people, their crops and expertise. Evidence shows that where investment has been targeted at such communities and their food systems, they can enhance productivity, improve nutrition and reduce carbon emissions. The challenge is to link formal and local knowledge to identify which crops best suit specific environments, deliver desirable products and support sustainable and equitable livelihoods. This requires investment and policy support for innovations and technologies that can mainstream diverse value chains, their crops, products and knowledge systems.

## 4.2 Game-Changer Technologies and Innovations

The need is urgent. To achieve sustainable livelihoods, indigenous people in marginal areas need game-changer technologies in which they are the agents of innovation. This requires approaches that ensure the conservation, quantity, quality and value of products from forgotten crops to external markets. Innovations and technologies need synergies between researchers and indigenous communities as partners, not clients. The innovation process must allow for participatory and demand-driven approaches that stimulate and build upon farmer innovations and suit local circumstances. For this, indigenous communities need access to better knowledge systems, improved genetic material, integrated management practices and novel technologies across the whole value chain that provide routes to markets. Again, this requires long-term research support and an enabling policy environment at each stage of the value chain, rather than sporadic efforts at specific points along it.

**Better Knowledge Systems** Agricultural research is often confined to silos and excludes local knowledge. Indigenous communities need knowledge systems that integrate their own expertise and belief systems with evidence from scientific studies and predictive models. This requires novel approaches to data collection, collation and curation and digital technologies that can make knowledge available to end-users.

**Improved Seed Systems** Breeding approaches need to utilize the inherent genetic variability in local crops to develop widely adapted cultivars for diverse biophysical and socio-economic conditions. This requires new cultivars with improved yield potential without compromising nutrient density and climate resilience, breeding programmes that utilize technologies and approaches from major and model species and community seed-saving and selection approaches that conserve and enhance agricultural biodiversity.

**Integrated Management** To be cost-effective, productive and sustainable, crop management in marginal areas must both enhance productivity and reverse resource degradation. This requires technologies that increase access to water and nutrients and cultivars that are more efficient in water and nutrient use than major crops. Innovations for marginal areas will also need to be context-specific and include survival mechanisms that enhance climate resilience. For this, innovations must
utilize an understanding of ecological processes and soil health, rather than dependence on external inputs for crop production.

**Technologies to Markets** Indigenous food systems are predisposed to production and market risks due to harsh biophysical and socio-economic shocks. New technologies are needed to improve harvesting, post-harvest storage, milling and drying so as to support economically viable value chains, and digital systems are needed to trace crops and verify their products from field to consumers. Risk-mitigating innovations that promote resilience will protect communities from climate shocks and enhance sustainability.

# 5 Priorities and Proposed Actions

**Mainstreaming Diverse Value Chains** Addressing climate change, food security and malnutrition are global priorities. However, without mainstreaming the crops, foods and knowledge of indigenous people in marginal areas, the SDGs cannot be achieved. If we are to move beyond a narrow focus on specific SDGs, mainstreaming efforts must focus on improving the livelihoods of poor farmers, especially women, by enhancing the value of their under-utilized crops and forgotten foods to local and global markets. This requires technological and policy interventions to overcome bottlenecks along the production and consumption chain that also address global mandates for environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation. It also requires the transformation of research systems to mobilize small producers as co-innovators and sources of ingenuity.

**Evidence-Based Policies** Development of policies must address challenges and knowledge gaps in technological innovations, social inclusion and environmental and economic equity for indigenous communities. Most importantly, for marginalized communities to actively become part of mainstream economies, policy instruments must ensure equal access to digital innovations, capacity development, crop insurance and friendly financing and investment. Priorities should be informed by global knowledge systems that use digital technologies to link global scientific evidence with local indigenous knowledge of the cultural and traditional value of traditional crops beyond yield-for-profit alone. A key requirement is policy reforms that are explicit in their support for indigenous people, are based on a global evidence base and share best practices between biogeographical regions and indigenous communities.

**Advocacy for Agency** We need to raise awareness of the potential of under-utilized crops and forgotten foods. This requires recognition of the rich local knowledge of indigenous people as custodians of agrobiodiversity and greater self-awareness of communities to unlock their creativity as agents of change. By increasing their self-esteem, self-pride and self-confidence, indigenous communities can become active drivers of new technologies for which formal research and innovation systems are
currently the decision-makers. Advocacy supported by evidence, policy and the agency of indigenous communities opens avenues for farmer-centered, pro-poor transformation of food systems and the reorientation of research and innovation to mainstream value chains and value-added products from under-utilized crops.

**Collective Actions** Integrated strategies must evolve around a framework that is all-inclusive, but context-specific. An integrated and holistic policy approach is necessary to advocate for collective actions with indigenous communities that engage research institutions, policymakers, farmers, consumers and other stakeholders to unlock the untapped potential of marginal agriculture. The GFAR Collective Action on Forgotten Foods (GFAR 2017), which explicitly includes a *Manifesto for Forgotten Foods*, is a major opportunity for indigenous communities in marginal areas to be part of a global effort to mainstream diverse value chains.

**Coordinated Investment** Time is of the essence. If indigenous communities in marginal regions are to become agents of change, they need coordinated investment, accessible finance, co-innovations, traditional knowledge, governance, evidence, and empowerment. Policies encouraging public and private investments and research and development for indigenous communities and marginal areas are imperative to improve the sustainability and resilience of their food systems. Public-Private-Partnerships offer an important opportunity to leverage resources, access new technologies and innovations and facilitate risk-sharing. However, a conducive policy environment and global commitment of resources are essential prerequisites if we are to deliver diverse solutions for forgotten people in forgotten regions.

## References

* Agarwal A, Narain S (1995) Dying wisdom. 4th citizens report on the state of environment. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi

* Agrawal A (2002) Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. Int Soc Sci J 54(173): 287–297

* Association of International Research and Development Centers for Agriculture (2016) GAPAD – Global Action Plan for Agricultural Diversification [Internet]. Association of International Research and Development Centers for Agriculture [Cited 2021 Jan 26]. http://www.airca.org/index.php/airca-resources/gapad

* Barriuso J, Solano BR, Lucas JA, Lobo AP, García-Villaraco A, Mañero FJG (2008) Ecology, genetic diversity and screening strategies of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). J Plant Nutr 4:1–17

* Berbesque JC, Marlowe FW, Shaw P, Thompson P (2014) Hunter-gatherers have less famine than agriculturalists. Biol Lett 10(1):20130853

* Berkes F (2008) Sacred ecology, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

* Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262

* Bethancourt HJ, Leonard WR, Tanner S, Schultz AF, Rosinger AY (2019) Longitudinal changes in measures of body fat and diet among adult Tsimane' forager-horticulturalists of Bolivia, 2002-2010. Obesity 27(8):1347–1359
Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, Ngo HT (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment

Bvenura C, Sivakumar D (2017) The role of wild fruits and vegetables in delivering a balanced and healthy diet. Food Res Int 99:15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.06.046

Cairns MF (ed) (2007) Voices from the forest: integrating indigenous knowledge into sustainable upland farming. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

Chandrasekara A, Kumar JT, Joseph Kumar T (2016) Roots and tuber crops as functional foods: a review on phytochemical constituents and their potential health benefits. Int J Food Sci 2016:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3631647

Chao S (2012) Forest peoples: numbers across the world. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, p 27

Chimonyo VGP, Wimalasiri EM, Kunz R, Modi AT, Mabhaudhi T (2020) Optimizing traditional cropping systems under climate change: a case of maize landraces and bambara groundnut. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:562568. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.562568

Chivenge PP, Mabhaudhi T, Modi AT, Mafongoya P (2015) The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5685–5711. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120605685

Companion M (2013) Obesogenic cultural drift and nutritional transition: identifying barriers to healthier food consumption in urban Native American populations. J Appl Soc Sci 7(1):80–94

Cramb RA, Pierce Colfer CJ, Wolfram D, Laungaramsri P, Trang Q, Muloutami E, Peluso NL, Wadley RL (2009) Swidden transformations and rural livelihoods in Southeast Asia. Hum Ecol 37:323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9241-6

Crittenden AN, Schnorr SL (2017) Current views on hunter-gatherer nutrition and the evolution of the human diet. Am J Phys Anthropol 162:84–109

Dansi A, Vodouhè R, Azokpota P, Yedomonhan H, Assogba P et al (2012) Diversity of the neglected and underutilized crop species of importance in Benin. Sci World J 2012:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/932947

Davis SH, Wali A (1994) Indigenous land tenure and tropical forest management in Latin America. Ambio 23(8):485–490

Dawson N, Martin A, Sikor T (2016) Green revolution in sub-Saharan Africa: implications of imposed innovation for the wellbeing of rural smallholders. World Dev 78:204–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.008

Delang CO (2006) Indigenous systems of forest classification: understanding landuse patterns and the role of NTFPs in shifting cultivators subsistence economies. Environ Manag 37(4):470–486

Dounias E, Froment A (2011) From foraging to farming among present-day forest hunter-gatherers: consequences on diet and health. Int For Rev 13(3):294–304

Dounias E, Selzner A, Koizumi M, Levang P (2007) From sago to rice, from forest to town: the consequences of sedentarization for the nutritional ecology of Punan former hunter-gatherers of Borneo. Food Nutr Bull 28(2_suppl2):S294–S302

Eberhard DM, Simons GF, Fennig CD (eds) (2020) Ethnologue: languages of the world, 23rd edn. Dallas, SIL International

Eigenbrod C, Gruda N (2015) Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35(2):483–498

FAO (2017) 6 ways indigenous peoples are helping the world achieve #ZeroHunger [Internet], 9 August. http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/news-article/en/c/1029002/

FAO (2018) Once neglected, these traditional crops are our new rising stars [Internet]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome [Cited 2021 Jan 21]. http://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1154584/

Fernández CI (2020) Nutrition transition and health outcomes among indigenous populations of Chile. Curr Dev Nutr 4(5):nzaa070
Fox J, Fujita Y, Ngidang D, Peluso N, Potter L, Sakuntaladevi N, Sturgeon J, Thomas D (2009) Policies, political-economy and swidden in Southeast Asia. Hum Ecol 37:305–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9240-7

Gallart F, Solé A, Puigdefàbregas J, Lázaro R (2002) Badland systems in the Mediterranean. In: Bull JL, Kirkby MJ (eds) Dryland rivers: hydrology and geomorphology of semi-arid channels. Wiley, Chichester, pp 299–326

Garí J (2001) Biodiversity and indigenous agroecology in Amazonia: the indigenous people of Pastaza. Etnoecologica 5(7):21–37

GFAR (2017) Harnessing forgotten foods for improved livelihoods [Internet]. http://www.gfar.net/sites/default/files/files/Forgotten%20foods%20concept_Sept2017%281%29.pdf29; https://www.gfar.net/content/kfa1-empowering-farmers-center-innovation

Goldsmith FB (ed) (2012) Tropical rain forest: a wider perspective, vol 10. Springer

Hadebe ST, Modi AT, Mabhaudhi T (2017) Drought tolerance and water use of cereal crops: a focus on sorghum as a food security crop in sub-Saharan Africa. J Agron Crop Sci 203:551–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12191

Hansungule M, Jegede AO (2014) The impact of climate change on indigenous peoples’ land tenure and use: the case for a regional policy in Africa. Int J Minor Group Rights 21(2):256–291

Hasegawa PM (2013) Sodium (Na+) homeostasis and salt tolerance of plants. Environ Exp Bot 92: 19–31

Huambachano M (2018) Enacting food sovereignty in Aotearoa New Zealand and Peru: revitalizing indigenous knowledge, food practices and ecological philosophies. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 42(9):1003–1028

ICBA (2021). https://www.biosaline.org/research-themes/climate-change-modeling-and-adaptation

ICIMOD (2021). https://www.icimod.org/initiative/climate-services/

Ickowitz A, Rowland D, Powell B, Salim MA, Sunderland T (2016) Forests, trees, and micronutrient-rich food consumption in Indonesia. PLoS One 11(5):e0154139

Jahanshiri E, Mohd Nizar NM, Tengku Mohd Suhairi TAS, Gregory PJ, Mohamed AS, Wimalasiri EM, Azam-Ali SN (2020) A land evaluation framework for agricultural diversification. Sustainability 12(8):3110

Kadambot HMS, Li X, Gruber K (2021) Rediscovering Asia’s forgotten crops to fight chronic and hidden hunger. Nat Plant 7:116–122

Kingsbury B (1998) Indigenous peoples in international law: a constructivist approach to the Asian controversy. Am J Int Law 92:414–457

Kraft TS, Stieglitz J, Trumble BC, Martin M, Kaplan H, Gurven M (2018) Nutrition transition in 2 lowland Bolivian subsistence populations. Am J Clin Nutr 108(6):1183–1195

Krauss M (1992) The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68(1):4–10. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.142.01sim

Kuhnlein HV (2003) Micronutrient nutrition and traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Food Nutr Agric 32:33–39

Kuhnlein HV, Receveur O (1996) Dietary change and traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Annu Rev Nutr 16(1):417–442

Kuhnlein HV, Erasmus B, Spigelski D, Burlingame B (2013) Indigenous people’ food systems and wellbeing: interventions and policies for healthy communities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome

Kuhnlein H, Eme P, de Larrinoa YF (2019) Chapter 7: indigenous food systems: contributions to sustainable food systems and sustainable diets. In: Burlingame S, Dernini Q (eds) Sustainable diets: linking nutrition and food systems. CABI, pp 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786392848.0064

Kumar A, Ramakrishnan PSR (1990) Energy flow through an Apatani Village Ecosystem of Arunachal Pradesh in Northeast India. Hum Ecol 18(3):315–336

Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science (80–85) 304(5677):1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
Lal R (2016) Feeding 11 billion on 0.5 billion hectare of area under cereal crops. Food Energy Secur 5(4):239–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.99

Leakey RR (2020) A re-boot of tropical agriculture benefits food production, rural economies, health, social justice and the environment. Nat Food 1(5):260–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0076-z

Leff B, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2004) Geographic distribution of major crops across the world. Global Biogeochem Cycles 18(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002108

Lima M, do Vale JCE, de Medeiros Costa G, dos Santos RC, Correia Filho WLF, Gois G, de Oliveira-Junior JF, Teodoro PE, Rossi FS, da Silva Junior CA (2020) The forests in the indigenous lands in Brazil in peril. Land Use Policy 90:104258

Lin KG (1994) Resettlement and nutritional implications: the case of Orang Asli in regroupment schemes. Pertanika J Soc Sci Humanit 2(2):123–132

Mabhaudhi T, O'Reilly P, Walker S, Mwale S (2016) Opportunities for underutilised crops in Southern Africa's post-2015 development agenda. Sustainability 8:302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040302

Mabhaudhi T, Chimonyo VGP, Hlahla S, Massawe F, Mayes S, Nhamo L, Modi AT (2019a) Prospects of orphan crops in climate change. Planta 250:695–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019-03129-y

Mabhaudhi T, Chibarabada TP, Chimonyo VGP, Murugani VG, Pereira LM, Sobratee N, Govender L, Slotow R, Modi AT (2019b) Mainstreaming indigenous crops into food systems: a South African perspective. Sustainability 11:172. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010172

Mertz O, Padoch C, Fox J, Cramb RA, Leisz SJ, Thanh N, Duc Vien T (2009) Swidden change in Southeast Asia: understanding causes and consequences. Hum Ecol 37:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9245-2

Miller DJ (1999) Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau Rangelands in Western China part two: pastoral production practices. Rangelands 21(1):16–19

Miller DJ, Craig SR (eds) (1996) Rangelands and pastoral development in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu

Mitra M, Kumar A, Adhikari BS, Rawat GS (2013) A note on transhumant pastoralism in Niti valley, Western Himalaya, India. Pastoralism 3(1):2–7

Mohd Nizar NM, Jahanshiri E, Tharmandram AS, Salama A, Mohd Sinin SS, Abdullah NJ, Zolkepli H, Wimalasiri EM, Mohd Suhairi TAST, Hussin H, Gregory PJ, Azam-Ali SN (2021) Underutilised crops database for supporting agricultural diversification. Comput Electron Agric 180:105920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105920

Mugari E, Masundire H, Bolaane M (2020) Adapting to climate change in semi-arid rural areas: a case of the Limpopo Basin Part of Botswana. Sustainability 12(20):8292. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208292

Mulyoutami E, Rismawan R, Joshi L (2009) Local knowledge and management of simpukng (forest gardens) among the Dayak people in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. For Ecol Manag 257: 2054–2061

Mustafa M, Mabhaudhi T, Massawe F (2021) Building a resilient and sustainable food system in a changing world – a case for climate-smart and nutrient dense crops. Glob Food Sec 28:100477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100477

Naming M, Yu RA, Tu CL (2010) Traditional knowledge conservation and transmission of agrobiodiversity: sharing of experiences by the Penan community in Mulu Sarawak. In: Mirfat AHS, Salma I, Mohd Rani MY, Mohd NH, Mohd Shukri MA, Erny Sabrina MN, Noor Sarinah MN, Siti Noor Aishikin AH, Nor AI (eds) Second national conference on agrobiodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization, agrobiodiversity for sustainable economic development. Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), p 54

Ngulube P (2002) Managing and preserving indigenous knowledge in the knowledge management era: challenges and opportunities for information professionals. Inf Dev 18(2): 95–102
Ohenjo N, Willis R, Jackson D, Nettleton C, Good K, Mugarura B (2006) Health of indigenous people in Africa. Lancet 367(9526):1937–1946

Pender J, Hazell P (2000) "Promoting sustainable development in less-Favored areas: overview". Brief 1. In: Pender J, Hazell P (eds) Promoting sustainable development in less-favored areas. 2020 vision initiative, policy brief series, focus 4. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Pingault N, Caron P, Kolmans A, Lemke S, Kalafatic C, Zikeli S, Waters-Bayer A, Callenius C, Qin YJ (2020) Moving beyond the opposition of diverse knowledge systems for food security and nutrition. J Integr Agric 19(1):291–293

Port Lourenço AE, Ventura Santos R, Orellana JD, Coimbra CE Jr (2008) Nutrition transition in Amazonia: obesity and socioeconomic change in the Suruí Indians from Brazil. Am J Hum Biol 20(5):564–571

Powell B, Sandbrook C et al (2015) The historical, environmental and socio-economic context of forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition. In: Vira B, Wildburger C, Mansourian S (eds) Forests, trees and landscapes for food security and nutrition. A global assessment report, IUFRO world series, vol 33. IUFRO, pp 51–86

Prasad M, Srinivasan R, Chaudhary M, Choudhary M, Jat LK et al (2019) Seven – plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for sustainable agriculture: perspectives and challenges. In: Singh AK, Kumar A, Singh PK (eds) PGPR amelioration in sustainable agriculture. Woodhead Publishing, pp 129–157

Quek P, Friis-Hansen E (2011) Collecting plant genetic resources and documenting associated indigenous knowledge in the field: a participatory approach. Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity: Technical guidelines – 2011 update

Ramakrishnan PS (1992) Shifting agriculture and sustainable development: an interdisciplinary study from Northeast India. UNESCO-MAB series. Parthenon Publishers, Paris/Carnforth/Lancs, pp 424 (Republished Oxford University Press, New Delhi 1993)

Rerkasem K, Rerkasem B (1995) Montane Mainland South-East Asia: agroecosystems in transition. Glob Environ Chang 5:313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(95)00065-V

