own set of challenges and opportunities, and policies and investments that prioritize inclusive small farm transformation must be differentiated to best target the needs of each group as agrifood systems evolve (Hazell 2020).

Commercial small farmers are the vanguard of agrifood transformation and best prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that growing market demand for agrifood products will create. They tend to be located in more favorable agroclimates, nearer to cities and towns, and in areas better served by infrastructure and midstream SMEs that facilitate input and output markets. These same market opportunities will incentivize some transitional farmers to invest in their small farms and become commercial farmers. **To enhance small commercial and transitional farmers' competitiveness to pursue these market opportunities, the following government policies and public investments are important:**

* Increase investments in infrastructure, including rural roads connecting to secondary and tertiary cities, that can create economies of agglomeration and a critical mass of proximate services such as wholesale, logistics, and farm input provision for small farmers in the surrounding rural areas, thus reducing transaction costs. Often, mobile agricultural services are clustered in towns and fan out to serve small farms in a hub-and-spoke model (Zhang et al. 2017). Many new digital technologies applied in e-commerce, information provision, and farm service businesses also depend on good infrastructure. While initial investments need to come from governments, they will serve to lure in private investments from both large companies and SMEs.

* Promote education and training programs that target rural youths to develop the skills and knowledge required to support modern agriculture and marketing. These skills are necessary for both farm management and off-farm jobs in logistics, machinery maintenance/repair services, and broader RNFE.

* Facilitate co-operatives and farmer groups that can collectively pursue emerging opportunities in urban markets and modern farm technology. Local networks can also be strengthened through village-level innovation platforms to link small-holder farmers with extension and research, such as China's Science and Technology Backyard (Barrett et al. 2020a). These show promise for drawing together the wisdom of (small farmer) crowds and the knowledge of cutting-edge scientific researchers to accelerate discovery, adaptation, and diffusion (Nelson 2019; van Etten et al. 2019).

* Support SMEs upstream and downstream from farms by reducing unnecessary regulations and informal restrictions that often discourage SME development. SMEs are more accessible to small farmers than larger enterprises, and small farmers value the mix of services that SMEs provide (Liverpool-Tasie et al. 2020).

RNFE is the main economic activity of transitional farmers and is increasingly the main source of income for most small farmers. RNFE provides small farmers with cash, both to purchase food and for farm investments to raise productivity, expand commercial activities, and produce higher-value products. RNFE is also important for some marginalized farmers, helping them reduce their reliance on risky,
low-yield agriculture. For these farmers, RNFE development will directly improve food security in a way that marginally boosting agricultural production cannot (ZEF and FAO 2020; Frelat et al. 2016). Public investments and policies that facilitate growth of the agrifood system must pay more attention to creating enabling environments for the development of RNFE and strengthening the synergy between agriculture and RNFE in rural areas. In this regard, the following actions are promising for **governments to actively promote agriculture-RNFE synergies for rural development and agrifood system transformation**:

* Pursue policies that have broad effects across economic activities in rural areas and do not limit interventions to farming alone. RNFE and farming are complementary, and both are needed for inclusive growth in rural areas.

* Develop an enabling environment—including basic infrastructure, property rights, and legal systems with enforcement mechanisms—favorable to rural businesses that encourage and facilitate inclusive RNFE (Haggblade et al. 2007).

* Identify engines of regional growth through consultation with the private sector and farmers, and conduct supply chain diagnostics for prioritization of strategic interventions (Haggblade et al. 2007). Emphasize differentiated strategies and flexible institutional coalitions for implementation appropriate to diverse rural areas.

This chapter emphasizes the importance of market institution innovations for achieving higher agricultural productivity and quality through small farm technology adoption and improving incomes for small farm households through participation in both farm and non-farm economic activities. In addition to the policy recommendations discussed above, some **additional policy recommendations** are listed here, although adapting and differentiating policies over heterogeneous contexts across LMICs requires context-specific research and consultation with stakeholders (Barrett et al. 2020b):

* Support new technologies that reduce risk and are attractive to small farmers when viewed in a holistic way, taking into account farmers’ resource environment, as well as their livelihood strategies. Do not automatically assume labor-intensive innovations are appropriate for small farmers, who often want to reduce, not intensify, their farm labor use (Hazell 2020). For transitional farmers who depend on RNFE, proposing new labor-intensive farming activities could fail if they cut into the time farmers have available for RNFE livelihood strategies (Moser and Barrett 2006).

