have yet to be developed (Herrero et al. 2020, 2021). Technological innovations have the potential to benefit small farms in LMICs, but ensuring their appropriateness remains a challenge. High transaction costs, lack of collective action, and failures in production and marketing coordination all introduce risks for small farms and are commonly seen as barriers to adopting modern technologies and participating in value chains. Many subsistence farmers may be too remote from markets or lack the capacity to benefit from new technologies. Transition farmers can be disincentivized from adopting new technologies if they are labor-intensive and compete with their non-farm employment. Even for commercial small farmers, the adoption of new technologies requires enabling conditions from output and input supply chains.
Small farmers’ adoption of new technologies and the cultivation of higher-value products thus requires that they have the proper profit incentives and market access, which are, in large part, a function of the broad market institutional context. Effective market institutions require improved infrastructure that facilitates input supply chains upstream from the farm and connects small farmers to cities downstream from their farms.

**Downstream from the farm**, output market conditions affect small farmers' prices, risk, and transaction costs. Critical factors include urban market size and proximity; the density and quality of roads between farmers and markets; and the midstream (wholesalers, logistics firms, and processors) and downstream (retailers) accessibility to and conduct toward small farmers. Developments in these enabling conditions in LMICs are themselves local innovations, which often rapidly improve market access for small farmers, as in the examples from Ethiopia, Nigeria, and India discussed below. Changes in these conditions will continue to be the main factor affecting small farmers' technology adoption, income growth, and inclusion in agrifood system transformation in the next decade. Some emerging technologies, such as e-commerce linked to digitalization, are also promising innovative market institutions that will impact the relationship between small farmers and markets in the next few decades.

The urban market now makes up the largest share of national food consumption in LMICs (Reardon et al. 2019, 2021a, b). Proximity to urban markets in primary and secondary cities and small towns asserts a strong influence on market conditions and the technology and product choices of small farmers (Vandercasteelen et al. 2018). Highways and rural roads connecting farmers to urban markets likewise are critical to small farmers’ access to these booming urban markets, suggesting the importance of public investment in rural infrastructure (Stifel et al. 2016).

The combination of growing urban markets, expanding road connections, and the development of wholesale markets provides favorable conditions for the spontaneous formation of clusters of wholesalers, cold storages, processors, and logistics enterprises that provide crucial services enabling small farmers to access urban markets. The emergence of clusters of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) offering potato cold storages in Bihar, India, is a good example; these have allowed small farmers to store their produce and wait for much higher prices in the off-season (Minten et al. 2014). In Ethiopia, the spontaneous development of a teff value chain connecting rural areas to Addis Ababa has been facilitated by the growth of midstream private SMEs utilizing public infrastructure and improvements in wholesale markets. Midstream market development also spurred the adoption of new technology and a new teff variety by small farmers (Minten et al. 2016). Many thousands of small chicken farmers in Nigeria, mostly women, benefited from the rapid growth of long north-south maize supply chains, operated by thousands of SME wholesalers and feed millers, to market their chicken and eggs in towns and secondary cities (Liverpool-Tasie et al. 2017). Spontaneous clusters of traders and input suppliers are also seen in aquaculture districts of Bangladesh and are a key determinant of small farmer technology adoption (Hu et al. 2019).
The relations of supply chain firms with small farmers are a critical determinant of small farmers’ participation in markets for high-value agricultural products. These firms not only buy from small farms, but also often provide resources and services that small farmers need to participate in the market, from inputs and credit allowing them to adopt new technologies that meet market requirements to services such as aggregating, sorting, and packing. This facilitation is offered through formal contract-farming arrangements with large processors and retailers (Swinnen and Kuijpers 2019), as well as through informal relationships with SME wholesalers and processors that reduce the price risk for small farms (Liverpool-Tasie et al. 2020). Relative to the “traditional” arrangement of spot markets, this facilitation can be broadly seen as a market institution innovation, especially in the poorer LMICs. We expect these relationships to expand over the next decade as the double-pronged food system revolution continues its rapid course, with both the proliferation of SMEs and of modern large-scale firms underpinning the growth of rural-urban supply chains (Reardon et al. 2019).

Despite still being in its infancy in LMICs, e-commerce (marketing online) and e-procurement (buying intermediate inputs online) are emerging rapidly. The diffusion of Internet access, mobile phones, and computers helps the spread of “delivery intermediaries,” whose expansion has been particularly rapid during the COVID-19 pandemic as consumers tried to avoid in-person shopping (Reardon and Swinnen 2020). COVID-19 accelerated e-commerce growth, for example, from 30% to 70% per year in India, 10% to 20% in China, and 20% to 50% in Nigeria (Vardhan 2020). The benefits of e-commerce for small farmers will depend on three conditions. First, widespread access to e-commerce will depend on mobile phone rates and Internet costs, which currently are particularly high in Africa (Torero 2019). Second, while e-commerce can make it easier for small farmers to sell to urban markets, their costs and product quality must still be competitive with medium and large farmers and importers. Small farmers linked to e-commerce may be better able to compete in more proximate niche markets. Third, e-commerce as digitalization per se only informs a buyer of a seller and a seller of a buyer; the final transaction still relies on delivery intermediaries, roads, and logistics, and the same high transaction costs that have constrained the development of non-digitized supply chains will constrain large numbers of small farmers from participating in e-commerce.