Reyes-García V, Powell B, Díaz-Reviriego I, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Gallois S, Gueze M (2019) Dietary transitions among three contemporary hunter-gatherers across the tropics. Food Secur 11(1):109–122

Rodericks A (2020) Living landscapes: embracing agro-biodiversity in Northern Laos National Agriculture and Forest Research Institute (NAFRI). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Vientiane, Laos PDR

Salawitch RJ, Bennett BF, Canty TP, Hope AP, Tribett WR (2017) Paris climate agreement: beacon of hope. Springer, Cham, p 186

Shapi M, Cheikhyoussef A, Mumbengegwí DR, Matengu K, Van Kent A, Sifani J (2011) Evolution of data collection methods for indigenous knowledge systems at the Multidisciplinary Research Centre of the University of Namibia. Knowl Manag Dev J 7(3):308–316

Srividhya S, Kumari N, Surendranath R, Jeyakumar P (2020) Role of rhizobacteria in alleviating salt stress. In: Sharma V, Salwan R, Al-Ani LKT (eds) Molecular aspects of plant beneficial microbes in agriculture. Academic, pp 279–294

Sundriyal RC, Dollo M (2013) Integrated agriculture and allied natural resource management in northeast mountains – transformation and asset building. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 37(6): 700–726

Sutherland A, Irungu J, Kang'ara J, Muthamia J, Ouma J (1999) Household food security in semi-arid Africa – the contribution of participatory adaptive research and development to rural livelihoods in Eastern Kenya. Food Policy 24(4):363–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(99)00050-0

Tadele Z (2018) African orphan crops under abiotic stresses: challenges and opportunities. Science (Cairo) 2018:1–19
TheWorldCounts (2021) World average temperature (°C) [Internet]. TheWorldCounts, Copenhagen [Cited 2021 Jan 24]. https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/global-warming/average-global-temperature/story

Toledo VM, Ortiz-Espejel B, Cortés L, Moguel P, de Jesús Ordoñez M (2003) The multiple use of tropical forests by indigenous peoples in Mexico: a case of adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 7(3)

UKZN (2021). https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/

Umetsu C, Lekprichakul T, Sakurai T, Yamauchi T, Ishimoto Y et al (2014) Dynamics of social-ecological systems: the case of farmers’ food security in the semi-arid tropics. In: Social-ecological systems in transition. Springer, pp 157–178

UN (2009) The state of the world’s indigenous peoples. United Nations, New York. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP/en/SOWIP_web.pdf

UN (2021) The sustainable development agenda [Internet]. United Nations, New York [Cited 2021 Jan 29]. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

UN DESA (2009) Indigenous peoples: culture [Internet]. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/mandated-areas1/culture.html

UN Environment Programme (2020) How to feed 10 billion people [Internet]. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi [Cited 2021 Jan 25]. https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/how-feed-10-billion-people

van Ittersum MK, van Bussel LGJ, Wolf J, Grassini P, van Wart J et al (2016) Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(52):14964–14969. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610359113

van Vliet N, Mertz O, Heinimann A, Langanke T, Pascual U, Schmook B, Adams C, Schmidt-Vogt D, Messerli P, Leisz S, Castella JC, Jorgensen L, Birch-Thomsen T, Hett C, Bech-Bruun T, Ickowitz A, Kim Chi V, Yasuyuki K, Fox J, Padoch C, Dressler W, Zeigler AD (2012) Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Glob Environ Chang 22:418–429

van Vliet N, Quiceno-Mesa MP, Cruz-Antia D, Tellez L, Martins C, Haiden E, Oliveira MR, Adams C, Morsello C, Valencia L, Bonilla T (2015) From fish and bushmeat to chicken nuggets: the nutrition transition in a continuum from rural to urban settings in the Tri frontier Amazon region. Ethnobiol Conserv 46:1

Van Zelm E, Zhang Y, Testerink C (2020) Salt tolerance mechanisms of plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 71:403–433

Vercillo S, Weis T, Luginaah I (2020) A bitter pill: smallholder responses to the new green revolution prescriptions in northern Ghana. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 27(6):565–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1733702

Weih M, Hamnér K, Pourazari F (2018) Analyzing plant nutrient uptake and utilization efficiencies: comparison between crops and approaches. Plant Soil 430(1):7–21

Whyte K (2015) Indigenous food systems, environmental justice, and settler-industrial states. In: Rawlinson M, Ward C (eds) Global food, global justice: essays on eating under globalization. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp 143–156

Wiersum KF (1997) Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources: an evolutionary continuum in forest-people interactions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 63(1):1–16

Wilson G, Woodrow M (2009) Kuka kanyini, Australian Indigenous adaptive management. In: Adaptive environmental management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 117–141

Xanthaki A (2003) Land rights of indigenous peoples in South-East Asia. Melb J Int’l L 4:467

Yu L, Zhao X, Gao X, Siddique KHM (2020) Improving/maintaining water-use efficiency and yield of wheat by deficit irrigation: a global meta-analysis. Agric Water Manag 228:105906
**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_58.png" /></figure>
# Priorities for Inclusive Urban Food System Transformations in the Global South

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Paule Moustier, Michelle Holdsworth, Dao The Anh, Pape Abdoulaye Seck, Henk Renting, Patrick Caron, and Nicolas Bricas

## 1 Objective and Focus of the Chapter

This chapter is concerned with identifying: (i) challenges to food systems in Africa, Asia, and Latin America caused by urban development, (ii) how existing food systems respond to these challenges, and (iii) what can be recommended to improve their responsiveness. The chapter is based on the authors 'published research complemented by published literature.

We define 'urban food systems' as food systems linked to cities by material and human flows. "A food system gathers all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activities related to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, and the outputs of

P. Moustier (✉)

Cirad, MoISA, Cirad, IAMM, INRAE, l'Institut Agro, IRD, University of Montpellier,
Montpellier, France

e-mail: paule.moustier@cirad.fr

M. Holdsworth

IRD: French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development,
MoISA, Montpellier, France

D. T. Anh

Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Science (VAAS), Hanoi, Vietnam

P. A. Seck

Senegal Ambassador of FAO in Italy and Former Ministry of Agriculture, Rome, Italy

H. Renting

Aeres University of Applied Science, Wageningen, the Netherlands

P. Caron

Cirad, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

N. Bricas

Cirad, MoISA, Director of UNESCO Chair in World Food Systems, Montpellier, France
*these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes*" (HLPE 2014:29). This definition is close to the definition of food chains, with three major differences. First, it includes food acquisition, diets and consumer behaviour. Second, it considers a diversity of food products, which is crucial for nutrition security, as well as for the sustainability of production systems. Third, it emphasises the key role of food environments, i.e., *"the physical, economic, political and socio-cultural context in which consumers engage with the food system to make their decisions about acquiring, preparing and consuming food"* (HLPE 2017:28). Often, contradictory objectives are attributed to food systems, gathered under the general objective of achieving sustainability (Béné et al. 2019). According to FAO (2018:1), a sustainable food system (SFS) delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases for generating food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised. Among SFSs, inclusive food systems are defined by Fan and Swinnen (2020:9) as *"reaching, benefiting, and empowering all people, especially socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and groups in society."*

# 2 Challenges Posed by Urban Development

## 2.1 Urban Growth

The world is becoming increasingly urbanised. Half of the world's population now lives in cities, 40% in Africa, 49% in South-East Asia, and 81% in Latin America. By 2050, these figures are expected to increase by a further 25%. Cities differ considerably in size, and a high proportion of urban growth is taking place in secondary cities, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where, in 2015, half the population lived in cities of less than 500,000 inhabitants (OECD/SWAC 2020). Compared to the rural population, urban populations have more diverse cultural, economic, and social profiles. A middle class is emerging, defined as an individual's income ranging from 12 to 50 US$ per capita/day in Africa, accounting for 13% of the population (Neveu-Tafforeau 2017). In sub-Saharan Africa, income growth, which benefits urban areas, started in 2000, but it has faltered since 2013 (Tschirley et al. 2020 based on World Bank data). In Latin America, 40-50% of the population of most countries live in a small number of large cities with more than one million inhabitants. Urbanisation is positively correlated with income per capita, but Latin America is the continent with the highest income inequality, which also persists in urban areas (BBVA Research 2017; OECD 2019). As a region, Asia has modest levels of urbanisation, but is home to half of the world's urban community, and is the continent with the fastest urban growth (Leeson 2018).
## 2.2 Challenges for Urban Food Systems

Urbanisation poses several policy challenges for urban food systems. These are related to food and nutritional security, employment, and environmental protection.

### 2.2.1 Urban Food and Nutritional Security

In contrast to rural areas, most people who live in cities do not produce food and must rely on local markets. Food purchased in markets represents more than 80% of food consumption in cities in sub-Saharan Africa, compared with 50% in rural areas (Tschirley et al. 2020). There are many signs that urban food security is inadequately addressed, especially in Africa. “*Urban food insecurity in low-income countries, estimated by the Food Insecurity Experience Scale of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is higher (50%) than levels in rural areas (43%). In urban slums, other studies estimate food insecurity at up to 90%*” (Tefft et al. 2017:11–12).

Urban food consumption is characterised by a triple burden of malnutrition, with the persistence of undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies – especially related to iron deficiency anaemia in women of reproductive age and young children - and the increasing prevalence of overweight/obesity (GNR 2020). With rising incomes, urban residents are eating more animal-source foods and processed foods that may be low in micronutrients, while high in calories and fat (Popkin et al. 2012; Yaya et al. 2018; Holdsworth et al. 2020; Rousham et al. 2020). These poor quality diets affect children of all ages from infancy to adolescence, and food systems do not currently account sufficiently for the nutritional needs of children and adolescents (UNICEF/GAIN 2018). Nutritional problems are amplified by excessively monotonous diets and limited consumption of fruit, vegetables, and pulses, as well as lack of physical activity (Popkin et al. 2012). Likewise, the consumption of imported food by urban dwellers is increasing – although the proportion is still limited: only 5% in Africa, mostly imported cereals, according to Bricas et al. (2016) and Tschirley et al. (2014); and consumers commonly combine local and imported products in meals, resulting in a hybridisation of cooking (Soula et al. 2020). In Latin American cities, food security improved for many years, partly as result of “zero hunger” strategies first developed in Brazil in the late-1990s and later in other countries in the region. However, in recent years, food insecurity has started to rise again as the result of increased social inequality and due to the Covid-19 pandemic. At the same time, Latin America is facing escalating obesity rates, which affect 24% of the regional – mostly urban – population, almost double the global level of 13.2%, which is explained by unhealthy diets and poverty (FAO, RUAF 2019).

In parallel, food safety has become a major public health issue. Food safety crises are regularly reported in the media, especially in South-East Asia, where consumers’ fears are linked to chemical products in fruit and vegetables and antibiotic residues in meat (Figuié et al. 2004; Ortega and Tschirley 2017). This is due to new industrial
and domestic sources of pollution close to agricultural production areas, and the increase in the use of chemical inputs by farmers (De Bon et al. 2010; Reynolds et al. 2015). The lengthening of food supply chains and the lack of knowledge about hygiene also creates risks of contamination in the processing, marketing, handling and consumption stages (Jaffee et al. 2018). Consumer concerns about food safety have potential nutritional consequences, as they may reduce the consumption of fruit and vegetables because of concerns about pesticides, or push consumers towards packaged (often highly processed) foods because they are perceived as safer.

### 2.2.2 Food Convenience

Another growing consumer pattern is related to the convenience of where they buy and what they buy. As women are increasingly employed outside their homes and lifestyles become more sedentary, demand is growing for packed, pre-prepared food that can be purchased near offices or shops where it is easy to park (for the middle classes) (Reardon et al. 2019). In sub-Saharan Africa, processed food accounts for between 60% (in West Africa) and 70% (in eastern and southern Africa) of total food consumption, compared to, respectively, 50% and 30% in rural areas. Food consumption outside the home is on the increase. The proportion varies across African cities, ranging from 6% in Freetown and Conakry to 25% in cities of Nigeria and Tanzania, and 30% in Cotonou, Lomé and Abidjan (Tschirley et al. 2020). Street food is especially convenient for urban workers and low-income households who may not have the resources and facilities to purchase raw ingredients and prepare dishes at home, especially in slums (Soula et al. 2020; Pradeilles et al. 2021). In Latin America, between 2000 and 2013, the consumption of ultra-processed products increased by more than 25%, and fast food consumption by almost 40% (PAHO 2015).

### 2.2.3 Urban Employment

Cities in the Global South are characterised by the absence of stable employment, and poverty is increasingly becoming an urban phenomenon (Ravaillon 2016). The difference in living standards among the urban population is widening, thereby increasing social inequalities. The informal sector still provides most employment (especially for women), accounting for up to 90% in low-income countries (LICs) and 67% in emerging countries (Bonnet et al. 2019). Sub-Saharan Africa is facing premature deindustrialisation, with only 11% of employment in the manufacturing sector, mostly in the food industry (Giordano et al. 2019 based on Rodrik 2016 and ILO 2018). In Latin America, 60% of mostly urban people are employed in the informal sector.
### 2.2.4 Quality of the Urban Environment

Last, but not least, the urban environment is responsible for major air, water and soil pollution (Amegah and Agyei-Mensah 2017; Adimalla 2020), severe risks of flooding (Douglas 2017; Pervin et al. 2020), and problematic waste disposal, as the balance between what enters and leaves the city is largely negative (Guerrero et al. 2013). This jeopardises the production of safe food in cities. At the same time, if handled safely, agriculture can recycle part of the waste produced (De Bon et al. 2010).

Cities can be viewed as concentrations of people and biomass that produce particular forms of economic and environmental stress (Chaboud et al. 2013). Yet, cities also concentrate knowledge, as people from different backgrounds mix, including rural and international migrants, and public and private investments provide a favourable substrate for innovation (Cobbinah et al. 2015).

The challenges faced by urban development and new consumer expectations lead to questions about the capacity of existing urban food systems to adapt. This is detailed in the following section.

## 3 The Characteristics of Urban Food Systems in the Global South

### 3.1 Spatial and Relational Organisation

The organisation of urban food systems in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is summarised in Fig. 1. We review the characteristics of the chains that supply food to urban consumers, their relations with urban food environments, and urban consumer profiles. The nature of urban food environments, especially food retailing landscapes, as well as consumer living standards, in addition to the perishability and origin of food, results in major differences among food supply chains.

Food chains and food systems in LICs are currently classified differently depending on their operation and organisation, which is related to the evaluation of their outcomes, impacts and performance. This type of classification relates to the market orientation, the scale of activities, informal versus formal (i.e., whether the business is registered or not), added value in the chain through the adoption of technologies and orientation towards consumer expectations, in particular regarding visual, organoleptic, and sanitary quality. The High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE 2017) report distinguishes traditional food systems, which are dominant in rural areas and involve open-air markets and small shops with limited concern for food quality or diversity, and modern food systems, which emerge in urban areas and are driven by the development of supermarkets and increased income, as well as an intermediary type termed mixed food systems. As the HLPE typology mostly considers differences between rural and urban settings, and as urban food supply
<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** The characteristics of urban food systems in the Global South. (Source: Adapted from HLPE (2017) and David-Benz et al. forthcoming)</figcaption></figure>

chains are diverse, the rest of the chapter highlights the determinants of variable organisation and performance of urban food systems and leads us to propose six types.

Even though subsistence agriculture is of minor importance in terms of total urban food consumption, in cities in the Global South, it can play an important role in the livelihoods and social inclusion of some vulnerable inhabitants, as proven in Tamale and Ouagadougou (Bellwood-Howard et al. 2018), Cape Town (Olivier and Heinecken 2017), Hanoi (Pulliat 2015), Quito and Rosario (Renting and Dubbeling 2013). Urban gardens also have important pedagogical functions, e.g., through schooling programmes or community gardens (Hou 2017). The multi-functionality of urban agriculture means that it is a ‘cheap’ producer of public goods.

We now turn to market-oriented urban food systems. Urban consumers are mainly supplied by small-scale market vendors and neighbourhood shops, even though supermarkets and convenience stores are increasing their market share. Supermarket distribution is still limited for food, especially in Africa and South-East Asia: less than 10% of purchases in Côte d'Ivoire (Neveu-Tafforeau 2017), Kenya and Uganda (Wanyama et al. 2019), and less than 20% in Vietnam (University of Adelaide 2014) – the percentages being even lower for fresh food, all of which may be explained by low consumer purchasing power, as well as by consumer preference for traditional retail formats. So-called traditional urban food systems predominate in the urban context of LICs. There is overlap between what is termed traditional or informal markets/sectors/systems, both terms referring to the small scale of production, the absence of registration and public support. Traditional systems are often described as ‘poor-friendly,’ as suppliers are mostly concerned
with subsistence incomes (Vorley 2013). Moreover, they are an important part of the social fabric of low-income urban communities, as seen in studies in Ghana and Kenya (Pradeilles et al. 2021). Food processing, food distribution, and food catering are major sources of urban employment, especially for the vulnerable poor (particularly women) who lack qualifications and social and economic capital (Allen et al. 2018). The urban food catering sector is varied, ranging from school canteens to street caterers and restaurants targeting different types of customers. Most processing takes place in MSMEs at an artisanal scale (Tschirley et al. 2020) in various locations within and outside cities. While street vendors are documented as major providers of food and livelihoods for poor urban residents, especially women, in Africa and Asia, they usually lack public support (Turner and Schoenberger 2011; Ogunkola et al. 2021).

Traditional food systems are sometimes judged to be inefficient in responding to new consumer expectations, especially concerning quality and convenience (Reardon et al. 2019). Low investments in infrastructure may limit the regular supply and availability of some nutrient-dense foods like fruit and vegetables (Maestre et al. 2017). Regarding the effect of traditional food systems on waste reduction, some studies report evidence for inefficiency related to poor logistics, while others argue that less stringent quality criteria help reduce waste.

In addition to scales and technology, another major factor that influences the organisation of food chains is food perishability, as it influences the location of production and the length of food chains, especially when logistics are limited, which is even worse in times of crisis, like the current Covid-19 pandemic. The location of production and the possibility of producing locally depend on the climate and the soil, as well as on the history of specialisation in some territories. Mapping food supply chains is crucial for representing differences in the length of chains, in the number of intermediaries and in their origin. This is the basis of approaches such as foodsheds, city-region food systems and short versus long chains (Blay-Palmer et al. 2018; Schreiber et al. 2021). Short versus long chains refers to physical as well as relational factors, and the two are linked. Short chains (in terms of distance and relations) have fewer intermediaries than long ones. This may lead to lower final prices than longer chains, but this is not systematically the case, because long chains may enable economies of scale (De Cara et al. 2017). In line with predictions from spatial economics, short food chains predominate in the supply of perishable produce, e.g., leafy vegetables, milk, eggs and chicken. These commodities are nutrient-dense and commonly under-consumed relative to nutritional recommendations. The farmers themselves, or their relatives, are frequently involved in wholesale and/or retail distribution. On the other hand, staple food crops, including cereals, tubers, pulses, vegetables that can be stored, e.g., onions, and some animal products, are supplied by long chains originating in local rural areas or by imports (Moustier 2017a, b; Karg et al. 2019; Lemeilleur et al. 2019). They often involve a chain of rural collectors, rural wholesalers, urban wholesalers, and urban retailers who supply all types of urban consumers. Transactions take place in wholesale and retail markets located so as to minimise traders' and consumers' transport costs (Blekking et al. 2017; Lemeilleur et al. 2019). With the development of transport, credit, and mobile
phones, these chains may be shortened, and the roles of rural collectors and wholesalers may be reduced. This transformation is termed the ‘quiet revolution’ in agrifood value chains in low- and middle-income countries by Reardon (2015).