* Ensure that agricultural interventions to support sustainable farming practices are economically viable for farmers and provide direct economic benefits. In the longer term, farmers are most strongly motivated to adopt and maintain sustainable practices when they perceive positive outcomes of these practices for their farm or the environment (Piñeiro et al. 2020).

* Scale up productive social protection programs for subsistence farmers in hinterland areas who face barriers in accessing markets and other economic opportunities. Safety net programs ease liquidity constraints and increase tolerance for
risk among small farms and, when integrated with measures to increase agricultural productivity, have the potential to make significant progress toward the eradication of hunger (Wouterse et al. 2020).

## References

African Union, AU (2014) Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods Doc. Assembly/Au/2 (Xxiii)

Altay News (2019) Shu Xinanda: 'Visit Huiju' Task Force Asked Bees to Work to Spread Pollination to Promote Income. August 14. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1641857490903640521&wfr=spider&for=pc (in Chinese)

Anache JAA, Wendland E, Rosalem LMP, Youlton C, Oliveira PTS (2019) Hydrological trade-offs due to different land covers and land uses in the Brazilian Cerrado. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23(3): 1263–1279

Barrett CB, Benton T, Fanzo J, Herrero M, Nelson RJ, Bageant E, Buckler E et al (2020a) Socio-technical innovation bundles for Agri-food systems transformation, report of the international expert panel on innovations to build sustainable, equitable, inclusive food value chains. Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability and Springer Nature, Ithaca/London

Barrett CB, Reardon T, Swinnen J, Zilberman D (2020b) Agri-food value chain revolutions in low- and middle-income countries. J Econ Lit

Belton B, Cho A, Payongayong E, Mahrt K, Abaidoo E (2020) Commercial Poultry and Pig Farming in Yangon's Peri-Urban Zone. Research Paper 174. Food Security Policy Project (FSPP), Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy, Michigan State University. https://www.canr.msu.edu/fsp/publications/research-papers/RP_174.pdf

Belton B, Thida Win M, Zhang X, Filipski M (2021) The rapid rise of agricultural mechanization in Myanmar. Food Policy 101

Berhane G, Hirvonen K, Minten B (2016) Synopsis, Agricultural Mechanization in Ethiopia: Evidence from the 2015 Feed the Future Survey, ESSP II Research Note 48. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI), Washington, DC/Addis Ababa

Birner R, Daum T, Pray C (2021) Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply-side trends, players and challenges. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 43(4):1260–1285

Brandi G, Cabani T, Hosang C, Schirmbeck S, Westermann L, Wiese H (2015) Sustainability standards for palm oil: challenges for smallholder certification under the RSPO. J Environ Dev 24(3):292–314

Cabral L (2021) Of zinc roofs and mango trees: tractors, the state and agrarian dualism in Mozambique. J Peasant Stud 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1860026

Daum T, Capezzone F, Birner R (2020) Using smartphone app collected data to explore the link between mechanization and intra-household allocation of time in Zambia. Agric Hum Values 38(2):411–429

Davis B, Winters P, Reardon T, Stamoulis K (2009) Rural nonfarm employment and farming: household-level linkages. Agric Econ 40(2):119–123

Davis D, Di Giuseppe S, Zezza A (2017) Are African households (not) leaving agriculture? Patterns of households' income sources in rural sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 67:153–174

De Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2006) Making conditional cash transfer programs more efficient: designing for maximum effect of the conditionality. World Bank Econ Rev 20(1):1–29

DeFries R, Fanzo J, Mondal P, Remans R, Wood S (2017) Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals? A review of the evidence. Environ Res Lett 12(3):033001
Diao X, Takeshima H, Zhang X (eds) (2020) An evolving paradigm of agricultural mechanization development: how much can Africa learn from Asia? International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293809

Dolislager M, Reardon T, Arslan A, Fox L, Liverpool-Tasie S, Sauer C, Tschirley D (2020) Youth and adult Agrifood system employment in developing regions: rural (Peri-urban to hinterland) vs urban. J Dev Stud 57(4):571–593

Eastwood R, Lipton M, Newell A (2010) Farm Size. In: Pigali P, Evenson RE (eds) Handbook of agricultural economics, vol 4. Elsevier BV Academic Press, Burlington, pp 3323–3397