Encouragingly, there are interesting examples of e-commerce that are inclusive of small farmers with potential to spread in the future, depending on the three conditions noted above. In Indonesia, the Rumah Sayur Group, a vegetable farm co-op with 2500 farmers, sold to supermarkets, wet markets, and food-service businesses in Jakarta before the pandemic. During the pandemic, they turned to Alibaba’s Lazada to sell directly to consumers and retailers. In Malaysia, Lazada connected SME flower suppliers to online florists to gain a new customer base when COVID-19-related restrictions interrupted the traditional marketing system. In Africa, Facebook and other e-platforms have helped small farmers sell directly to consumers. Examples include Koop direk von boer (buy directly from the farmer), a Facebook group of farmers created in May 2020 that attracted 46,000 members across South Africa in just 2 weeks (Masiwa 2020).
**Upstream from the farm,** market conditions affect the input prices, risk, and transaction costs facing small farmers, just as the output market affects the profitability of adopting new farm technologies and the transition to higher-value products, as do input supply chains. Importantly, input market conditions are parallel to output market conditions, affected by many of the same policies and public investments discussed in the context of downstream factors. Again, the development of these conditions is a local innovation. Changes in these conditions can rapidly improve input market access for small farmers, spurring technology change at the farm level.

Some particularly interesting market institutions and technological innovations in agricultural service markets appear to be helping small farmers. We characterize them as the development of **mobile “outsource” services**. They include a wide range of services available to farmers on a fee basis. For an individual small farmer, the outlays of capital for machines required would not be affordable given their small scale and the large lump-sum fixed cost for machinery. In the early 1880s, such on-demand operational services emerged in the United States and European countries, where large farmers dominated. Small farmer demand for mechanization and agricultural operational services has risen in recent years in LMICs, first in Asia and Latin America and, more recently, in Africa. These services, perhaps especially as they are facilitated by communications innovations, appear to provide important support to small farming technological change. In general, mobile technology can help service supply and extension reach widely dispersed small farmers (Van Campenhout et al. 2021). For example, mobile mechanization services for land preparation, harvesting, and threshing are hired by many small farmers in South and Southeast Asia (Zhang et al. 2017; Paudel et al. 2019; Diao et al. 2020; Yagura 2020; Belton et al. 2021). They are increasingly accessible for small farmers in Africa (Berhane et al. 2016; Kahan et al. 2018; Takeshima 2018; Diao et al. 2020; Cabral 2021). Mobile phones are widely used for connecting service providers and small farmers, and new digital platforms appear to have potential to reach groups of small farmers. Examples include Hello Tractor in Nigeria, TroTro Tractor in Ghana, Rent to Own in Zambia, and EM3, Trringo, and farMart in India (Birner et al. 2021; Daum et al. 2020).

Moreover, other SME services are emerging in various agricultural operations traditionally carried out by small farmers themselves, such as for rice seeding and transplanting in southern China (Li et al. 2015; Gong et al. 2012); spraying, pruning, land preparation, harvesting, and marketing for mango farmers in Indonesia (Qanti et al. 2017); seed propagation, digging wells and ponds, spraying, and loading trucks for vegetable farmers in Ethiopia (Minten et al. 2020); and bee pollination services for vegetable and fruit growers throughout China (Altay News 2019). Many of these services have replaced labor-intensive farming activities with machines or specialized techniques, helping small farmers who lack the cash to invest in machines, the skills to use machines and other techniques, or simply the time to spend farming because of non-farm employment. These services also introduce small farmers to new technologies that they otherwise might have been unaware of had they not been provided as part of a package of services by SMEs, such as flower hormone use to extend the harvesting of mangoes in Indonesia (Qanti et al. 2017).
New institutional innovations can also benefit small farmers through contribu-
tions to **sustainable land stewardship**. Market-based institutions that incentivize
farmers to maintain ecosystem services and biodiversity have been used for over a
decade. With payments for ecosystem services (PES), the private or public sector
pays land stewards (farmers) to protect watersheds, sequester carbon through tree
planting, or conserve biodiversity (Milder et al. 2010). In the case of carbon, for
example, the institution providing payments receives offset credits in the voluntary
or regulatory carbon market. Another scheme involves certification of agricultural
commodities, such as coffee, palm oil, and cacao. Certification schemes are gener-
ally implemented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and rely on con-
sumers paying a premium for production practices that conform to sustainable
social and environmental goals (Brandi et al. 2015; Giovannucci and Ponte 2005;
Ruysschaert and Salles 2014). Smallholder farmers have benefited from these
schemes only to a modest degree due to high transaction costs, low demand for
ecosystem services, and poor access to information.

For carbon markets, smallholder participation is impeded by the required technical capacity, as well as the costs of monitoring and complex requirements for reporting (Brandi et al. 2015; Wells et al. 2017). With certification schemes, evidence indicates mixed success for environmental, social, and economic goals. The supply of certified products is generally larger than the demand (DeFries et al. 2017). Insecure land tenure, lack of credit, and insufficient profit to warrant the required investments hamper smallholder participation in both PES and certification schemes.

With rising recognition of the importance of land stewardship for climate miti-
gation and conservation of biodiversity, institutions to incentivize protection of
ecosystem services and sustainability goals are likely to become more widespread
in the coming decades. Carbon markets, which, to date, have largely been unable to
stem land clearing and greenhouse-gas-emitting practices on agricultural land, will
likely be a more significant driver of farmers’ decisions in the future. In combination
with digital technology, institutional innovations have the potential to reduce trans-
action costs and enable participation by smallholders to maximize their ability to
benefit from these schemes, both to boost their incomes and to contribute to society’s
sustainability goals. Technology and training for smallholders to access and interpret
satellite data, monitor their lands, and fulfill reporting requirements are needed if
they are to benefit from a growing demand for ecosystem services.

4 Policies for Inclusive Small Farm Transformation
Through Innovation

This chapter has sought to imagine the future of small farms and identify promising
innovations in agrifood systems to improve their prospects over the next 10 years.
Because small farms are heterogeneous and dynamic, we classed them into three
groups: commercial, in-transition, and subsistence-oriented small farms. Each has its