Another important aspect of chain organisation concerns business-to-business relationships. Food chains in LICs are characterised by long-term acquaintanceship and reciprocity, together with competition among hundreds of vendors, resulting in a certain degree of price homogeneity, even though oligopolies of wholesalers are observed because of limited access to credit and storage facilities (Fafchamps 2004).

Modern distribution systems, driven by supermarkets, are characterised by labour-saving and capital-intensive technologies in terms of logistics, refrigeration, self-service, packaging, and cash registers, in addition to the recourse to contractual arrangements with dedicated wholesalers (Hagen 2002). They are judged to be efficient in terms of logistics and quality (Reardon et al. 2019), but with potential negative effects on nutrition, because they supply a wide range of highly processed foods rich in fats and sugar (Demmler et al. 2018; Giordano et al. 2019; Wertheim-Heck and Raneri 2019). Regarding affordability for the poor, modern systems are usually presented as less poor-friendly because of higher prices and transport constraints. Modern systems also create less employment per unit of product (Moustier et al. 2009; Wertheim-Heck and Raneri 2019). Regarding differences in prices between supermarkets and traditional vendors, when controlling for quality differences, results are country-specific. When supermarkets gain a substantial market share, they can reduce their logistic costs and provide food at lower prices, especially food that can be stored (Reardon et al. 2010; Nuthalapati et al. 2020). Prior to that stage, food is usually cheaper and more accessible in open markets and small shops than in supermarkets (Moustier et al. 2009; Wanyama et al. 2019). Moreover, supermarkets favour the use of plastics for wrapping fresh food, which is a major environmental concern (Letcher 2020).

## 3.2 Innovations in Urban Food Systems

Considering the ability of urban food systems to adapt to new consumer demand for quality and convenience, we need to look beyond the traditional approach that qualifies modern or supermarket-driven chains as innovative and traditional chains as obsolete and lacking dynamics. A number of MSMEs are indeed increasingly upgrading their technologies and improving product quality in response to new consumer expectations. At the same time, they create new chain organisation patterns with increased chain interactions and different forms of vertical integration, with the general support of national and international public programmes (Moustier and Renting 2015; De Brauw et al. 2019; Tefft et al. 2017). This is the case with farmer organisations that sell food in shops or at farmers’ markets in Laos, India, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, and Kenya, or by subscription in Dakar and in some South African cities (Freidberg and Goldstein 2011; Joshi et al. 2012; Renting and Dubbeling 2013). Entrepreneurial producers, e.g., *le Terroir* in Abidjan, can sell
dairy products and cold cuts to wealthy urban consumers thanks to processing and cold storage (Neveu-Tafforeau 2017). Caterers, private companies, restaurants, and school canteens are developing strategies to ensure food safety and promote local products by signing contracts with local producer groups. This is also the case for public programmes targeting the urban poor, e.g., the food purchase programme in Brazil (Berchin et al. 2019). Food caterers and processing SMEs also innovate to supply processed local food to urban dwellers (Ferré et al. 2018; Reardon et al. 2021a). Yet, these initiatives are still precarious because of the cost of access to sales points for farmers, low levels of state support, lack of product diversity, and lack of guaranteed food safety.

Supermarket chains are expanding rapidly in countries where incomes are rising, as in South Africa, Côte d'Ivoire, and China. Supermarkets carry both local and international brands and are developing strategies for quality control and guaranteed origin, including using dedicated wholesalers and contracts, but still face difficulties concerning quality control and traceability. Supermarket chains are usually supported by city and national governments on the grounds of modernity and hygiene, but face increasing competition from traditional markets and from companies that use digital technology for logistics and delivery to consumers (Neveu-Tafforeau 2017 with reference to Côte d'Ivoire and Si et al. 2019 with reference to China). Overall, supermarkets vary in their supply strategies, including whether they favour linkages with local food chains, in their pricing and in the payment conditions offered to local farmers, as well as in the training and logistics they may provide to farmers (Minten et al. 2017).

Digital technology can be used by MSMEs, as well as by supermarkets or by new large-scale capital-intensive companies, which sometimes partner with SMEs for their supply, logistics, or final delivery (Reardon et al. 2021a; Tefft et al. 2017; Si et al. 2019). E-commerce has been spurred by sanitary crises, including SARS and Covid-19, and is developing particularly rapidly in Asian countries, including China, India and Vietnam (Reardon et al. 2021b; Vietnam news 2021; Dao 2020).

## 3.3 Six Types of Urban Food System

To summarise, we advocate going beyond the simplistic classification of traditional versus mixed and modern food systems. This classification may stigmatise the small-scale relational food systems that are competitive in terms of food availability, accessibility, and affordability. Moreover, it suggests a linear trend of change from one system to another, while the reality frequently turns out to be combinations and synergies between different patterns. Hence, based on our review of the literature, we propose the following typology – while acknowledging that overlaps between and combinations of types are possible. The main characteristics of each type are summarised in Table 1.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Characteristics and outcomes of the six types of urban food system</caption><thead><tr><td>Type of UFS (urban food system)</td><td>Description</td><td>Outcomes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subsistence</td><td>Urban agriculture, including home gardens</td><td>Variable additional contribution to the food and nutrition security of the poor<br/>Waste recycling<br/>Possible food safety problems through use of polluted soil, water or waste</td></tr><tr><td>Short relational (perishables)</td><td>Chain of farmers and retailers in markets or streets<br/>Oral commitments<br/>All income categories of consumers</td><td>Provisioning of nutrient-dense fresh food at low cost<br/>Employment of low qualified population<br/>Limited quality management</td></tr><tr><td>Long relational (non-perishables)</td><td>Chain of farmers, collectors, wholesalers, market and street retailers<br/>Oral commitments<br/>All income categories of consumers</td><td>Possible high margins due to wholesalers' oligopolies<br/>Employment of low qualified population<br/>Limited quality management</td></tr><tr><td>Value-oriented SME-driven</td><td>Chain of farmers-entrepreneurs or collectives, processors, retailers; quality control and labelling<br/>Middle and high-income consumers</td><td>Employment and value added for low qualified population<br/>Rise in quality<br/>Rise in price</td></tr><tr><td>Supermarket-driven</td><td>Like above + common dedicated wholesalers + contracts<br/>Middle and high-income consumers</td><td>Rise in quality<br/>Rise in price<br/>Variable impacts on inclusion of the poor<br/>Increased availability of unhealthy food</td></tr><tr><td>Digital</td><td>Cross-cutting use of digital technologies in the types listed above, plus some specialised e-commerce companies delivering food, sometimes partnering with SMEs<br/>Middle and high-income consumers</td><td>Overcome risks linked with sanitary crises<br/>Higher traceability and trust, supporting for certification schemes<br/>Increased convenience<br/>Rise in price<br/>Exclusion of consumers with poor internet access</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4 Adaptation to Demand and Crises in Urban Food Systems

The capacity of food systems in low- and middle-income countries to supply urban populations in sufficient quality and quantity is often questioned. The development of agribusiness at all stages of food chains is sometimes seen as one way to overcome these shortcomings. Large-scale private investments in mechanised production, processing, storage, and retailing are put to the fore. Yet, innovations are not neutral in terms of social inclusion. It is sometimes even claimed that the present
problems of food security, including unhealthy food, are caused by innovations and agribusinesses (Glover and Poole 2019). Labour-saving and scale-biased innovations have a negative impact on employment for the poor and they are less suitable in regions where labour is in excess supply than is the case with capital-saving or neutral innovations (unless massive credit programmes targeting the poor are launched). Moreover, they ignore the diversity and creativity that exist at the level of food systems driven by MSMEs, including producer organisations, as explained in Sect. 3.2.

The Covid-19 crisis has caused major disturbances, the most important being the decrease in sources of income among vulnerable urban dwellers, with an impact on women and children, due to restrictions on movement and the disturbances in logistics systems (Shekar et al. 2021). In some countries, the increased vulnerability of the urban poor has been addressed through food aid programmes and increased social safety nets targeting women (Shekar et al. 2021). At the same time, the local food provisioning sector has proven to be quite resilient, with no major breaks in the food supply chains. Public policies restricting the sale of food in open markets have been varied, with mixed consequences for access to employment and to food by the poor. For instance, the municipalities of Abidjan and Dakar found ways to maintain retail sales of food in open markets through regulations concerning hygiene and social distancing, enabling some contactless proximity, which was not the case in Burkina Faso, where markets were shut down at the beginning of the crisis (Dury et al. 2021; IPES Food 2020; Moustier 2020; Devereux et al. 2020).

Considering their inclusiveness and resilience, we recommend supporting urban food transformations based on MSMEs. These are discussed in more detail in the following section.

# 5 Solutions for Enhancing Inclusive Urban Food System Transformations

In the previous section, we reported insights from the literature on the advantages and shortcomings of current urban food systems. Yet, these insights are quite patchy in terms of time, space, and commodity coverage. That is why our first recommendation concerns the need for better data. Second, we provide recommendations related to urban food planning, mostly concerning the protection of land for agriculture, marketplaces, and shops, as well as regulations pertaining to supermarkets and food safety. These should enable urban consumers to benefit from a variety of food retailing formats. We also recommend communication actions to promote nutrient-dense foods, e.g., fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes, which may be available to consumers locally, but are not always purchased, because consumers may have little knowledge of their health benefits or of how to include them in their meals and dietary practices. Rural-urban transportation, which is the mandate of national governments, should be a priority to improve both food availability and quality and to reduce food losses. National programmes should also improve access to credit and
<table><caption>**Table 2** Recommendations according to targeted types of urban food systems</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>5.2.1.<br>Land<br>protection</th><th>5.2.2. Upgrading<br>of open market<br>places</th><th>5.2.3. Mobile<br>vendors'<br>markets</th><th>5.4.1. Rural-<br>urban<br>transportation</th><th>5.4.2.<br>Services to<br>MSMEs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subsistence</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Short<br>relational</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long<br>relational</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Value-ori-<br>ented SMEs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Supermarket-<br>driven</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Digital</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td></tr></tbody></table>

training on food processing and storage for food MSMEs. Improvements in food quality can be obtained through food processing and storage technologies, which are not always available to MSMEs because they have no access to credit and training programmes. Finally, securing coordination among food system actors is required to enhance the quality and availability of diverse food items. Details of these recommendations are given below. Some recommendations concur with the recent work of the Centre for Food Policy (London University) aimed at identifying policies and actions that can orient food systems towards healthier diets for all (Hawkes et al. 2020).

While some recommendations (Sects. 5.1 and 5.3) relate to all types of urban food system, some are more particularly relevant for some of the urban food system types identified here (see Table 2).

The recommended interventions are intended to upgrade the operation of MSMEs, as well as changing consumers' environments to enable healthier food, while keeping costs and prices affordable for the urban poor. This is why the proposed interventions are sober in terms of capital and energy; moreover, economies of scale are reached through coordination of SMEs, rather than by providing support to agribusinesses.

## 5.1 Obtaining Accurate Data on Food Consumption, Foodsheds, and Food Chains<fnref n="1" />

Policymakers need to support inter-disciplinary teams of researchers, including geographers, economists, specialists in consumption and statisticians, to collect accurate and updated data on food consumption, foodsheds and food chains.

<footnote n="1">¹The lack of data was underlined at the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact meeting in Ouagadougou, February 15-19, 2021.</footnote>
Available data on food consumption underestimate two kinds of patterns: food consumed away from the home, and seasonal food, including fruit and vegetables. Adequate and valid methods of measurement are needed to address this deficiency (Rousham et al. 2020). Identifying the specific role of different production areas and market intermediaries in urban food supply requires original sources of data. Comparing what is produced over a year in a city, what is produced in rural areas and what is imported has many limitations, including difficulties in capturing information on perishable seasonal products; additionally, such comparisons do not take the destination of products into consideration. Accurately appraising the role of different production areas and intermediaries in urban food supply requires surveys of wholesale and retail markets, and of the origin and quantities of products traded. Surveys should be conducted at different times of the year to account for seasonal variations, and with specific relational expertise. A foodshed approach (Schreiber et al. 2021) combined with value chain analysis is recommended to identify the production areas of targeted nutrient-dense food and to assess how the organisation of the value chain (geography and intermediation) determines the quality, accessibility and competitiveness of the supply of targeted food products.

## 5.2 Urban Food Planning for Poor-Friendly Production and Marketing Spaces

### 5.2.1 Protection of Land for Multifunctional Urban Agriculture

If market forces are left unrestricted, urban agriculture is doomed to disappear, given the forces of pressure on land and water. This is detrimental to urban food security and livelihoods and may create environmental problems. We consequently recommend protecting land for agriculture in areas where it is documented to play a major role in both food supplies and livelihoods, and where pollution is not an issue. Access to land can be secured through regulations (protecting agricultural parks or zoning measures) and formal contracts. How urban planning is enforced needs to be closely monitored, as it has frequently been observed that legal protection of land is regularly trespassed owing to the attraction of private investors' urban development schemes (De Bon et al. 2010; Valette and Philifert 2014; Dao 2019).

### 5.2.2 Upgrading Food Marketplaces

Urban marketplaces are frequently characterised by congestion, difficulty moving around, and lack of hygiene. Some past projects aimed to replace urban marketplaces with wholesale markets located outside the city boundaries, but these markets were underused due to limited transport facilities, as well as the high cost of market stalls
(Moustier 2017a, b). We thus recommend upgrading existing markets. The priority should be covering them and concreting the ground. Other basic infrastructures and services should be provided, including access to clean water. The planning of new markets should include in-depth consultation of a panel of market users, especially wholesalers and retailers (Hubbard and Onumah 2001). Food markets can also be combined with a “food hub” function, thereby creating new market linkages with food producers in the region, as developed in Colombia (Dubbeling et al. 2017). Market regulations concerning hygiene should be designed with the involvement of representatives of market users. Farmers’ markets should be encouraged by providing adequate space and market services (Baker and de Zeeuw 2015).

### 5.2.3 Accommodating Space for Mobile Vendors

Given the importance of street vending in the livelihoods of vulnerable urban populations (especially women), we recommend their business should be acknowledged and support provided that aims at “semi-formality” (Cross 2000). Semi-formality refers to a self-regulating system with some light third-party regulatory enforcement, thus protecting the flexibility of street vending, which is uniquely adapted to the conditions of the urban poor. Regulatory enforcement requires consulting a panel of street vendors to protect some urban spaces so as to allow vendors to conduct their temporary business while ensuring their commitment to respecting rules of hygiene and traffic safety. Some examples of successful integration of street vending in urban planning can be found in Loc and Moustier in Vietnam (2016), in Srivastana in India (2012), in Dai et al. in China, (2019), and in Tangworamonycon in Thailand (2014).

## 5.3 Consumer-Oriented Promotion of Nutrient-Dense Food

Culinary recipes and techniques that enhance the nutritional quality of the food, as well as the packaging and labelling of local nutrient-dense food items, including fruit, vegetables, pulses, and nuts, should be promoted. These food items are recommended to enable urban consumers, including women and children, to diversify their diets in line with nutritional and planetary limits and the promotion of local biodiversity (EAT-Lancet Commission 2019). Different ways to increase public awareness about healthy food and promote traditional food cultures are discussed in Hawkes et al. (2020).
## 5.4 National Provisioning of Infrastructures and Services for MSMEs

### 5.4.1 Improving Rural-Urban Transport

Roads between cities and rural areas, which play a major role in supplying food to cities, need to be expanded and maintained, along with alternative transport routes by rail or water (Popoola et al. 2021).

### 5.4.2 Disseminating Small-Scale Food Processing Technologies

Technological innovations are available to improve the safety and nutritional qualities of food, but not at a sufficient scale for MSMEs (Ferré et al. 2018; Pallet and Sainte-Beuve 2016). Examples of small-scale food storage and processing technologies that reduce food losses, based on a thorough assessment of losses along food chains, are given by Tefft et al. (2017).

### 5.4.3 Service Provisioning for MSMEs

Innovation in the artisanal sector needs to be supported by providing credit to increase working capital, so as to enable investment in semi-industrial processing. Training on how to improve the quality of food also needs to be made available to MSMEs. This falls under the mandate of the public sector. As public resources are scarce, partnering with the retail sector may be an appropriate solution, if it enables sufficiently wide coverage of both farmers’ and consumer’s economic profiles. The public sector also needs to invest human resources in food quality control, with random checks of food safety and labelling frauds, as well as graduated sanctions for non-compliance, at various points along the chain, including wholesale and retail markets (Hawkes et al. 2020; Dao 2020).

## 5.5 Fostering Multi-stakeholder Coordination and Governance

Secured forms of coordination between food suppliers and vendors range from agreements on quality or quantity requirements to contractual joint commitments. Innovative producer organisations that include processing and distribution, e.g., “Entreprises de Services et Organisations de Producteurs” (ESOPs), should be encouraged, as this increases the scale of operation and investments in quality while creating added value for farmers (Maertens and Velde 2017). The concept of ‘intermediate food systems’ (*systèmes alimentaires du milieu*) developed by
Chazoule et al. (2018) and tested in some African situations (Sirdey 2020) can be used to model the hybridisation of traditional and modern systems that combine cooperation mechanisms with economies of scale.

Cities can become important actors in the development of SFSs, particularly through their governance of urban agriculture, school canteens, and waste management (Bricas 2019; Fages and Bricas 2017). Through the Milan food policy pact (https://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/), city officials are invited to commit to 31 actions aimed at sustainable food provisioning and consumption. In many cities, permanent urban food policy councils have been set up, with interesting outcomes, e.g., school catering programmes (Sonnino et al. 2019). Governing urban food systems in an inclusive way involves setting up multi-stakeholder city-region food platforms. These include public stakeholders working in different sectors (agriculture, trade, environment, health, social care) and at the national and city scales, together with a panel of value chain actors and service support organisations. The stakeholders meet regularly to exchange and discuss information, aiming to reach a consensus on desirable outcomes and on a set of policy recommendations (Blay-Palmer et al. 2018; see also https://ruaf.org/ for many examples of urban food policy platforms, sometimes on the basis of urban agriculture programmes, like in Quito). Food system assessment and dialogues are good starting points (Huynh et al. 2021; David-Benz et al. forthcoming).

In all these platforms, access and use of market information is strategic. Systems favouring interactions among farmers, traders and public agencies, conducive to new marketing decisions for farmers, new supply options for traders, and priorities for extension workers and input suppliers, e.g., for the support of off-season production as a substitute for imports, are termed alliances by the World Bank (2016), as quoted by Tefft et al. (2017), or market information and consultation systems (MICS). Modelling tools and serious games can be combined in such information and consultation systems to present options for local production that better address consumer needs (Verger et al. 2018; Mangnus et al. 2019).