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2014) The state of food and agriculture. Innovation in Family Farming, Rome

Fifanou VG, Ousmane C, Gauthier B, Brice S (2011) Traditional agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation in Benin (West Africa). Agrofor Syst 82(1):1–13

Frelat R, Lopez-Ridaura S, Giller KE, Herrero M, Douxchamps S, Djurfeldt AA et al (2016) Drivers of household food availability in sub-Saharan Africa based on big data from small farms. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(2):458–463

Giller KE, Delaune T, Silva JV, Descheemaeker K, van de Ven G, Schut AGT, van Wijk M, Hammond J, Hochman Z, Taulya G, Chikowo R, Narayanan S, Kishore A, Bresciani F, Teixeira HM, Andersson J, van Ittersum M (2020) The future of farming: who will produce our food? Background paper for the Towards Inclusive, Sustainable, Nutritious and Efficient Food Systems project

Giovannucci D, Ponte S (2005) Standards as a new form of social contract? Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry. Food Policy 30(3):284–301

Gong J, Zhang H, Hu Y, Wang L, Long H, Mao C, Mao H, Dai Q, Luo Z, Xui K, Wei H (2012) An analysis on the rising Rice commercialized centralized seedling. China Rice 18(4):26–30. (in Chinese)

Graeub BE, Chappell MJ, Wittman H, Ledermann S, Kerr RB, Gemmill-Herren B (2016) The state of family farms in the world. World Dev 87:1–15

Haggl blade S, Hazell P, Reardon T (eds) (2007) Transforming the rural nonfarm economy: opportunities and threats in the developing world. International Food Policy Research Institute and Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, DC/Baltimore

Hazell P (2018) Urbanization, agriculture and smallholder farming. In: Serraj R, Pingali P (eds) Agriculture and food systems to 2050: global trend, challenges and opportunities. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 137–160

Hazell P (2020) Importance of smallholder farms as a relevant strategy to increase food security. In: y Paloma SG, Riesgo L, Louhichi K (eds) The role of smallholder farms in food and nutrition security. Springer, Cham, pp 29–43

Herrero M, Thornton P, Power B, Bogard J, Remans R, Fritz S, Gerber J, Nelson G, See L, Waha K, Watson R, West P, Samberg L, van de Steeg J, Stephenson E, van Wijk M, Havlík P (2017) Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. Lancet Planet Health 1(1):E33–E42

Herrero M, Thornton PK, Mason-D'Croz C, Palmer J, Benton TG, Bodirsky BL, Bogard J et al (2020) Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat Food 1: 266–272

Herrero M, Thornton PK, Mason-D'Croz C, Palmer J, Bodirsky BL, Pradhan P, Barrett CB et al (2021) Articulating the impact of food systems innovation on the sustainable development goals. Lancet Planet Health 5(1):E50–E62

Hickson K, Thornton P (2020) Updates to the Number of Agricultural Holdings by Country Dataset of Lowder et al. (2016). Unpublished, CIAT and ILRI

Hu C, Zhang X, Reardon T, Hernandez RA (2019) Value-chain clusters and aquaculture innovation in Bangladesh. Food Policy 83(February):310–326

Huang H, Gong X, Huang B (2010) The competitive advantages of agricultural industrial clusters based on specialization: a case study of Shouguang County vegetable industry cluster. Agric Econ Issues 4:64–111. (in Chinese)
Kahan D, Bymolt R, Zaal F (2018) Thinking outside the plot: insights on small-scale mechanization from case studies in East Africa. J Dev Stud 54(11):1939–1954

Laborde Debucquet D, Murphy S, Parent M, Porciello J, Smaller C (2020) Ending hunger, increasing incomes, and protecting the climate: what would it cost donors? International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg

Lanjouw P, Murgai R (2009) Poverty decline, agricultural wages, and nonfarm employment in rural India: 1983–2004. Agric Econ 40(2):243–263

Li S, Zhu C, Ma X, Li H (2015) Centralized seedlings and machine-transplanted Rice in Nantong City in China. China Rice 213:72–74. (in Chinese)

Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Omonona B, Sanou A, Ogunleye W, Padilla S, Reardon T (2017) Growth and transformation of chicken and eggs value chains in Nigeria. Nigerian J Agric Econ 7(1): 1–15

Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Reardon T, Belton B (2020) ‘Essential non-essentials’: COVID-19 policy missteps in Nigeria rooted in persistent myths about African food value chains. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 43(1):205–224

Lowder SK, Skoet J, Raney T (2016) The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev 87(November):16–29

Masiwa D (2020) Fed-up farmers to turn to Facebook to sell their produce. Food for Mzansi (May 13)

McCord PF, Cox M, Schmitt-Harshe M, Evans T (2015) Crop diversification as a smallholder livelihood strategy within semi-arid agricultural systems near Mount Kenya. Land Use Policy 42(January):738–750

Milder JC, Scherr SJ, Bracer C (2010) Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol Soc 15(2):4

Minten B, Reardon T, Singh KM, Sutradhar R (2014) The new and changing roles of cold storages in the potato supply chain in Bihar. Econ Polit Wkly 49(52):98–108

Minten B, Tamru S, Engida E, Kuma T (2016) Feeding Africa’s cities: the case of the supply chain of Teff to Addis Ababa. Econ Dev Cult Chang 64(2):265–297

Minten B, Mohammed B, Tamru S (2020) Emerging medium-scale tenant farming, gig economies, and the COVID-19 disruption: the case of commercial vegetable clusters in Ethiopia. Eur J Dev Res 32(October):1402–1429

Moser CM, Barrett CB (2006) The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption: the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agric Econ 35(3):373–388

Nelson J (2019) No Smallholder Farmer Left Behind. Time for Specifics on the Sustainable Development Goals, Leave No One Behind

Ouin A, Burel F (2002) Influence of herbaceous elements on butterfly diversity in hedgerow agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93(1-3):45–53

Paudel GP, Kc DB, Rahut DB, Justice SE, McDonald AJ (2019) Scale-appropriate mechanization impacts on productivity among smallholders: Evidence from Rice Systems in the mid-Hills of Nepal. Land Use Policy 85(June):104–113

Piñeiro V, Arias J, Dürr J, Elverdin P, Ibáñez AM, Kinengyere A et al (2020) A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nature Sustain-ability 3(10):809–820

Qanti SR, Reardon T, Iswariyadi A (2017) Triangle of linkages among modernizing markets, sprayer traders, and mango-farming intensification in Indonesia. Bull Indones Econ Stud 53(2):187–208

Reardon T, Swinnen J (2020) COVID-19 and resilience innovations in food supply chains. In: Swinnen J, McDermott J (eds) COVID-19 & global food security. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 132–136

Reardon T, Echeverría 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 & Innovations. Agric Syst 172(June):47–59
Reardon T, Belton B, Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Lu L, Nuthalapati CSR, Tasie O, Zilberman D (2021a) E-Commerce's fast-tracking diffusion and adaptation in developing countries. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 43. https://doi.org/10.1002/aapp.13160

Reardon T, Heiman A, Lu L, Nuthalapati CSR, Vos R, Zilberman D (2021b) ‘Pivoting’ by food industry firms to cope with COVID-19 in developing regions: E-commerce and ‘co-pivoting’ delivery-intermediaries. Agricultural Economics (preprint). https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12631

Ricciardi V, Ramankutty N, Mehrabi Z, Jarvis L, Chookolingo B (2018) How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? Glob Food Sec 17(May):64–72

Ricciardi V, Mehrabi Z, Wittman H, James D, Ramankutty N (2021) Higher yields and more biodiversity on Smaller farms. Nat Sustain 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00699-2

Ritchie H, Roser M (2017) CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Ruysschaert D, Salles D (2014) Towards global voluntary standards: questioning the effectiveness in attaining conservation goals: the case of the roundtable on sustainable palm oil (RSPO). Ecol Econ 107(November):438–446

Samberg LH, Gerber JS, Ramankutty N, Herrero M, West PC (2016) Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environ Res Lett 11(November):124010

Stifel D, Minten B, Koru B (2016) Economic benefits of rural feeder roads: evidence from Ethiopia. J Dev Stud 52(9):1335–1356

Swinnen J, Kuijpers R (2019) Value chain innovations for technology transfer in developing and emerging economies: conceptual issues, typology, and policy implications. Food Policy 83(February):298–309