# 6 Conclusion

In the context of continuous urban development and widening income disparities, urban food systems in countries of the Global South are becoming more market-oriented and innovative, with new investments in logistics and quality. Small-scale, labour-intensive food supply chains with relational governance and decentralised food distribution that provide food at a low price close to consumers’ homes have proven resilient. They are poor-friendly and adapted to the time and work demands of women, in particular compared to agro-industrial schemes. Relative to the vast recent literature on food systems, this chapter highlights some peculiarities of the urban context and food systems of low- and middle-income countries. These include the importance of food caterers and mobile and open market vendors, as well as urban agriculture, in the provisioning of the urban poor; the high pressure on urban
agricultural land and water; the innovative nature and consumer orientation of many food MSMEs; and the growing concerns and involvement of urban authorities in urban food security. Opportunities exist to respond to consumer demand and needs in terms of nutritional balance and food safety, while creating employment for less educated urban populations, especially for women. To exploit these opportunities, we have recommended a set of actions representing public support to endogenous patterns, adapted to the six types of urban food system that we brought to the fore, as a variety of food systems is needed to target different objectives and local contexts (Seck 2021).

**Acknowledgements** Thanks to Ninon Sirdey, two anonymous reviewers from the UNFSS scientific group for their comments on an earlier version, and to Jemimah Njuki, International Food Policy Research Institute, Africa Regional office c/o ILRI Nairobi.

## References

Adimalla N (2020) Heavy metals pollution assessment and its associated human health risk evaluation of urban soils from Indian cities: a review. Environ Geochem Health 42(1):173-190

Allen T, Heinrigs P, Heo I (2018) Agriculture, food and jobs in West Africa. West African Papers, N°14. OECD Publishing, Paris

Amegah AK, Agyei-Mensah S (2017) Urban air pollution in sub-Saharan Africa: time for action. Environ Pollut 220:738-743

Baker L, de Zeeuw H (2015) Urban food policies and programmes. In: de Zeeuw H, Drechsel P (eds) Cities and agriculture: developing resilient urban food systems. Routledge, London, pp 26-55

BBVA Research (2017) Urbanization in Latin America. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Urbanization-in-Latin-America-BBVA-Research.pdf. Accessed 01 Dec 2021

Béné C, Oosterveer P, Lamotte L, Brouwer ID, de Haan S, Prager SD, Talsma EF, Khoury CK (2019) When food systems meet sustainability. Current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev 113:116-130

Blay-Palmer A, Santini G, Dubbeling M, Renting H, Taguchi M, Giordano T (2018) Validating the City region Food system approach: enacting inclusive, transformational city region Food Systems. Sustainability 10(5):1680

Blekking J, Tuholske C, Evans T (2017) Adaptive governance and market heterogeneity: an institutional analysis of an urban Food system in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 9:2191

Bellwood-Howard I, Shakya M, Korbeogo G, Schlesinger J (2018) The role of backyard farms in two west African urban landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 170:34-47

Berchin II, Nunes NA, de Amorim WS, Zimmer GAA, da Silva FR, Fornasari VH, de Andrade JBSO (2019) The contributions of public policies for strengthening family farming and increasing food security: the case of Brazil. Land Use Policy 82:573-584

Bonnet F, Vanek J, Chen M (2019) Women and men in the informal economy: a statistical brief. International Labour Office, Geneva. https://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/Women%20and%20Men%20in%20the%20Informal%20Economy%203rd%20Edition%202018.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 21

Bricas N, Tchamba C, Mouton F (eds) (2016) L'Afrique à la conquête de son marché intérieur. Editions AFD, Paris
Bricas N (2019) Urbanization issues affecting Food system sustainability. In: Brand C, Bricas N, Conare D, Daviron B, Debru J, Michel L, Soulard CT (eds) Designing urban Food policies. Concepts and approaches. Springer, pp 1–25

Chaboud G, Bricas N, Daviron B (2013) Sustainable urban food systems: state of the art and future directions. Communication to the fifth Aesop urban food planning conference. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02745437/document#page=39

Chazoule C, Lafosse G, Brulard N, Crosnier M, Van Dat C, Desole M, Devise O (2018) Produire et échanger dans le cadre de systèmes alimentaires du milieu. Pour 2:143–150

Cobbinah PB, Erdiaw-Kwasie MO, Amoateng P (2015) Africa's urbanisation: implications for sustainable development. Cities 47:62–72

Cross J (2000) Street vendors, and postmodernity: conflict and compromise in the global economy. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 20(1/2):29–51

De Bon H, Parrot L, Moustier P (2010) Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30(1):21–32

Dai N, Zhong T, Scott S (2019) From overt opposition to covert cooperation: governance of street food vending in Nanjing, China. Urban Forum 30(4):499–518

Dao TA (ed) (2020) Developing a sustainable safe food value chain in Vietnam. Vietnamese version. Agricultural-Construction Publishing Houses, Hanoi

Dao TA (ed) (2019) Development of sustainable peri-urban agriculture in Vietnam. Vietnamese version. Agricultural Publishing House

David-Benz H, Sirdey N, Deshons A, Orbell C, Herlant P (forthcoming) Assessing national and subnational food systems. A methodological framework. CIRAD/FAO/EU. Draft version available at: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/food_system_analysis_rapid_methodology-english_18_may_2020.pdf. Accessed on 1 Dec 21

De Cara S, Fournier A, Gaigné C (2017) Local Food, urbanization, and transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. J Reg Sci 57(1):75–108

Demmler KM, Ecker O, Qaim M (2018) Supermarket shopping and nutritional outcomes: a panel data analysis for urban Kenya. World Dev 102:292–303

De Brauw A, Brouwer ID, Snoek H, Vignola R, Melesse MB, Lochetti G, Ruben R (2019) Food system innovations for healthier diets in low and middle-income countries, Working paper 1816. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington

Devereux S, Béné C, Hoddinott J (2020) Conceptualising COVID-19's impacts on household food security. Food Security 12(4):769–772

Douglas I (2017) Flooding in African cities, scales of causes, teleconnections, risks, vulnerability and impacts. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 26:34–42

Dubbeling M, Santini G, Renting H, Taguchi M, Lançon L, Zuluaga J, De Paoli L, Rodriguez A, Andino V (2017) Assessing and planning Sustainable City region Food systems: insights from two Latin American cities. Sustainability 9:1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081455

Dury S, Alpha A, Zakhia N, Giordano T (2021) Les systèmes alimentaires aux défis de la crise de la Covid-19 en Afrique: enseignements et incertitudes. Cahiers Agric 30(12)

Fafchamps M (2004) Market institutions in sub-saharan Africa. Theory and evidence. The MIT Press, Cambridge

EAT-Lancet Commission (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet Commissions. https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT. Accessed on 1 Dec 21

Fages R, Bricas N (2017) Food for cities. What roles for local governments in the global South? Paris, AFD, [Full Text]

FAO (2018) Sustainable food systems: concept and framework. http://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/fr/c/1160811/. Accessed on 1 Dec 21

FAO, RUAF (2019) Evaluación y planificación del Sistema Agroalimentario Ciudad-Región. Medellin, Roma. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5747es/ca5747es.pdf. Accessed on 1 Dec 21
Ferré T, Medah I, Cruz JF, Dabat MH, Le Gal PY, Chtioui M, Devaux-Spatarakis A (2018) Innover dans le secteur de la transformation agroalimentaire en Afrique de l'Ouest. Cahiers Agric 27(1): 15011

Figuié M, Bricas N, Than VPN, Truyen ND (2004) Hanoi consumers’ point of view regarding food safety risks: an approach in terms of social representation. Vietnam Soc Sci 3(101):63–72

Freidberg S, Goldstein L (2011) Alternative food in the global south: reflections on a direct marketing initiative in Kenya. J Rural Stud 27(1):24–34

Giordano T, Losch B, Sourisseau JM, Girard P (2019) Risks of mass unemployment and worsening of working conditions. In: Dury S. et al (Eds), op.cit., 75–78

Glover D, Poole N (2019) Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia. Food Policy 82:63–73

Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag 33(1):220–232

Hagen JM (2002) Causes and consequences of food retailing innovation in developing countries: supermarkets in Vietnam, Working Paper, Cornell University, Department of Applied Econom- ics and Management. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/127310/

Hawkes C, Walton S, Haddad L, Fanzo J (2020) 42 policies and actions to orient food systems towards healthier diets for all. Centre for Food Policy, City, University of London, London

HLPE (2014) Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. HLPE report nr 8. http://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/fr/c/854257/

HLPE (2017) Nutrition and food systems HLPE report nr 12. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_ upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-12_FR.pdf

Holdsworth M, Pradeilles R, Tandoh A, Green M, Wanjohi M, Zotor F, Laar A (2020) Unhealthy eating practices of city-dwelling Africans in deprived neighbourhoods: evidence for policy action from Ghana and Kenya. Glob Food Sec 26:100452

Hou J (2017) Urban community gardens as multimodal social spaces. In: Tan P, Jim C (eds) Greening cities. Advances in 21st century human settlements. Springer, Singapore

Hubbard M, Onumah G (2001) Improving urban food supply and distribution in developing countries: the role of city authorities. Habitat Int 25(3):431–446

Huynh TTT, Pham TMH, Duong TT, Hernandez R, Trinh TH, Nguyen MT, Even B, Lundy M, Swaans K, Raneri J, Hoang TK, Hendriks A, Abbink H, Nguyen TK, Ha HT, de Haan S (2021) Food systems profile. Along a rural-urban transect in North Vietnam. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/ handle/10568/113417

International Labour Organization (ILO) (2018) World employment and social outlook: trends 2018. ILO, Geneva

IPES Food (2020) COVID-19 and the crisis in food systems: Symptoms, causes, and potential solutions. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/COVID-19_ComuniqueEN%283%29. pdf. Accessed on 1 Dec 21

Jaffee S, Henson S, Unnevehr L, Grace D, Cassou E (2018) The safe food imperative: accelerating progress in low-and middle-income countries. World Bank Publications, Washington

Joshi A, Kaneko J, Usami Y (2012) Farmers’ participation in weekly organic bazaars in Aurang-abad, India. J Rural Prob 45(175):231–236

Karg H, Akoto-Danso EK, Drechsel P, Abubakari AH, Buerkert A (2019) Food-and feed-based nutrient flows in two West African cities. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 115(2):173–188

Fan S, Swinnen J (2020) Reshaping food systems. The imperative of inclusiveness. In: International Food policy research institute, global Food policy report: building inclusive Food systems. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 6–12. https://doi.org/10. 2499/9780896293670

GNR (2020) Global Nutrition Report: Action on equity to end malnutrition. 2020. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. https://globalnutritionreport.org/. Accessed on 1 Dec 21

Leeson GW (2018) The growth, ageing and urbanisation of our world. J Popul Ageing 11:107–115
Letcher TM (2020) Introduction to plastic waste and recycling. In: Plastic waste and recycling. Academic, London, pp 3–12

Lemeilleur, S., d'Angelo I., Rousseau, M., Brisson E., Boyer A., Lançon F., Moustier P. 2019. Les systèmes de distribution alimentaire dans les pays d'Afrique méditerranéenne et Sub-saharienne. Repenser le rôle des marchés dans l'infrastructure commerciale. Notes techniques de l'AFD. *Notes*, (51). http://admin.riafco.org/Images/Ressources/Pulication/64/51-notes-techniques.pdf. Accessed on 1 Dec 21

Loc NTT, Moustier P (2016) Toward a restricted tolerance of street vending of food in Hanoi districts: the role of stakeholder dialogue. World Food Policy 2:67–78

Maertens M, Velde KV (2017) Contract-farming in staple food chains: the case of rice in Benin. World Dev 95:73–87

Maestre M, Poole N, Henson S (2017) Assessing food value chain pathways, linkages and impacts for better nutrition of vulnerable groups. Food Policy 68:31–39

Magnus AC, Vervoort JM, McGreevy S, Ota K, Rupprecht C, Oga M, Kobayashi M (2019) New pathways for governing food system transformations: a pluralistic practice-based futures approach using visioning, back-casting, and serious gaming. Ecol Soc 24(4)

Minten B, Reardon T, Chen KZ (2017) Agricultural value chains: how cities reshape food systems. Global food policy report, IFPRI book, pp 42–49

Moustier P (2020) Pour un accès inclusif aux aliments en temps de covid-19. https://www.agenceecofin.com/agro/1205-76552-pour-un-acces-inclusif-aux-aliments-en-temps-de-covid-19-paule-moustier. Accessed on 1 Dec 21

Moustier P (2017a) Short urban food chains in developing countries: signs of the past or of the future? Nat Sci Soc 25(1):7–20

Moustier P (2017b) What market planning policies should apply to urban food systems in developing countries? In: Debru J, Albert S, Bricas N, Conaré D (eds) Urban food policies: proceedings of the international meeting on experience in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Chaire Unesco alimentations du monde, Montpellier, pp 23–26. https://issuu.com/chaireunescoadm/docs/01-actespau_en_20juin/32

Moustier P, Renting H (2015) Urban agriculture and short chain food marketing in developing countries. In: De Zeeuw H, Drechsel P (eds) Cities and agriculture. Developing resilient urban food systems. Routledge, London, pp 121–138

Moustier P, Figuié M, Loc NTT (2009) Are supermarkets poor-friendly? Debates and evidence from Vietnam. In: Lindgreen A, Hingley M (eds) The crisis of food brands. Gower Publishing, London, pp 311–327

Neveu-Tafforeau MJ (2017) Grande distribution: quelles opportunités pour les filières agroalimentaires locales? Fondation Farm, Paris

Nuthalapati CS, Sutradhar R, Reardon T, Qaim M (2020) Supermarket procurement and farmgate prices in India. World Dev 134(105034):1–14

OECD/SWAC (2020) Africa's urbanisation dynamics 2020: Africapolis, Mapping a New Urban Geography. West African Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b6bccb81-en

OECD, Commission économique pour l'Amérique latine et les Caraibes, CAF Development Bank of Latin America and Union européenne (2019) Latin American economic outlook 2019: development in transition. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9ff18-en

Ogunkola IO, Imo UF, Obia HJ, Okolie EA, Lucero-Prisno DE III (2021) While flattening the curve and raising the line, Africa should not forget street vending practices. Health Promotion Perspect 11(1):32–35

Ortega DL, Tschirley DL (2017) Demand for food safety in emerging and developing countries: a research agenda for Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. J Agribusiness Dev Emerging Econ 7(1): 21–34

Olivier DW, Heinecken L (2017) Beyond food security: women's experiences of urban agriculture in Cape Town. Agric Hum Values 34(3):743–755
PAHO (Pan American Health Organization) (2015) Ultra-processed food and drink products in Latin America: trends, impact on obesity, policy implications, Washington, DC

Pallet D, Sainte-Beuve J (2016) Systèmes de transformation durables: quelles nouvelles stratégies pour les filières? In: Biénabé E, Rival A, Loeillet D (eds) Développement durable et filières tropicales. Editions Quae, Montpellier, pp 151–165

Pervin IA, Rahman SMM, Nepal M, Haque AKE, Karim H, Dhakal G (2020) Adapting to urban flooding: a case of two cities in South Asia. Water Policy 22(S1):162–188

Popoola AA, Adeyemi YD, Oni FE, Omojola O, Adeleye BM, Medayese S, Popoola OG (2021) Rural-urban Food movement: role of road transportation in Food chain analysis. In: Handbook of Research on Institution Development for Sustainable and Inclusive Economic Growth in Africa. IGI Global, pp 276–298

Popkin BM, Adair LS, Ng SW (2012) Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr Rev 70(1):3–21

Pradeilles R, Irache A, Milkah N, Wanjohi HM, Laar A, Zotor F, Tandoh A, Senam KS, Graham F, Muthuri SK, Kimani-Murage EW, Coleman N, Green MA, Osei-Kwasi HA, Marco BM, Emily K, Rousham EK, Gershim AG, Akparibo R, Mensah K, Aryeetey R, Bricas N, Griffiths P (2021) Urban physical food environment drives dietary behaviours in Ghana and Kenya: a Photovoice study. Health Place 71:102647

Pulliat G (2015) Food securitization and urban agriculture in Hanoi (Vietnam). J Urban Res 7. https://journals.openedition.org/articulo/2845

Ravaillon M (2016) The economics of poverty. Paperback

Reardon T, Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Minten B (2021a) Quiet revolution by SMEs in the midstream of value chains in developing regions: wholesale markets, wholesalers, logistics, and processing. Food Security 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01224-1

Reardon T, Belton B, Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Lu L, Nuthalapati CS, Tasie O, Zilberman D (2021b) E-commerce's fast-tracking diffusion and adaptation in developing countries. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 43:1243. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/aep.13160

Reardon T, Echeverria R, Berdegué J, Minten B, Liverpool-Tasie S, Tschirley D, Zilberman D (2019) Rapid transformation of food systems in developing regions: highlighting the role of agricultural research and innovations. Agric Syst 172:47–59

Reardon T (2015) The hidden middle: the quiet revolution in the midstream of agrifood value chains in developing countries. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 31(1):45–63

Reardon T, Henson S, Gulati A (2010) Links between supermarkets and food prices, diet diversity and food safety in developing countries. In: Hawkes C, Blouin C, Henson S, Drager N, Dubé L (eds) Trade, food, diet and health: perspectives and policy options. Wiley, pp 111–130

Renting H, Dubbeling M (2013) Synthesis report: innovative experiences with (peri-) urban agriculture and urban food provisioning - lessons to be learned from the global South. Supurbfood project report. Leusden, RUAF Foundation

Reynolds TW, Waddington SR, Anderson CL, Chew A, True Z, Cullen A (2015) Environmental impacts and constraints associated with the production of major food crops in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Food Security 7(4):795–822

Rodrik D (2016) Premature desindustrialization. J Econ Growth 21(1):1–33

Rousham E, Pradeilles R, Akparibo R, Aryeetey R, Bash K, Booth A, Muthuri S, Osei-Kwasi HA, Marr C, Norris T, Holdsworth M (2020) Dietary behaviours in the context of nutrition transition: a systematic review and meta-analysis in two African countries. Public Health Nutr:1–17

Seck PA (2021) Some African expectations from the 2021 world summit on food systems. Embassy of Senegal at Italy

Schreiber K, Hickey GM, Metson GS, Robinson BE, MacDonald GK (2021) Quantifying the foodshed: a systematic review of urban food flow and local food self-sufficiency research. Environ Res Lett 16(2):023003

Shekar M, Condo J, Pate MA, Nishtar S (2021) Maternal and child undernutrition: progress hinges on supporting women and more implementation research. Lancet 397(10282):1329–1331
Sirdey N (2020) Pour une analyse des « systèmes alimentaires du milieu »: étude de la pertinence et de l'opérationnalisation de la notion en contexte africain. *Document de travail Cirad*

Si Z, Scott S, McCordic C (2019) Wet markets, supermarkets and alternative food sources: consumers' food access in Nanjing, China. *Can J Dev Stud* 40(1):78–96

Sonnino R, Tegoni CL, De Cunto A (2019) The challenge of systemic food change: insights from cities. *Cities* 85:110–116

Soula A, Yount-André C, Lepiller O, Bricas N (eds) (2020) Manger en ville: Regards socio-anthropologiques d'Afrique, d'Amérique latine et d'Asie. *Editions Quae, Montpellier*

Tangworamongkon C (2014) Street vending in Bangkok: legal and policy frameworks, livelihood challenges and collective responses. *Woman in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing*. https://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/Street-Vending-Bangkok-Legal-and-Policy-Framework-Law-Case-Study.pdf

Tefft J, Jonasova M, Adjao R, Morgan A (2017) Food systems for an urbanizing world. *World Bank and FAO*

The EAT-Lancet Commission (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet Commissions. https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT

The World Bank (2016) Linking farmers to markets through productive alliances: an assessment of the World Bank experience in Latin America. *World Bank, Washington DC*

Tschirley D, Bricas N, Sauer C, Reardon T (2020) Opportunities in Africa's growing urban food markets. In: feeding Africa's cities: opportunities, challenges, and policies for linking African farmers with growing urban food markets. *AGRA. Nairobi: AGRA, 25-56*. Africa agriculture status report. https://agra.org/reports-and-financials/

Tschirley D, Haggblade S, Reardon T (2014) Africa's emerging food transformation, Eastern and Southern Africa. *MSU*. https://www.adelaide.edu.au/global-food/research/international-development/vietnam-consumer-survey

Turner S, Schoenberger L (2011) Street vendor livelihoods and everyday politics in Hanoi, Vietnam: the seeds of a diverse economy? *Urban Stud* 49(5):1027–1044

UNICEF/GAIN (2018) Food systems for children and adolescents. *Summary report*

University of Adelaide (2014) The Vietnam urban food consumption and expenditure studyFactsheet 4: where do consumers shop? Wet markets still dominate. https://www.adelaide.edu.au/global-food/ua/media/95/Urban_Consumer_Survey_Factsheet_04.pdf

Valette E, Philifert P (2014) L'agriculture urbaine: un impensé des politiques publiques marocaines? *Géocarrefour* 89:75–83

Verger EO, Perignon M, El Ati J, Darmon N, Dop MC, Drogué S, Amiot-Carlin MJ (2018) A “fork-to-farm” multi-scale approach to promote sustainable food systems for nutrition and health: a perspective for the Mediterranean region. *Front Nutr* 5:30

Vietnam news (2021) Agricultural products go online. https://vietnamnews.vn/economy/899756/agricultural-products-go-online.html

Vorley B (2013) Meeting small-scale farmers in their markets: understanding and improving the institutions and governance of informal agrifood trade. *International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)*

Wanyama R, Gödecke T, Chege CG, Qaim. (2019) How important are supermarkets for the diets of the urban poor in Africa? *Food Security* 11(6):1339–1353

Wertheim-Heck SC, Raneri JE (2019) A cross-disciplinary mixed-method approach to understand how food retail environment transformations influence food choice and intake among the urban poor: experiences from Vietnam. *Appetite* 142:104370

Yaya S, Ekholuenetale M, Bishwajit G (2018) Differentials in prevalence and correlates of metabolic risk factors of non-communicable diseases among women in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from 33 countries. *BMC Public Health* 18(1):1–13
**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_61.png" /></figure>
Secondary Cities as Catalysts for Nutritious
Diets in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Kesso Gabrielle van Zutphen, Dominique Barjolle, Sophie van den Berg, Breda Gavin-Smith, Klaus Kraemer, Capucine Musard, Helen Prytherch, Johan Six, Simon Winter, and Kris Woltering

# 1 Introduction

The world is facing a global malnutrition crisis. One in nine people go to bed hungry, more than 2 billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, while one-third of the global population is overweight or obese (Global Nutrition Report 2020). Unhealthy diets are the leading risk factor for deaths from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Although laudable progress has been made in maternal, infant and young child nutrition, malnutrition persists at unacceptably high levels in every country in the world, and we are not on track to achieve the targets of Zero Hunger (Goal 2) of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To date, despite growing political attention, such as through the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, no

K. G. van Zutphen (✉)

Sight and Life Foundation, Basel, Switzerland

Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

e-mail: kesso.vanzutphen@sightandlife.org

D. Barjolle · S. van den Berg · J. Six

Department of Environmental Systems Science, Group of Sustainable Agroecosystems,
Zurich, Switzerland

B. Gavin-Smith · K. Woltering

Sight and Life Foundation, Basel, Switzerland

K. Kraemer

Sight and Life Foundation, Basel, Switzerland

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

C. Musard · H. Prytherch

Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland

S. Winter

Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, Basel, Switzerland
country has managed to reverse the rapid rise in malnutrition in all its forms, and this was even before the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (Global Nutrition Report 2020). The coexistence of undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies and overnutrition in countries, households and even within individuals, referred to as the triple burden of malnutrition, signals a major shift in the global burden of malnutrition, with great variations and inequalities at different levels i.e., age, gender, geographical location (urban-rural) and other sociodemographic factors.

As urbanization rates across the globe are rising and there is a continued push to decentralize decision-making power to levels that are closer to the people served, cities are gaining an increasingly important role in the global malnutrition crisis and offer entry points for food system transformation. Besides the role of cities in ensuring adequate diets and managing the rising burden of NCDs, cities could also play a key role in enhancing resilience to food security shocks. This chapter discusses the challenge of the growing triple burden of malnutrition in urban contexts and advocates for the role of secondary cities as game changers in transforming city region food systems. Secondary cities are introduced as emerging players in pioneering nutrition-centered food systems interventions, and in monitoring and evaluating their impacts for later improvements and out-scaling.

## 2 The Challenge: A Growing Triple Burden of Malnutrition in Urban Contexts

The triple burden of malnutrition has moved to the cities as the world's population becomes more urbanized. For the first time in history, more than half of the world's population lives in urban areas (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2014). By 2050, two-thirds of the global population is expected to reside in urban areas, consuming 80% of the world's food and producing 85% of global economic output (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2018). Infants and young children of parents with low socio-economic status are extremely vulnerable to poor nutrition, and the first 1000 days are considered critical for a strong foundation in life. It is estimated that one in three children affected by stunting currently resides in urban areas, with the most disadvantaged urban children having stunting rates, on average, only slightly lower than those of the most disadvantaged rural children (Ruel et al. 2017). Poor urban children are up to ten times more likely to be stunted than urban children of a high socio-economic status (Ruel et al. 2017). In parallel, child undernutrition rates are rivaling the levels found among the rural poor, while the prevalence of overweight children is often higher among urban areas (Ruel et al. 2017). Among adults, the accelerated increase of overweight over the past decade and a half was more concentrated in urban areas. Overall, the data point to a shift towards a greater overall burden of malnutrition in all its forms in urban, compared to rural, areas. By 2035, half of individuals in extreme poverty (i.e., daily income
less than USD 1.25) will live in urban areas, thereby increasing the number of people who cannot afford a healthy diet (Ravallion 2002). An additional and growing concern relates to food safety issues associated with eating out, particularly regard- ing street foods. Economic development, population growth and increasing rates of urbanization are creating an urgency to specifically understand the role of food systems in sustainable food production, consumption, diets and nutrition in urban contexts (also referred to as city region food systems).

Poor diets among city inhabitants are the consequence of a combination of forces. These include changes in types of occupation, particularly for women, that increase the demand for convenience and for ready-to-eat meals and foods; food-environment factors such as the persistent marketing and availability of nutrient-poor and energy-dense foods; shifts in norms and attitudes regarding food that are correlated with urban living, such as pressures to move away from traditional diets and changes in food habits and demand for (ultra)processed foods (Ruel et al. 2017). The recogni- tion and consumption of traditional diets are also hampered due to the increasing globalization of the food sector and dependence on imported foods, a development that might exclude opportunities to enhance local food production. Another key element relates to the affordability of healthy diets, in the light of 3 billion people not being able to afford a healthy diet due to food prices and income constraints (FAO et al. 2020). Although incomes are generally higher in urban contexts, cities struggle to provide affordable and healthy diets to the urban poor. Poor road conditions and long distances between rural agricultural areas and cities cause food losses and food safety concerns regarding the transport of food to markets. This is especially critical for perishable nutritious foods, including animal products, vegetables and fruit (FAO et al. 2020). In sub-Saharan Africa, 35% of fruit and vegetables are lost and wasted at the retail level (FAO et al. 2020). Post-harvest preservation and conservation techniques are still poorly developed, meaning that a lot of nutritious food does not make it to the urban table.

# 3 The Solution: Secondary Cities as Game Changers for Sustainable Food Systems

## 3.1 Secondary Cities’ Unique Characteristics

Contrary to popular belief, urbanization is not causing existing cities to develop into so-called ‘mega-cities,’ but is rather creating a patchwork of smaller urban areas (Satterthwaite 2007; Swilling and Annecke 2012). In 2018, close to half of the world’s urban residents lived in settlements or towns with less than 500,000 inhab- itants (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2018). These settlements are classified as secondary cities and are, in terms of population, the fastest growing urban areas. Besides secondary cities, urban areas also consist of primary cities. These are generally defined as “the leading
city in its country or region, disproportionately larger than any others in the urban hierarchy.” Secondary cities are known as the ‘second tier’ in this urban hierarchy. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of a ‘secondary city’ (Goodall 1987). The term is contextual and can relate to population size, an administrative area, or a system of cities/towns with a particular significance within a country or geographical region (Roberts 2014a). Importantly, secondary cities within countries and regions are not uniform and can be classified into three broad categories generally described as “(1) the extractive city, whose economy and sole reason for existence was informed by and is now reliant on an extractive resource (often a single resource); (2) the trunk or trade city, located on a transport route or at a transport intersection; and (3) a satellite city, whose existence is informed by and deeply reliant on another city or country” (Roberts 2014b).

Secondary cities are characterized by a relatively smaller spatial scale and a physical proximity to rural areas when compared to primary or mega-cities. In contexts where power is decentralized to lower administrative levels, this characteristic offers unique opportunities to transform the city region food system for improved human and planetary health. In fact, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) specifically, linking urban areas with agricultural hinterlands could increase food security resilience through, for instance, a reduced dependence on international trade and a reduced vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change, which may result in food shortages (Blay-Palmer et al. 2018; Dubbeling et al. 2017). Additionally, localized food production in city region food systems creates the possibility of shortening food supply chains and reconnecting consumption and production. This has been found to enhance local and rural development and promotes information-sharing between producers and consumers (Belletti and Marescotti 2020). Short supply chains could provide ecological, health and socio-economic benefits. They have been linked to reduced food loss and are generally associated with decreased carbon emissions (resulting from, e.g., reduced transportation) (Blay-Palmer et al. 2015). Moreover, they have been described as an effective strategy when aiming to develop urban agriculture for enhanced food security. However, short value chains could also face challenges related to possible inefficient small-scale production processes or logistics (small freights/empty trucks). Inefficient production processes, logistics and use of resources could negatively affect pricing and even compromise the generally low emission of greenhouse gasses associated with short value chains (Borsellino et al. 2020). The potential of short value chains to benefit human and planetary health should therefore always be subject to context-specific assessments.

In short, when compared to primary cities, the city region food systems in secondary cities are largely characterized by strong urban-rural linkages and the opportunity for localized food production and consumption. In high-income countries, secondary cities are increasingly seen as important drivers to sustainably advance economic and social developments. In 2015, Parkinson et al. recommended that the European Commission increase their investments in secondary cities when “(i) the gap with capitals is large and growing, (ii) the business infrastructure of second-tier cities is weak because of national underinvestment and (iii) there is clear
evidence about the negative externalities of capital city growth" to realize the
economic potential of these cities (Parkinson et al. 2015). While primary cities
have received the highest attention, the growing importance of secondary cities for
urbanizing populations makes them uniquely positioned to serve as critical entry
points for city region food system transformations.

## 3.2 Secondary Cities Face Challenges That Can Be Turned into Opportunities

Secondary cities, however, also face persistent challenges and disadvantages. In Europe, they play a key economic and social role, but compared to primary cities, they lack economic, demographic and, especially, political importance (Cardoso and Meijers 2017). Disadvantages resulting from this lack of importance may, in turn, lead to several setbacks in terms of infrastructure, governance, autonomy, decision-making space and the power required to raise resources and galvanize meaningful action. The disadvantages faced by secondary cities in Europe are more pressing in less-developed economic regions. Although the available body of research on secondary cities in LMICs appears to be less extensive, it is important to acknowledge that the underlying processes that shape urbanization in Africa are very distinct from those in other regions, such as Europe. Urban expansion in Africa is largely characterized by unplanned and/or unregulated growth and the absence of strong urban planning institutions (Pieterse and Parnell 2014). Consequently, secondary cities in sub-Saharan Africa and other LMICs are faced with several key challenges, as witnessed in Europe, but in a generally more complex context (Haysom and Fuseini 2019). Indeed, secondary cities are rapidly growing and are challenged by the fact that this increasing urban population is starting to call municipal leadership to account when access to basic services is compromised. Furthermore, similarly to Europe, governance and accountability remains a key challenge, as budgets, skills and capacities are often limited when compared to primary cities and hinder the effective governing of pressing issues related to poverty, health and social safety. Finally, the rapid growth experienced by secondary cities may put basic infrastructures (road networks, housing, access to markets, health and education services) under pressure, which may cause social inequalities to increase, with women and young girls of low socio-economic status particularly at risk of being excluded and exploited. In fact, whereas the original structure of a city might have met the needs of the population, it might not be an adequate foundation for rapid and unregulated expansion. All of these hinder sustainable economic growth (Haysom and Fuseini 2019) and make it difficult to attract private sector investments, create jobs and retain capital (Roberts 2014a). Although opportunities to transform secondary city food systems are apparent, the combination of rapid population growth and lagging development may cause poverty, malnutrition and related issues to concentrate among vulnerable populations (women, youths and the poor) in these same cities.
Without significant investment, a real effort to become more integrated and improved governance to bring different sectors, local business and civil society to the table, these locations will become a force for deeper exclusion and inequalities. The generally limited governance capacities in secondary cities calls for an improved understanding as to how these cities are governed, attention to the question of the decentralization of power, and how this shapes poverty and the production, distribution and consumption of food. As suggested by Satterthwaite (2007), the rapid urban growth in itself is not the main issue in cities. In fact, the most pressing challenge is the inadequate governance and planning from national and local institutions that is vital to adapting to this urban growth (Satterthwaite 2007). Although some research on how city governance affects urban poverty is available, the relationship among governance, poverty and the related nutrition and health outcomes in smaller cities needs further investigation.

The coming two to three decades will be critical in defining urban development in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Time is of the essence when conceptualizing, planning, financing and implementing this development (Pieterse et al. 2018). The rapid growth and the above-mentioned characteristics of secondary cities position them to take the lead in innovative and urgently needed food system interventions to ensure human and planetary health. However, as these cities struggle with challenges, increased investment and research in LMICs are needed.

The initiatives described below are practical examples that, when applied to the secondary cities context, can be leveraged to transform urban food systems and combat malnutrition and poverty. The examples highlight secondary cities’ unique opportunities, namely, their power to convene key stakeholders, to make decisions and to raise and channel resources. Another opportunity is their ability to strengthen the supply and demand of diverse, locally produced and nutritious foods with short chains benefiting both producers and consumers.

## 3.3 Secondary Cities Can Accelerate Food Systems Transformation – Three Case Studies from LMICs

### 3.3.1 Nutrient Profiling with OBAASIMA in Ghana

Nutrient profiling (NP) is a scientific method for assessing the nutritional quality of (processed) foods and beverages based on their energy content and nutrient composition. NP and, for instance, the translation to front-of-pack labeling is a useful approach to informing, educating and empowering consumers and shifting consumer demand towards more diverse and healthy foods while allowing the food supply chain to respond to this demand. Creating consumer demand for nutritious foods is especially relevant in urbanizing contexts in which populations are increasingly exposed to (ultra)processed foods. To date, different NP models have been applied in high-income countries. However, transferring these models to urbanizing LMIC contexts remains challenging, as the current models are not tailored to address the
triple burden of malnutrition, nor fortified foods and the affordability of diets. Also, LMIC contexts experience challenges related to access to basic education and nutrition literacy. In Ghana, the OBAASIMA project aims to stimulate the sustainable supply and the demand for high-quality, safe and affordable micronutrient-rich foods designed for women of reproductive age.

The OBAASIMA project builds on a demand-driven approach to increase the consumption of high-quality fortified food. It uses a front-of-package seal for foods that adhere to the minimum fortification content and nutrition criteria (18 vitamins and minerals), in combination with a social marketing campaign that provides information on nutrition and nutritious foods to women. The growing demand for products with the OBAASIMA seal offers entrepreneurial opportunities and encourages local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) involved in food processing and fortification to adhere to fortification and quality standards. Ultimately, the project aims to improve food and nutrition security in Ghana, where women of reproductive age are severely affected by micronutrient deficiencies.

To date, the project has supported the development and nutritional optimization of three different products in Ghana. Since the launch of the products in 2017, they have been subject to marketing campaigns targeted towards women of reproductive age. The products are also included in the World Food Programme's cash and voucher strategy to improve the nutrition status of vulnerable women. Preliminary evidence is pointing towards increased consumer awareness of OBAASIMA and increased capacity of SMEs to produce nutritious and safe products.

Initially, the OBAASIMA products were launched in two secondary cities in Ghana (Sunyani and Tamale). Currently, the distribution of the products is expanding to three additional cities in Ghana, including the capital city Accra. OBAASIMA recognizes the presence of persistent challenges in secondary cities, such as poverty and limited access to roads, that reduce the availability and accessibility of nutritious foods for vulnerable populations when compared to primary cities. Consequently, the positive impact of the OBAASIMA products is expected to be greater in these secondary cities. This example shows secondary cities' potential in pioneering and scaling such NP models in LMICs. Developing suitable NP models could play a vital role in increasing both the supply and demand for nutritious products, as well as enhancing nutrition literacy in secondary cities.

### 3.3.2 Participative Urban Agriculture with the AGRUPAR Project in Quito, Ecuador

Urban agriculture can offer improved access to nutritious foods (e.g., fruit, vegetables, dairy) and provides a source of income and employment. As found in a study by Zezza and Tasciotti, urban farming improved dietary diversity in ten out of fifteen analyzed countries (Zezza and Tasciotti 2010). In Quito, Ecuador, the Participative Urban Agriculture Program AGRUPAR targets the most vulnerable population of the city through the production of organic food and by promoting urban agriculture as a livelihood and a powerful strategy for improved food security and nutrition.
Throughout the project, both the production and consumption of locally grown food is promoted. The project stimulates subsistence farming and facilitates selling surplus products through organic produce markets (bioferias). The project also facilitates the provision of technical assistance, microcredit and capacity-building to the urban growers and uses applied research to stimulate the use of agroecology. The bioferias play an important role in the stimulation of the consumption of fresh and local foods. In fact, the local markets include an educational component and are located next to health centers to promote the use of free health assessments for citizens and provide information on healthy diets. Ultimately, the project aims to improve food security for the most vulnerable groups, and therefore actively involves female-headed households, the elderly, children, youths, migrants, and the disabled.

The AGRUPAR project received the badge of Special Mention 2016 from the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact under the Food Production category. The program demonstrates the strong potential of urban agriculture in terms of improving food producers' livelihoods, job creation, food and nutrition security and democratization of the food system in secondary cities. The project could serve as a model for other (secondary) cities. However, despite its demonstrated benefits, urban policies and regulations often do not favor urban agriculture. Challenges related to access to inputs and waste management could arise and should be carefully considered. As described earlier, the urban areas of secondary cities are generally well embedded in the surrounding rural areas and the urban-rural connections are strong. As shown in the AGRUPAR project, urban farming has the potential to support short supply chains by actively connecting the supply and demand sides of the food system. Although secondary cities generally experience challenges related to governance, their rapid growth and development could be leveraged and shaped towards an urban agriculture-friendly environment. When this is combined with the provision of technical assistance and capacity-building (as described in the AGRUPAR project), secondary cities become a strategic entry point to further explore possibilities for urban and peri-urban farming.

### 3.3.3 KUMWE HARVEST – A New Post-Harvest Model for Combating Aflatoxin Contamination in Rwanda

Africa Improved Foods (AIF) is a Kigali-based social enterprise. In collaboration with the Government of Rwanda, AIF's objective is to address malnutrition and stunting by manufacturing high-quality nutritious supplementary foods. These foods are targeted towards vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. One of the main challenges AIF has faced is the quality of the local maize supply (a main component of the supplementary foods), particularly with respect to aflatoxin contamination (Nishimwe et al. 2017; Grosshagauer et al. 2019). Kumwe Harvest, a local start-up, developed a logistics model to address the high quantities of rejected maize.
The model in question limits the vulnerability of maize to contamination by enabling AIF to purchase maize from cooperatives, farmer groups and individual farmers in cob form, as opposed to already shelled grains. Improved harvest and post-harvest practices reduce the predominant aflatoxin production on the crops. Aflatoxin contamination has severe implications for food safety, and when vulnerable commodities (such as maize) are dietary staples, exposure to aflatoxins becomes chronic and can lead to long-lasting detrimental health effects (cancer, weakened immune function, stunting). Mycotoxin control is therefore key to ensuring food security. Besides improving food safety, the Kumwe Harvest model has increased the farmers' incomes and saved them time and labor. Additionally, food losses among the maize value chain have been reduced and AIF has benefited from a more reliable supply of high-quality and locally sourced maize. This, in turn, results in the continued production of safe and nutritious supplementary foods that contribute to the nutrition and health outcomes of vulnerable populations.

The Kumwe Harvest model is an example of the beneficial effects of short supply chains on the supply of nutritious foods for consumers, farmers’ income and livelihood and food losses. Adapting this model to secondary city contexts could help to overcome the challenges related to infrastructure and logistics and ensure the efficiency of local and short supply chains. Post-harvest logistics models could be applied to nutrient-dense and perishable supply chains (such as fruits, vegetables and dairy) in which significant losses and reductions in quality occur. Consequently, these models could increase the availability and quality of local and nutrient-dense foods in secondary cities.

Sharing experiences and best practices on interventions targeting different dimensions of food systems (such as supply, demand and food security) in secondary cities or comparable contexts is key when aiming to acquire new knowledge on what works (and what does not) in the transformation of city region food systems (De la Peña et al. 2018). When compared to primary or mega-cities, the characteristics of secondary cities appear to provide a favorable environment for implementing and scaling ideas that could convert city region food systems to benefit nutrition and health. However, impact assessments from such projects, interventions and ideas are required to assess if and how these projects could be implemented in secondary cities. Collecting high-quality data and mainstreaming promising models, as described above, offer opportunities for secondary cities to become global game changers in city region food system transformation and improve nutrition and health outcomes for their populations.

# 4 Conclusion and Call to Action

The world is facing a global malnutrition crisis, and the drivers of co-existing problems such as undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies and overweight are diverse and complex. To tackle these challenges, multisectoral and context-specific
municipal leadership that connects the different sectors is essential to facilitate progress towards global nutrition targets.

While current urban development efforts are mostly targeted towards capital cities, we consider secondary cities in LMICs as a vast untapped potential for altering urban food systems due to their unique embeddedness in rural-urban linkages and the identified challenges related to functioning governance structures and infrastructure. The huge potential for secondary cities is embedded in the opportunity to strengthen and couple the supply and demand of diverse, locally produced and nutritious foods with short chains that benefit both producers and consumers. The identification of secondary cities in LMICs as gamechangers for global food system transformation is in alignment with several initiatives aimed at strengthening food systems and nutrition in urban contexts. As the Milan Urban Pact, FAO Food-for-cities network, CITYFOOD Network, WHO Healthy Cities and other city networks testify, there is no better time than now to focus on secondary cities to ensure that they are fully integrated into the global food system and set the best foundations for their own transformation into more sustainable local food systems. Despite a seeming lack of attention towards secondary cities in Africa and other continents, their physical proximity to rural areas and their smaller spatial scale can no longer be ignored and must be leveraged.

Against the context of many of the challenges raised in this chapter, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation has initiated and provides funding for a project starting in 2021, that aims to improve nutrition in secondary cities in three countries. The Nutrition in City Ecosystems (NICE) project works with selected secondary cities in Bangladesh (Dinajpur and Rangpur), Kenya (Bungoma and Busia) and Rwanda (Rubavu and Rusizi), and places a particular focus on women, youths and vulnerable groups in city regions. Key elements of NICE are to strengthen the supply of and demand for agroecologically produced, local and nutritious foods, foster multisectoral governance, and stimulate greater public and private sector engagement in resilient food systems and improved nutrition outcomes. NICE is co-financed and implemented by a Swiss consortium comprised of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Zurich (Sustainable Agroecosystems & Food Processing Groups and World Food System Centre), Sight and Life, and the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture.

NICE aims to achieve its goals by focusing on four outcome areas: (1) participatory governance and systems, (2) the production and availability of agroecological and locally produced foods, (3) knowledge and demand generation for nutritious and agroecologically produced food and (4) policy and advocacy. Consultations with the six selected cities draw attention to several of the challenges outlined above, such as unemployment, social inequality, lack of decentralized governance and financial and human capital and overall difficulties in accessing finance and technology. Moreover, low levels of nutrition literacy and inefficient chains for local supply were identified as bottlenecks to reducing poverty and improving nutrition and health outcomes. The consultations indicated a high level of support from relevant stakeholders within the cities for working collaboratively towards solutions. The cities
and consortium look forward to sharing evidence and experiences from the NICE project in the forthcoming years, as well as creating linkages with the International Mayor Summit for peer-learning among cities and making the case to include a secondary cities' food system angle in the summit.

**Acknowledgements** The authors acknowledge the leadership of the cities of Dinajpur and Rangpur in Bangladesh, Bungoma and Busia in Kenya, and Rubavu and Rusizi in Rwanda, and of the stakeholders in these six cities that have engaged in consultations with the forthcoming Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation initiated Nutrition in City Ecosystems (NICE) project during its inception and helped to shape the discussion in this chapter. The comments provided by Karin Gross from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation in an earlier version of this chapter are also acknowledged.

## References

Belletti G, Marescotti A (2020) Short food supply chains for promoting local food on local markets. United Nations industrial development organization

Blay-Palmer A, Renting H, Dubbeling M (2015) Understanding the city region (CRFS) food system: planning for a more food secure and resilient city

Blay-Palmer A, Santini G, Dubbeling M et al (2018) Validating the City region food system approach: enacting inclusive, transformational city region food systems. Sustainability 10:1680

Borsellino V, Schimmenti E, El Bilali H (2020) Agri-food markets towards sustainable patterns. Sustainability 12:2193

Cardoso RV, Meijers EJ (2017) Secondary yet metropolitan? The challenges of metropolitan integration for second-tier cities. Plan Theory Pract 18:616–635

De la Peña I, Garrett J, Gelli A (2018) Nutrition-sensitive value chains from a smallholder perspective: A framework for project design. IFAD. Report No. 30

Dubbeling M, Santini G, Renting H et al (2017) Assessing and planning sustainable city region food systems: insights from two Latin American cities. Sustainability 9:1455

FAO, UNICEF, WFP, WHO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO, Rome

Global Nutrition Report (2020) 2020 global nutrition report: action on equity to end malnutrition. Development Initiatives, Bristol

Goodall P (1987) The penguin dictionary of human geography. Puffin Books, London

Grosshagauer S, Milani P, Kraemer K et al (2019) Inadequacy of nutrients and contaminants found in porridge-type complementary foods in Rwanda. Matern Child Nutr 16:Article e12856

Haysom G, Fuseini I (2019) Governing food Systems in Secondary Cities in Africa. University of Cape Town: African Centre for Cities, Cape Town

Nishimwe K, Wanjuki I, Karangwa C et al (2017) An initial characterization of aflatoxin B1 contamination of maize sold in the principal retail markets of Kigali. Rwanda Food Control 73:574–580

Parkinson M, Meegan R, Karecha J (2015) City size and economic performance: is bigger better, small more beautiful or middling Marvellous? Eur Plan Stud 23:1054–1068

Pieterse DE, Parnell S. Africa's urban revolution. Zed Books Ltd, London; 2014

Pieterse E, Parnell S, Haysom G (2018) African dreams: locating urban infrastructure in the 2030 sustainable developmental agenda. Area Dev Policy 3:149–169

Ravallion M (2002) On the urbanization of poverty. J Dev Econ 68:435–442

Roberts H (2014a) The systems of secondary cities: the neglected drivers of urbanising economies [Internet]. Washington, DC: World Bank Group [cited 2021 Mar 11]. Report No.: 89861. Available from: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/400881468181444474/The-systems-of-secondary-cities-the-neglected-drivers-of-urbanising-economies
Roberts B (2014b) Managing systems of secondary cities: policy responses in international development. Cities Alliance, Brussels

Ruel MT, Garrett JL, Yosef S (2017) Food security and nutrition: growing cities, new challenges. IFPRI Book Chap:24–33

Satterthwaite D (2007) The transition to a predominantly urban world and its underpinnings. IIED, London

Swilling M, Annecke E (2012) Just Transitions: Explorations of Sustainability in an Unfair World – United Nations University [Internet]. [cited 2021 Apr 23]. Available from: https://unu.edu/publications/books/just-transitions-explorations-of-sustainability-in-an-unfair-world.html#overview

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. Report No.: ST/ESA/SER.A/366

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018) World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision. Report No.: ST/ESA/SER.A/420

Zezza A, Tasciotti L (2010) Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 35:265–273

**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_63.png" /></figure>
Part IV

**Actions for Sustainable Food Production**
**and Resource Management**
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

Elizabeth Hodson de Jaramillo, Urs Niggli, Kaoru Kitajima, Rattan Lal, and Claudia Sadoff

Definition

Nature-positive food systems are characterized by a regenerative, non-depleting and non-destructive use of natural resources. This is based on stewardship of the environment and biodiversity as the foundation of critical ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration and soil, water, and climate regulation. Nature-positive food systems refer to the protection, sustainable management and restoration of a productive system. Finally, nature-positive food systems cover the growing demand for food in a sufficient way and include sustainable and healthy nutrition.

E. Hodson de Jaramillo (✉)

School of Sciences of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, and member of Inter-American
Network of Academies of Sciences (IANAS), Bogotá, Colombia

e-mail: ehodson8@outlook.com

U. Niggli

Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland

K. Kitajima

Kyoto University Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto, Japan

R. Lal

CFAES Rattan Lal Center for Carbon Management and Sequestration, Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH, USA

C. Sadoff

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,
Washington, DC, USA
# 1 Introduction

This chapter provides a high-level overview of evidence in favor of nature-positive food systems, discussing opportunities and challenges associated with sustainable, efficient agricultural production with a view towards concrete policy suggestions. The aim is to present these complex issues comprehensibly and impartially, so that proposed actions are science-based, solution-oriented, applicable, and restorative, balancing trade-offs and optimizing available synergies.

# 2 What Do We Want to Achieve?

The primary objective of the Food Systems Summit 2021 (FSS 2021) is to achieve multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through internationally coordinated actions across the food system chain (production, distribution, and consumption). More concretely, the overall goal is to provide healthy and nutritious food to all people, while creating livelihood opportunities and reducing the negative environmental, climate, and health impacts associated with food systems. The Five Action Tracks of UNFSS 2021 will explore achievable means to: (1) ensure access to safe and nutritious food; (2) shift to sustainable consumption; (3) boost nature-positive production; (4) advance equitable livelihoods; and (5) build resilience to shocks and stress. Here, as a brief chapter on the Action Track 3 of the Food Systems Summit 2021, the focus is on food production systems, primarily on land. Food systems in water, whether at sea or in aquaculture, are equally important, since fish and seafood help to assure healthy diets. This aspect of food systems is dealt with in a planned separate evidence-based Brief for the Scientific Group for the Food Systems Summit.<fnref n="1" />

The current global food production system is the result of 100 years of successful scientific and technical innovation. Yields of agricultural crops have increased more than ever before in human history, with sharp increases in production efficiency per area and per labor unit. Resultantly, the twentieth century has seen an increase in the production of food greater than the growth of the global population. However, this development entails considerable trade-offs. It negatively impacts climate stability and ecosystem resilience. Scientific assessments by IPCC (2019) and IPBES (2019) have concluded that many aspects of current food production systems drive degradation of land productivity, water resources and soil health, as well as biodiversity loss at multiple spatial scales, ultimately compromising the sustainability of food production systems. The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (IPCC 2019) has comprehensively laid out the ways in which food systems, as they currently function, undermine our ability to feed the global population projected to be 10 billion by 2050. Another report, from IPBES (2019), shows that one million

<footnote n="1">¹Researchers who are part of the Blue Food Assessment (BFA; https://www.bluefood.earth/).</footnote>
species are threatened with extinction, which impacts human well-being associated with biodiversity, indicating that agriculture, as a key driver of deforestation and the depletion of ocean resources, is responsible for a significant part of this biodiversity crisis. Similarly, the latest Living Planet Report (WWF 2020) revealed that the most important direct driver of biodiversity loss in terrestrial systems in the last several decades has been land use change – primarily, the conversion of pristine native habitats (forests, grasslands and mangroves) into agricultural systems – while a massive percentage of the oceans have been subject to overfishing. Meanwhile, in freshwater ecosystems, biodiversity loss as a result of food production has increased by 50%. Agriculture accounts for some 70% of freshwater withdrawals worldwide and contributes to water pollution from agrochemicals, organic matter, drug residues, sediments and saline drainage into water bodies (Mateo-Sagasta et al. 2018).

The degradation and fragmentation of natural and semi-natural ecosystems is known to increase the risk of emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases such as Ebola, HIV, SARS and Covid-19. As the habitat loss of wild animals and an overall loss of biodiversity, in addition to contact possibilities of wild animals with large livestock populations, become greater, risks of zoonosis increase (Keesing and Ostfeld 2021). Humans depend on the stable and adaptive interaction among plants, microorganisms and life-support systems such as water and soil. Hence, we need a radical transformation of current food systems that tend to disrupt these beneficial interactions. Such transformation must encompass all relevant environmental and socio-economic elements affecting the environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions and all activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation, consumption, and waste-disposal of food (see Action Track 1, Bortoletti and Lomax 2019; HLPE 2014).

The need for a comprehensive approach in nature-positive food systems is also recognized through the development and promotion of various interconnected and complementary elements, such as the ten elements of agroecology (FAO 2018):

* Diversification and resource use efficiency, including local varieties to protect food security; increasing productivity and improving nutritional balance through the consumption of diverse kinds of cereals, pulses, fruits, vegetables and animal source proteins; intercropping and crop rotation practices for resource efficiency.

* Increased resource efficiency through innovative practices to produce more with fewer external resources and create synergies among the system components; recycling biomass, nutrients and water to reduce external resources; reducing costs and negative externalities.

* Fostering synergies and promoting multiple ecosystem services to increase resilience: e.g., biological nitrogen fixation in intercropping or rotations reduces the need for external fertilizer and contributes to soil health and climate change mitigation.

* Recycling of nutrients, biomass, and water: minimizing waste and pollution with lower economic and environmental costs.

* Improving resilience through crop-system diversification: maintaining a functional balance so that production systems can tolerate pests and diseases or reduce
the magnitudes of pest outbreaks. With diversification, producers reduce their vulnerability, because they will have several options in case any product fails.

* Promoting the acceptance and implementation of innovations through the promotion of participatory processes for sharing knowledge and co-creating solutions to local challenges.

* Protecting human and social values and improving rural livelihoods, where dignity, equity, inclusion, and justice are an integral part of sustainable food systems, trade, and employment. Since culture and food traditions play a central role in society and in shaping human behavior, they are closely tied to landscapes and food systems.

* Fostering responsible and effective governance at the local, national and global levels, maintaining the transformation processes for sustainable FS. These include incentives for ecosystem services.

* Supporting innovation for circular and solidarity economies within the planetary boundaries and reconnecting producers and consumers as the basis for inclusive and sustainable development. Here, local markets and local economic development are key, while circular economies can help to tackle the global food waste challenge, making food value chains more resource-efficient at every level.

The global community of policymakers, as well as actors along the entire food chain, supported by citizens, must jointly transform the current “net-nature-negative” into “nature-positive” situations at the global scale, by developing and applying effective and efficient incentives. This means fostering and enhancing positive practices already in existence, while reducing impacts from negative practices at the landscape level. Such practices are innovations in soil and water management, land use planning, biodiversity conservation, circular economy approaches, new science and technologies in molecular biology and plant breeding, alternative protein sources, and digital tools for the management of agriculture and land and natural resources. In promoting these practices, the boosting of nature-positive food systems will put the global society on a pathway to a more resilient future and sustainable well-being in line with the Building Back Better Initiative of the United Nations (Mannakkara et al. 2019). Food, feed and fiber production must support biodiversity, restore soils, protect freshwater supplies, increase water security, withdraw carbon from the atmosphere and store it in the terrestrial biosphere (i.e., soils, trees and wetlands), create employment, increase food security, and enhance climate resilience and social stability. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the necessity of changing the production systems so as to be more sustainable and circular is all the more urgent. Simultaneously, the current crisis provides a unique opportunity to challenge the perceived dilemma between economic growth and environmental stability.

## 3 What Do We Mean by Nature-Positive Food Systems?

Nature-positive food systems globally meet the fundamental human right to healthy food, while operating within boundaries that limit the natural resources available for sustainable exploitation (Steffen et al. 2015). Using the concept of a safe operating
<table><caption>**Table 1** Scientific targets for six key Earth system processes and the control variables used to quantify the planetary boundaries</caption><thead><tr><td>Earth system process</td><td>Control variable</td><td>Boundary (uncertainty range)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Climate change</td><td>Greenhouse gas (CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O) emissions</td><td>5 Pg of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (4.7–5.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Nitrogen cycling</td><td>Nitrogen application</td><td>90 Tg of nitrogen per year (65–90<sup>a</sup>; 90–130<sup>b</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>Phosphorus cycling</td><td>Phosphorus application</td><td>8 Tg of phosphorus per year (6–12<sup>a</sup>; 8–16<sup>b</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>Freshwater use</td><td>Consumptive water use</td><td>2500 km<sup>3</sup> per year (1000–4000)</td></tr><tr><td>Biodiversity loss</td><td>Extinction rate</td><td>Ten extinctions per million species-years (1–80)</td></tr><tr><td>Land-system change [?]</td><td>Cropland use</td><td>13 million km<sup>2</sup> (11–15)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Willett et al. (2019)

space for food systems, the EAT-Lancet Commission has prepared an outline of human health and environmental sustainability for global food systems with clear scientific targets (Willett et al. 2019). They described six central environmental dimensions for planetary health, using the planetary boundaries concept for food production to ensure a stable Earth system (Table 1). These dimensions take into account the environmental limits within which food systems should jointly operate, ensuring that a broad set of universal human health and environmental sustainability goals are achieved (Willett et al. 2019) (Fig. 1).

Cohen-Shacham et al. (2016) have defined the term Nature-based Solutions (NbS), an overall concept that we use for nature-positive food systems accordingly. It is based on three pillars: “protect,” “sustainably manage” and “restore” (agro) ecosystems.

## 3.1 First Pillar: Protect Natural Systems and Protected Areas from New Conversions for Food Production, and Save and Set Aside Some Land and Water to Be Given Back to Nature

Any further conversion of natural ecosystems and undisturbed habitats should be halted. Land use change, especially the loss of forests and trees in the landscape through farming and the expansion of intensive agriculture and large livestock populations, is a critical driver of risks related to exposure to emerging infectious diseases (Shaw et al. 2020) and destabilizes the safe operating space of humanity (Steffen et al. 2015). Exploiting natural land for agriculture can lead to drastically increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and losses of biodiversity (Kiew

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Lower boundary range if improved production practices and redistribution are not adopted.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Upper boundary range if improved production practices and redistribution are adopted and 50% of applied phosphorus is recycled.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** The three pillars of nature-positive food systems</figcaption></figure>

et al. 2020; Dargie et al. 2017). Important drivers are high-income countries, which import large amounts of food and feed from unsustainable farming systems in low-and middle-income countries. As this generates a significant incentive for such unsustainable activities, importing countries should also take responsibility for protecting lands elsewhere – in a globalized world, these also constitute part of their food system.

Likewise, agriculturally marginal lands that are areas of high biodiversity (e.g., steep lands, shallow soils, wetlands, peatland) must be protected. As poverty and lack of knowledge are significant drivers of habitat destruction, protection of such natural systems requires actions that radically change societies and economies. Many smallholder farmers are locked into low yields and highly degrading livestock practices (Garrett et al. 2017). These practices persist because of historical legacies, political instability, market failures, cultural lock-in and fire risks. However, very importantly, the preservation of natural ecosystems depends on how successfully humanity can manage existing production systems in a productive and sustainable way. The three pillars interact directly and indirectly, with actions in one place sometimes having intended and unintended consequences in remote places getting more food from less land (see pillar 2) enables restoring degraded farmland (see pillar 3), safeguarding natural ecosystems and returning some land back to nature (pillar 1). Setting aside land and water is made possible by more efficient production on existing agricultural land. Extensification measures that compromise yield on productive land export negative externalities through the importing of food.
## 3.2 Second Pillar: Sustainably Manage Existing Food Production Systems

Nature-positive food systems are characterized by a regenerative, non-depleting, and non-destructive use of natural resources (Lal 2020). This is based on biodiversity as the foundation of ecosystem services – particularly soil, water, and climate regulation – that farmers manipulate with external inputs and with human or mechanical forces. For terrestrial food production, healthy soil and clean water are the essential means by which we produce healthy food (Lal 2017). Equally essential are pollinators, on which 70% of crops depend (Reilly et al. 2020). These will be the most critical indicators of success in producing nature-positive outcomes. Here, as always, the need is to work towards food systems that deliver net-positive ecosystem benefits.

Nature-positive production hinges upon a circular bioeconomy, in which local and regional integration of production, consumption and the use of all residues are integrated and balanced. It aims for strong innovation, but balances different types of innovation – the social, environmental and technological – in an equal manner. Production systems are driven by the pure food needs of a growing population, which means that society needs to focus on sustainable dietary patterns (reduced food waste and reduced reliance on cereal-based meat and dairy products) and reduced production of energy crops on arable land. As a consequence, the efficiency narrative (“produce more from less”) must be complemented by the sufficiency narrative (“consume moderately”) to avoid rebound effects (Müller and Huppenbauer 2016). The nature-positive food system recognizes the fact that the health of soil, plants, animals, people, ecosystems, and, ultimately, the planet is one and undividable (Lal 2020). A transformation of agriculture towards nature-positive food systems depends, first of all, on actions at the **landscape** scale. Here, the ethical and political framing of issues, financial and infrastructural incentives, and general innovation strategies and the degree of participation of stakeholders and actors are designed and decided upon. The dietary behavior of the population at large, and the way that food is handled, is also an issue that shapes the landscape. The second level is the **management practice** and **production technology** of the entire value chain that must be linked to the objectives of improving and maintaining non-commodity ecosystems services in productive agriculture. In nature-positive production systems, the technologies used are consistent with the salient and contextual territorial, cultural and socio-economic conditions, and are compatible with natural processes. Currently, a significant share of food production fails to meet these criteria. Nonetheless, some farming systems and technologies already perform better in this respect than others. These approaches include agroecological practices, regenerative conservation agriculture, integrated nutrient and pest management, river basin management, sustainable groundwater management, agroforestry and agro-silvo-pastoral systems and sustainable pastoralism in the rangelands. The development and use of bio-inputs such as bio-fertilizers and bio-protectants is another environmentally-friendly approach, combined with integrated crop management, intercropping and
cover cropping. Some strategies include precision agriculture and climate-smart agriculture. Several specific programs for farmers target individual improvements, such as introducing semi-natural habitats on the farm, applying no-till arable cropping, or strictly reducing the use of pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers.

Many examples of traditional food production systems involving landscape-level management exist. Many rural settlements in Asia and Africa have sustained their productive landscapes for centuries: for example, “satoyama” in Japan (Kobori and Primack 2003; JSSA 2010; Indrawan et al. 2014). Likewise, sustainable socio-ecological landscapes involving a variety of traditional approaches have been continuously fine-tuned by people in response to the climate and soil characteristics of their lands. These provide hints for low-cost and sustainable watershed management, which could be scaled up with modern technologies involving optimal and sustainable land use design.

## 3.3 Third Pillar: Restore and Rehabilitate Degraded Systems for Sustainable Food Production and Ecosystem Services

One-third of global land area is degraded (FAO 2015), comprising 47% of forests and 18% of cropland (Bai et al. 2008). There are approximately 2 billion hectares of degraded and degrading lands in the world. Resultantly, the potential for restoration or rehabilitation is huge, and, as such, it is key to avoiding new conversion of natural habitats and ecosystems. Here, specific technical measures must be taken, depending on the site, socio-economic and cultural conditions.

One option is targeted at rewilding natural ecosystems at the landscape level to restore soil health and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services. Such activities often have additional benefits, as they could increase resilience. Another option involves rehabilitating agricultural productivity, and this is equally important. Both of these forms of land restoration can help sequester carbon (IPCC 2019). In this context, ideal results typically occur when scientific information and traditional, local knowledge cooperate in finding solutions. The potential offered by such partnerships in helping to avoid new conversion of natural habitats and ecosystems and in reverting some agriculturally marginal land back to nature is enormous (Lal 2021). Specific measures must be taken depending on the local bio-physical, socio-economic and cultural conditions (including pillar 1 measures). In addition, intensive cooperation and benefit-sharing with all actors and stakeholders involved in a region or site must be ensured. The development and use of adequate financial mechanisms and public policies must be based on their social, environmental and economic returns. And research must focus on new knowledge and technologies to restore land and soils, in collaboration with food producers and other actors in the landscape.
# 4 Challenges of Nature-Positive Food Systems

The transition to nature-positive food systems is slowed or made impossible by numerous agronomic, economic and social challenges, which are compounded by deficits in knowledge systems.

## 4.1 Agronomic Challenges

### Yield Reductions Related to Nature-Positive Production

Replacing conventional systems or subsistence farming in marginalized conditions with diversified nature-positive production can increase the overall output of farms (Pretty et al. 2018). However, on average, and particularly in temperate zones with highly intensive agriculture, conversion to nature-positive systems typically results in a reduction of yields that must be compensated by cost savings, higher product prices, or other support measures, as to ensure the economic viability of the farms. This is particularly true in the case of organic farming (Knapp and van der Heijden 2018; Seufert et al. 2012), but much less distinctive for integrated production systems with restrictions on plant protection and nitrogen fertilization (Morris and Winter 1999). The trade-off between high yields and biodiversity-rich, non-commodity ecosystem services, such as soil nutrient cycling, soil carbon sequestration, pollination and indirect pest control, is the greatest challenge at present.

## 4.2 Economic Challenges

### Higher Labor Demand

Nature-positive food systems have a high initial demand for labor and can be more labor-intensive in general. This can be a serious constraint when manual labor cannot be substituted by mechanized labor. In situations where mechanization is possible, the investment required can also be a hurdle. However, provided that work conditions are decent, this can also be an opportunity for job creation.

### Higher Transaction Costs

As nature-positive food systems are more diverse, they tend to yield a greater number of crop or livestock products with a smaller volume of each product. This can limit market and processing opportunities and requires high levels of knowledge and risk taking/experimentation. Furthermore, farmers may have to carry the financial and knowledge burden of identifying and applying alternative inputs. A number of nature-positive practices depend on collective action across a landscape scale, involving multiple farms and a range of actors. This requires higher levels of coordination and increases transaction costs.
## Failed Valorization of Sustainability Throughout the Value Chain

Healthy, safe and sustainably produced raw materials and food are desired by policymakers and citizens worldwide. However, these additional services are not rewarded in the value chain, neither at the farm level, nor at the level of processing, trade and consumption. Cheap food continues predominantly to be purchased because consumers have other priorities in their household budgets or because they cannot afford something better.

A major challenge is that the monocropping of calorie-dense food commodities offers large scale-economies and lower unit costs, as opposed to the more diversified production of a portfolio of food commodities needed for a healthy diet.

## 4.3 Political Challenges

### Policy Incoherence.

Current agricultural and trade policies, including subsidy schemes, still favor the intensive, export-oriented production of a few crops, and there are still incentives for the use of fossil fuel and chemical inputs in place (Eyhorn et al. 2019). Furthermore, different governmental policies are contradictory and conflicting, especially agriculture, environmental, health, trade and science/education policies. Finally, the transition towards nature-positive farming is decelerated by past decisions made by farmers, such as investment in large machines, skills, and retail relationships (HLPE 2019, IPES-Food 2016). A return on those investments is more difficult when farmers shift their strategy towards nature-positive food systems. Therefore, the reorientation of governments towards more ecological and social sustainable goals is always delayed.

## 4.4 Deficits Along Agricultural Knowledge Systems

### Weak Knowledge and Advisory Systems

Public and private investment in research on nature-positive food systems has been substantially lower in comparison to other innovative approaches, which results in significant and persistent knowledge gaps (HLPE 2019). A systems-oriented, transdisciplinary, and long-term field research approach is clearly lacking (Edwards and Roy 2017). Therefore, there is a disconnect in the knowledge and advisory systems required to support nature-positive food systems and build the capacity of actors.

There is also a shortage of inter- and transdisciplinary research on nature-positive food systems that takes into account the context specificity of the approaches. Nature-positive system thinking and solutions are not sufficiently well integrated into the curricula of universities and farming schools.
## 4.5 Call for Actions to Successfully Cope with Trade-Offs and Scaling Up Nature-Positive Food Systems

There are several structural lock-ins that keep the current unsustainable food production system in place. These create a set of feedback loops that reinforce this system and include investments and policies that create path dependency, such as the purchasing of expensive equipment or subsidies for chemical pesticides, export orientation, the expectation of cheap food, compartmentalized and sectoral short-term thinking, certain discourses about feeding the world and a sole focus on production volumes and measures of success (looking at single crops) (IPES-Food 2016). Other typical lock-ins that reinforce the current system are the concentration of power in the food chain and institutional, agricultural research and technological lock-ins (WWF 2016). Therefore, a systematic change towards nature-positive food systems requires a fundamental reorientation of many societal actors and a realignment of the cooperation among them. The inclusion of local actors, particularly of the most vulnerable voices, in decision-making will lead to more effective solutions. The nine actions can provide guidance to ensure an integrated, systemic approach.

### Action 1: Increase Policy Coherence and Strengthen Adequate Governance

Nature-positive food systems require a different type of government support that goes beyond incentives such as income-oriented subsidies or those for particular inputs or unspecific marketing actions. Further research is therefore needed to better understand which government policies can support nature-positive food systems and the multi-functionality of agriculture more generally. Importantly, more information is needed on the public and private costs of sectoral approaches that result in contradictory and conflicting policies.

The decisive level in fostering transition is the landscape. This is the level where actors and innovations come together and where food producers' strategies interact with other users of the landscape, with governance policies and with natural systems. Sustainability at the landscape level is essential for water and soil management. The health of upland watersheds, for example, can be critical to water regulation and recharge, and the stabilization of soils. For this reason, the landscape approach has been promoted by agencies such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union as the scale at which it is most meaningful to align policies and incentives towards nature-positive outcomes. Landscape-level regulations and incentives, as well as infrastructure planning and other intervention strategies, should be designed and decided at this level, preferably through inclusive, participatory processes and institutions. An important element in these interventions is therefore not just the creation and sharing of knowledge, technologies and practices that better link to the objectives of improving and maintaining non-commodity ecosystems services, but, importantly, the governance systems that are driving certain technologies, processes or behaviors.
Landscape-level governance is critical. Governance frameworks – including, for example, regulations, incentives and extension programs – influence farmers everywhere and play a crucial role in the adoption of good farming practices. In some countries, these governance systems are quite sophisticated cascading systems that are clearly targeted at promoting sustainability. Laws and regulations on environmental, human and animal health, animal welfare or land management are effectively implemented so that farmers who are found to be in violation can be fined or excluded from related government support and services. Farmers receiving income support have to respect additional environmental standards, such as maintaining soil quality or protecting groundwater, landscape and biodiversity (cross-compliance). A powerful incentive for the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and, especially, nature-positive production are payments for ecosystem services (Piñeiro et al. 2020).

However, in other countries, governance institutions may not administratively align with landscape levels or may not be adequately empowered or well-resourced to implement similar efforts. In these cases, in parallel to broader governance strengthening, nature-positive practices can be more immediately advanced through mechanisms that include support for relevant applied research and extension activities, land conservation and restoration efforts, education and training, facilitation of access to credit and insurance, and legal and administrative reforms to secure land tenure and enhance farmers’ willingness to invest in sustainability.

Unfortunately, the transition towards nature-positive farming can be decelerated by incentives for food producers to invest in large machines, skills, and retail relationships that are economically attractive only if applied in unsustainable farming systems (HLPE 2019, IPES-Food 2016). Similarly, large subsidies on agricultural water promote unsustainable water usage, while subsidies on pesticides and fertilizers can encourage overuse, resulting in degraded water quality. These lock-ins make it difficult for producers to shift their strategy towards more nature-positive food systems.

Additional to the efforts and advances of several agencies connected with UN and CGIARs, it is essential to coordinate and integrate several relevant initiatives that are ongoing globally, such as Water, Land and Ecosystems (https://wle.cgiar.org), EarthBioGenome (https://www.earthbiogenome.org), Future Food Systems, Australia (https://www.futurefoodsystems.com.au), Next Generation Food Systems (https://www.ucdavis.edu/news), DivSeek International Network (https://divseekintl.org), CropBooster-P (https://www.cropbooster-p.eu), EMPHASIS-ESFRI- (https://emphasis.plant-phenotyping.eu), and Living Soils of the Americas initiative (https://iica.int), among others.

**Action 2: Improve Sustainable Soil Management**

Soil degradation, being exacerbated by climate change, along with land misuse and soil mismanagement, is worsening the malnutrition that is already affecting more than 2 billion people globally (Lal 2009). Restoration and sustainable management of soil are also critical to enhancing and maintaining ecosystem services, identifying and implementing nature-positive agriculture, producing more food from less land,
and advancing the UN SDGs (e.g., SDG#2, Zero Hunger, SDG #13, Climate Action, SDG #15, Life on Land) (Lal 2018). Developing resilient food production systems for local consumers is especially important during the Covid-19 pandemic, promoting food production through urban agriculture and home gardening (Lal 2020). Achieving the targets of land degradation neutrality, adopted by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, will also improve the nutritional quality of the food. Translating into action the concept of “the health of soil, plants, animals, people and environment is one and indivisible” through restoration of degraded soils and adoption of nutrition-sensitive agriculture will also improve human health and well-being (Lal 2020). Soil health and its capacity to generate ecosystem services must be enhanced through sequestration of soil organic matter content by adopting a system-based conservation agriculture, enriching the soil by planting nitrogen-fixating plants or adding N fixating microorganisms, mycorrhizae, growing cover and inter-crops, diversifying crop sequences, and integrating crops with trees and livestock in agro-silvopastoral systems (Jensen et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2012). Adoption of nature-positive practices that enhance soil organic matter content can reduce dependence on chemicals, irrigation, tillage and other energy-intensive inputs, and would reduce losses of nutrients and water, enhance eco-efficiency and sustain productivity. Sequestration of soil organic carbon has been recommended by several international initiatives, such as 4p1000, adopted by COP21 in Paris in 2015, Adapting African Agriculture by COP22 in Marrakech in 2016 (Lal 2019), Platform on Climate Action in Agriculture by COP25 in Madrid/Santiago and the international initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Nature-positive production implies adaptation to climate change and the protection and enhancement of soil health and food security. This can be achieved through bioeconomy strategies with the approach of integrated cycles in whole value chains to increase efficiencies by recycling resources through diverse products and coproducts in animal, plant, and microbial systems. The goal is to promote resource efficiency while enhancing productivity, and increase resilience in crop systems able to cope with biotic and abiotic stresses.

**Action 3: Boost Knowledge and Innovation for Nature-Positive Food Systems**

The dramatic increase in food demand projected for 2050 requires a broad-based environmental, social and technological innovation strategy; one that is supported by farmers, scientists, food value chain actors and citizens. Innovations must not be hindered if they serve the goals of nature-positive food systems. **Ecological innovations** or optimizations are driven by biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Most fundamentally, soil fertility is vital to plant growth factors, such as mineralization of nutrient elements, water supply, aeration and loosening of the root zone and rooting depth. **Social innovations** include those in the socio-economic space, such as new ideas for the governance of landscape-level networks, innovation of institutions, novel approaches to building farmers organizations, creative use of finance to support these transitions, and co-operations in marketing and food distribution such as community-supported agriculture (CSA), as well as new modes of learning
and capacity-building. **Technological innovations** encompass digitalization, the smart use of data for prediction and prevention, various breeding techniques, production of bio-inputs or the separation, processing and recycling of organic waste.

Innovations across all of these categories can be mutually reinforcing, particularly when they are embedded in the systems approach of nature-positive food systems. Therefore, strict criteria for the choice of technological innovation must be applied consistently with this paradigm. Centrally, these include requirements for the protection of biodiversity, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvement of biological and physical soil quality, human well-being, equitable access regardless of farm size and gender, and compatibility with traditional knowledge. In light of this, technological innovations must always be sensitively integrated with local cultural and affiliated knowledge contexts, under the aegis of an overarching systems approach.

Already, global agriculture is undergoing major transformations through this kind of technology convergence, such as new digital technologies and the use of artificial intelligence to optimize agricultural production processes. Drones and advanced analysis of image data can identify pests and diseases in real time and provide a powerful toolbox for all farmers, regardless of farm size. With improved access to biotic (pests and diseases) or physical (meteorological, SAT early warning systems) information and remote sensing, producers can use their mobile phones to strengthen their practices, making the best use of resources and inputs. Digitalization has been developed on and for broad-acre farms. The technology can work flexibly and on a small scale. It can intervene with pinpoint accuracy, and the devices become smaller, lighter and work in coordinated networks. The software makes it possible to carry out operations in small spatial and temporal structures in an efficient, labor-saving and energy-saving way. Depending on how the algorithms are programmed, networking and diversity emerge. Further developments also promise to make such technologies affordable for small and medium-sized farmers.

Parallel to digital technologies, novel bio-inputs provide a valuable supplement to NbS (Syed Ab Rahman et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2018; Kavino and Manoranjitham 2017). It is crucial to promote and strengthen studies on plant microbiome, which comprises all micro- and macro-organisms living in, on, or around the plant, including bacteria, archaea, fungi, and protists for food security (d’Hondt et al. 2021). We recommend that greater emphasis be given to the development of green technologies that deploy indigenous perennial species, tapping into the symbiotic relationships that naturally exist between microbes and plant species (Hohmann et al. 2020). In the African context, for example, it has already been established that the combined use of many different beneficial microorganisms (producing multi-strain or multi-bacterial inoculants) can greatly boost nature-positive production (Adedeji et al. 2020).

A similar role can be played by bio-stimulants from land and marine/ocean resources (e.g., Kelpak from seaweeds, molecules such as lumichrome, riboflavin, and nodulation factors from soil rhizobia and other mutualistic microbes), which
replace chemical fertilizers in promoting crop plant growth and increasing yields. Plant protectants, such as botanicals (plant extracts), are currently under-exploited, but we can look to future scientific and technological developments to increase the portfolio of bioproducts developed from the local biodiversity, in keeping with a circular economy approach.

Maintaining and increasing biodiversity in agricultural settings is key to fostering and expanding nature-positive food systems, and can yield additional benefits for consumers. For example, local cultivars that are often more nutritious than common staples and better adapted to local climate and soil conditions (Leclère et al. 2020). Subjecting these to conventional and molecular breeding programs, including gene editing, capitalizes on their inherent advantages, improving productivity and/or tolerance to adverse biotic or abiotic conditions. In the context of climate change, these methods may be critical for maintaining beneficial agrobiodiversity in the face of new environmental pressures. This underlines the need for advanced knowledge in plant genetic diversity, microbial diversity and interactions, taking into account local climate variability, soils, nutrients, water and contextual environmental impacts.

To conclude, the key to successful innovation in support of nature-positive food systems lies in developing these technologies with the active participation of farmers, consumers, and citizens. This ensures that measures adopted locally are the most suited to their specific conditions and cultures. In the future, the target system, which we have defined as nature-positive, will guide the development of technologies and their use, and not vice versa. At the same time, interdisciplinary approaches are required to make the best use of advances in molecular, sensor, and modeling sciences, which can be used to understand and predict production patterns. The use of multiple phytobiomes will be needed along with integration of molecular, ecological, and evolutionary information to obtain significant models. The outcome of this transformation in research practices should be made accessible to food producers on the ground, building on knowledge and resources that are already locally available. In this way, international and collaborative research and local, contextual knowledge systems are harnessed together in support of the overarching aim to save costs and reduce environmental impact: producing more food and fewer negative externalities (WRI 2018).

## Action 4: Adapt and Intensify the Knowledge-Sharing of Farmers, Farm Advisors and Farm Teachers

In regard to immediate actions, understanding of the complexity of nature-positive production can be considerably improved. The scientific knowledge is tremendous, but its integration with the knowledge of farmers, consumers and citizen remains vastly unsatisfactory. The promise of traditional knowledge practiced by indigenous peoples and local communities is still underestimated compared to modern scientific knowledge. This in part reflects the fact that the former remains critically under-documented. In order to stimulate interactions between traditional knowledge and science-driven innovation, greater cooperative work in the context of local farms, including the joint design of experiments, is an effective approach. To interest
farmers in long-term solutions, the time lag between action and results, and the risk related to it, could be compensated with financial support during the first few years of transition. For farmers, co-learning activities that prominently include both them and the consumers they serve are important. Scientists and farm advisors should learn to use the power of peer-to-peer learning and collaborative action among and with farmers. These are attractive, fruitful, and satisfying alternatives to providing top-down advice. Here, a complete overhaul of agricultural extension services in terms of capacity issues, incentives and accountability to farmers will accelerate transition. Additionally, innovative approaches, like using vouchers for advisory services, should be promoted. These can be given directly to farmer group associations to source extension services from private providers. A combination of public funding and private delivery, based on the farmers' satisfaction with services provided and the promotion of nature-positive food systems, can be combined with entrepreneurial proficiency. Likewise, ICT use for information and advisory services, in partnership with private providers, should be scaled up.

In light of these proposals, a real revival of agricultural education at universities and farming schools is needed. The complex interdisciplinary concept of nature-positive food systems has to become gradable content in teaching, adaptive experimentation, and locally relevant information exchange. So reformed, the mutual permeability of educational institutions would promote understanding for the transformation of agriculture and its actors. Most of all, public investment in research on nature-positive production should be considerably increased. As nature-positive production requires making complex decisions and coping with uncertainties and trade-offs, as well as accepting higher risks of failure, inter- and transdisciplinary research is a prerequisite.

**Action 5: Strengthen Information for Citizens on Sustainable Nutrition and Food Diets** The development and scaling-up of nature-positive production is dependent on the transition to sustainable consumption and more plant-based diets. In many countries, market forces determine access to healthy, sustainable and nutritious food (Action Track 1). One aspect of sustainable nutrition means a higher degree of sufficiency or consumer moderation, characterized by a reduction in food wastage. Food wastage varies considerably across different contexts and is influenced by socio-economic and cultural factors. In addition, a significant part of the unavoidable food losses should be reused via a circular economy of feed and food. Furthermore, competition for the scarce resources of arable land and water among food, feed and energy production must be reduced. Global food mass flow models show that, by using arable land primarily for direct human nutrition while maintaining grassland-based dairy and meat production with ruminants, the goals of preserving biodiversity and environmental integrity and securing human energy and protein supply by 2050 could be achieved simultaneously (Schader et al. 2015, Müller et al. 2017). Such changes in human nutrition and eating habits influence and change land use, ultimately reversing the loss of biodiversity (Leclerc et al. 2020), decreasing GHG emissions (Bajželj et al. 2014; Tilmann and Clark 2014) and improving the ecological footprint (Westhoek et al. 2014).
How can arable land be primarily used for human nutrition? Energy production on arable land can be reduced by ending state subsidies for the cultivation of these crops and for the production of biogas. Here, more energy-efficient and economically-viable alternatives to fossil fuel already exist in the form of solar and wind energy (Blankenship et al. 2011). The collective change of individual consumption and eating patterns presents a more difficult challenge. In the first place, it requires better information, dissemination and integration of sustainable nutrition into the curriculum of schools. Therefore, it will be a multi-generational effort. Further activities can include the development of personalized shopping guidance and all kinds of nudging campaigns. Furthermore, levies and taxes on the transport of concentrated feeds or on the consumption of meat could lead to behavioral changes and make plant proteins more attractive. Meat substitutes based on plant components or on animal cells grown in the laboratory are already technically possible, but currently remain prohibitively expensive (Furuhashi et al. 2021). However, less drastic solutions are still open for exploration and adoption. For example, replacing plant protein in animal feed with insects grown on organic waste materials can also be much more climate-friendly than conventional methods (van Huis et al. 2013). More ambitiously, raw materials for processed foods that are still underused, such as algae, would be almost inexhaustible and ecologically less burdensome for human nutrition.

**Action 6: Empower Rural Areas by Cross-Farm Co-Operations and through High Local Value Creation** Any activities that strengthen rural societies, including through local and regional markets, participatory guarantee systems (PGSs), certification systems for remote markets such as voluntary sustainability standards (VSS), or organic farming can considerably improve farm incomes and livelihoods. There are many successful examples of how this kind of social innovation helps boost nature-positive production. To strengthen territorial development, the value addition to products must take place at the local and regional levels, and so related regional networks must be strengthened.

Nature-positive farming systems usually give rise to a larger number of farm activities and more products that need to be marketed. This is especially true for agroforestry systems, for example, where several layers of food crops and energy plants are grown (Ajayi et al. 2009). Currently, there is a lack of adequate market and processing facilities for smaller volumes, which sometimes also require high levels of knowledge and experimentation. Greater emphasis should therefore be placed on supporting local processing facilities, as well as investment in local training in technologically simpler food processing, quality assurance, and, ultimately, improvement in storage and transport routes.

Nature-positive production systems have a high initial demand for labor and can be more labor-intensive in general, especially for women. This can be a serious constraint when manual labor entails onerous and low-skill work that cannot easily be substituted by mechanized labor. However, at the same time, it offers opportunities for employment, and for the revitalization of rural areas, particularly when labor conditions are decent and financial incentives are re-shaped (Schuh et al. 2019).
Cooperative models of productive relations must therefore be supported so as to mitigate increases in workload.

**Action 7: Improve Access to Land, Water and Biodiversity Especially for Women**
Inadequate and insecure access to and tenure rights for various elements of natural ecosystems (unfortunately, a reality in the global North, as well as the South) increase vulnerability and undermine nature-positive production. Insecure access provides little incentive for food producers to invest in long-term nature-positive production. Land fragmentation, soil degradation, climate change, and large scale water and land acquisition all block the possibilities for nature-positive production, thus increasing the likelihood of environmental degradation.

Women are actively involved in food systems in several fundamental functions, growing and managing crops, livestock, agribusinesses and food retailing, and preparing food for their families. Women and women's groups have been shown to be a critical partner in water and soil sustainable management (https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/women-are-secret-weapon-better-water-management). However, very often, they face restrictions that prevent them from participating on equitable and fair terms. The role of women in the transition towards sustainable food systems centrally includes increasing efficiency, changing diets, and improving integrated value chains. Inclusion means not only ensuring their participation and access to benefits, but, more importantly, guaranteeing their empowerment to make strategic life choices (Malapit et al. 2020). Thus, supporting sustainable and efficient food systems requires technologies, practices and policies that ensure women's participation and enhance their resilience.

# 5 Conclusions

The Calls to Action in this chapter provide an integrated, systemic approach to realigning our food systems for a sustainable, resilient, 'nature-positive' future.

While today's food systems are “net nature-negative,” they can and must become “nature-positive.” Food systems across the world are driving habitat and biodiversity loss, land and water degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions. These phenomena, in turn, undermine the productivity, sustainability and resilience of food systems. This vicious circle can be broken if we take several fundamental steps to realign our food, feed and fiber production to achieve nature-positive agricultural production at scale. We must strive to: (i) protect natural ecosystems from degradation and conversion, (ii) manage existing production systems more sustainably in support of ecosystem health, and landscape-level resilience, and (iii) restore degraded ecosystems.

This realignment builds on innovations at the landscape level, including soil and water management, land use planning, biodiversity conservation, principles of agroecology and circular economy approaches, new science and technologies in
molecular biology and plant breeding, alternative protein sources, and digital tools for the management of agriculture and land and natural resources.

Importantly, shifting food systems from net nature-negative to nature-positive will require not only innovation in technologies and practices, but also changes in food system governance. This entails radical change in policies, investments, incentives, and subsidies that today fail to promote these practices. Nature-positive approaches will need to be integrated into agricultural extension programs, school and college curricula, and vocational educational programs. And they will need to build on broad, inclusive and empowered partnerships – with women, small-farmers, and the private sector, among others – to co-create, promote, and entrench nature-positive innovation.

## References

* Adedeji AA, Häggblom MM, Babalola OO (2020) Sustainable agriculture in Africa: plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) to the rescue. *Sci Afr 9*. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468227620302301

* Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Kanjipite W (2009) Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility management practices in Zambia. *Agrekon* 48(3). https://www.econbiz.de/Record/labour-inputs-and-financial-profitability-of-conventional-and-agroforestry-based-soil-fertility-management-practices-in-zambia-ajayi-oluccifford/10009446486

* Bai ZG, Dent DL, Olsson L, Schaepman ME (2008) Proxy global assessment of land degradation. *Soil Use Manag* 24(3):223–234

* Bajželj B, Richards K, Allwood J et al (2014) Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. *Nature Clim Change* 4:924–929. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2353

* Blankenship RE, Tiede DM, Barber J et al (2011) Comparing photosynthetic and photovoltaic efficiencies and recognizing the potential for improvement. *Science* 332(6031):805–809

* Bortoletti M, J Lomax (2019) Collaborative Framework for Food Systems Transformation. A multi-stakeholder pathway for sustainable food systems. UN environment, p 58. ISBN: 978-92-807-37-353-0

* Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (eds.) (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

* D'Hondt K, Kostic T, McDowell R et al (2021) Microbiome innovations for a sustainable future. *Nat Microbiol* 6:138–142. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00857-w

* Dargie G, Lewis S, Lawson I et al (2017) Age, extent and carbon storage of the Central Congo Basin peatland complex. *Nature* 542:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21048

* Edwards MA, Roy S (2017) Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. *Environ Eng Sci* 34:51–61

* Eyhorn F, Müller A, Reganold JP, Frison E, Herren HR, Luttikholt L, Mueller A, Sanders J, El-Hage Scialabba N, Seufert V, Smith P (2019) Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. *Nat Sustain* 2:253–255

* FAO (2015) Status of World Soil Resources (SWSR). Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations and inter-government technical panel on soils, Rome, Italy Available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf

* FAO (2018) The 10 elements of agroecology guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/I9037EN.pdf
Furuhashi M, Morimoto Y, Shima A et al (2021) Formation of contractile 3D bovine muscle tissue for construction of millimetre-thick cultured steak. npj Sci Food 5:6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-021-00090-7

Garrett RD, Niles MT, Gil JDB, Gaudin A, Chaplin-Kramer R, Assmann A, Assmann TS, Ke B, de Faccio Car-valhom PC, Cortner O, Dynes R, Garbach K, Kebreab E, Mueller N, Peterson C, Reis JC, Snow V, Valentim J (2017) Social and ecological analysis of commercial integrated crop livestock systems: current knowledge and remaining uncertainty. Agric Syst 155(2017): 136-146

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. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3901e.pdf

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

Hohmann P, Schlaeppi K, Sessitsch A (2020) miCROPe 2019 – emerging research priorities towards microbe-assisted crop production. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 96. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa177

Indrawn M, Yabe M, Momura H, Harrison R (2014) Deconstructing satoyama – the socio-ecological landscape in Japan. Ecol Eng 64:77-84

IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Guèze M, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Ichii K, Liu J, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z, Obura D, Pfaff A, Polasky S, Purvis A, Razzaque J, Reyers B, Chowdhury RR, Shin YJ, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Willis KJ, Zayas CN (eds) IPBES secretariat, Bonn, p 56. https://doi.org/10.5281/zeno-do.3553579

IPCC (2019) Summary for Policymakers. In: 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 [PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, H-O Pörtner, DC Roberts, P Zhai, R Slade, S Connors, R van Diemen, M Ferrat, E Haughey, S Luz, S Neogi, M Pathak, J Petzold, J Portugal Pereira, P Vyas, E Huntley, K Kissick, M Belkacemi, J Malley (eds)]

IPES-Food (2016) From Uniformity to Diversity. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiver-sity_FULL.pdf

Jensen ES, Carlsson G, Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2020) Intercropping of grain legumes and cereals improves the use of soil N resources and reduces the requirement for synthetic fertilizer N: a global-scale analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 40:5. Springer Link Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-020-0607-x

JSSA (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment) (2010) Satoyama – Satoumi ecosystems and human Well-being: socio-ecological landscapes of Japan – summary for decision makers. UNU, Tokyo

Kavino M, Manoranjitham SK (2017) In vitro bacterization of banana (Musa spp.) with native endophytic and rhizospheric bacterial isolates: novel ways to combat fusarium wilt. Eur J Plant Pathol 151:371-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-017-1379-2

Keesing F, Ostfeld RS (2021) Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118(17):e2023540118

Kiew F, Hirata R, Hirano T, Xhuan WG, Aries EB, Kemudang K, Wenceslaus J, San LK, Melling L (2020) Carbon dioxide balance of an oil palm plantation established on tropical peat. Agric For Meteorol 295:108189

Knapp S, van der Heijden MGA (2018) A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat Commun 9:3632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05956-1

Kobori H, Primack RB (2003) Participatory conservation approaches for satoyama. The traditional forest and agricultural landscape of Japan. Ambio 32:307-311
Lal R (2009) Soil degradation as a cause for human malnutrition. Food Security 1:45–57

Lal R (2017) Improving soil health and human protein nutrition by pulse-based cropping systems. Adv Agron 145:167–204

Lal R (2018) Saving global land resources by enhancing eco-efficiency of agro-ecosystems. J Soil Water Conserv 73(4):100A–106A

Lal R (2019) Promoting “4 per 1000” and “Adapting African Agriculture” by south-south cooperation: conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification. Soil Till Res 188:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.12.015

Lal R (2020) Home gardening and urban agriculture for advancing food and nutritional security in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Food Secur 12:871–876. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-020-01058-3

Lal R (2021) Feeding the world and returning half of the agricultural land back to nature. J Soil Water Consec 76:69A–72A

Leclère D, Obersteiner M, Barrett M et al (2020) Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585:551–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705

Liu K, McInroy JA, Hu CH, Kloepper JW (2018) Mixtures of plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria enhance biological control of multiple plant diseases and plant-growth promotion in the presence of pathogens. Plant Dis 102:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-04-17-0478-RE

Malapit HJ, Meinzen-Dick RS, Quisumbing AR, Zseleczky L (2020) Women: transforming food systems for empowerment and equity. In: 2020 Global Food Policy Report. Chapter 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, pp 36–45. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293670_04

Mannakkara S, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R (2019) Resilient post-disaster recovery through building Back better. Routledge

Mateo-Sagasta J, Marjani Zadeh S, Turral H (2018) More people, more food, worse water? A global review of water pollution from agriculture. FAO, Rome, p 225p

Morris C, Winter M (1999) Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture? Land Use Policy 16(1999):193–205

Müller A, Huppenbauer M (2016) Sufficiency, Liberal societies and environmental policy in the face of planetary boundaries. Gaia Ecol Perspect Sci and Soc 25(2):105–109. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.2.10

Müller A, Schader C, Scialabba NEH, Bruggemann J, Isensee A, Erb KH, Smith P, Klocke P, Leiber F, Stolze M, Niggli U (2017) Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat Commun 8:1290

Piñeiro V, Arias J, Dürr J, Elverdin P, Ibáñez AM, Kinengyere A, Opazo CM, Owoo N, Page JR, Prager SD, Torero M (2020) A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nature Sustainability 3:809–820

Pretty J et al. (2018) Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat Sustain 1(8):441–446. ISSN 2398-9629

Reilly J, Artz D, Biddinger D, Bobiwash K, Boyle N, Brittain C, Brokaw J, Campbell J, Daniels J, Elle E, Ellis J, Fleischer S, Gibbs J, Gillespie R, Gundersen K, Gut L, Hoffman G, Joshi N, Lundin O, Winfree R (2020) Crop production in the USA is frequently limited by a lack of pollinators. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 287(1931):20200729. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.0922

Schader C, Müller A, Scialabba NE, Hecht J, Isensee A, Erb KH, Smith P, Makkar HPS, Klocke P, Leiber F, Schwegler P, Stolze M, Niggli U (2015) Impacts of feeding less food competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J R Soc Interface 12(113):20150891

Schuh B et al. 2019 Research for AGRI Committee – The EU farming employment: current challenges and future prospects, European parliament, policy department for structural and cohesion policies, Brussels

Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229