Takeshima H (2018) Mechanize or exit farming? Multiple-treatment-effects model and external validity of adoption impacts of mechanization among Nepalese smallholders. Rev Dev Econ 22(4):1620–1641

Thurlow J, Dorosh P, Davies B (2019) Demographic change, agriculture and rural poverty. In: Campanhola C, Pandey S (eds) Sustainable food and agriculture: an integrated approach. Elsevier and FAO, London, pp 31–53

Torero M (2019) A Digital Revolution without a Digital Divide for sub-Saharan Africa. In Africa Agriculture Status Report: The Hidden Middle: A Quiet Revolution in the Private Sector Driving Agricultural Transformation (Issue 7). Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) (editor). Nairobi, Kenya: AGRA. https://agra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/AASR2019-The-Hidden-Middleweb.pdf

United Nations (2019) Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, UN DESA (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. ST/ESA/SER.A/423

Van Campenhout B, Spielman DJ, Lecoutere E (2021) Information and communication technologies to provide agricultural advice to smallholder farmers: experimental evidence from Uganda. Am J Agric Econ 103(1):317–337

van Etten J, de Sousa K, Aguilar A, Barrios M, Coto A, Dell'Acqua M et al (2019) Crop variety management for climate adaptation supported by citizen science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(10):4194–4199

Vandercasteelen J, Beyene ST, Minten B, Swinnen J (2018) Big cities, small towns, and poor farmers: evidence from Ethiopia. World Dev 106(June):393–406

Vardhan V (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on retailing in emerging countries. [PowerPoint]. Euromonitor International. Unpublished

Vorley B (2002) Sustaining agriculture: policy, governance, and the future of family-based Farming. IIED, London, pp 1–196

Wang X, Yamauchi F, Huang J (2016) Rising wages, mechanization, and the substitution between capital and labor: evidence from small scale farm system in China. Agric Econ 47(3):309–317

Wells G, Fisher JA, Porras I, Staddon S, Ryan C (2017) Rethinking monitoring in smallholder carbon payments for ecosystem service schemes: devolve monitoring, understand accuracy and identify co-benefits. Ecol Econ 139(September):115–127
Woodhill J, Hasnain S, Griffith A (2020) Farmers and food systems: what future for small-scale agriculture? *Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford*

World Bank (2016) Poverty and shared prosperity 2016: taking on inequality, Washington, DC

Wouterse F, Murphy S, Porciello J (2020) Social protection to combat hunger. Nat Food 1(9): 517–518

Yagura K (2020) Rapid diffusion of combine harvesters in Cambodian Rice farming: a business analysis. *Asian J Agric Dev* 17(1):71–88

ZEF (Center for Development Research) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2020) Investment costs and policy action opportunities for reaching a world without hunger (SDG2), Rome/Bonn

Zhang X, Yang J, Reardon T (2017) Mechanization outsourcing clusters and division of labor in Chinese agriculture. *China Econ Rev* 43(April):184–181

**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_45.png" /></figure>
# Diversification for Enhanced Food Systems Resilience

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Thomas Hertel, Ismahane Elouafi, Morakot Tanticharoen, and Frank Ewert

Global change and an increasingly interconnecting society are inducing unprecedented hazards that are likely to prove disastrous for many of the world's most vulnerable populations (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2019). Food systems are at the heart of this challenge and need to become more resilient to ensure access to food while also providing livelihoods for a large share of the world's poorest households (Hertel et al. 2021). A resilient food system must be financially equitable (economic resilience), supportive of the entire community (social resilience), and it must minimize harmful impacts on the natural environment (ecological resilience). Towards this end, the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 designated resilience as one of five 'Action Tracks'. Reviewing this subject for the summit (Hertel et al. 2021), one central theme has emerged: the importance of diversification. Diversification of the food system can occur across the entire food supply chain and at different levels of organization (Fig. 1). Here we focus on the diversification of production and markets, and household responses, to illustrate the growing importance of diversification. We also highlight research gaps and challenges for its adoption.

T. Hertel (✉)

Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

e-mail: hertel@purdue.edu

I. Elouafi

UN-FAO, Rome, Italy

M. Tanticharoen

The National Science and Technology Development Agency, Bangkok, Thailand

F. Ewert

Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany

University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** The importance of food system diversification across levels of organization with selected example measures to enhance food systems’ resilience. Note that diversification of processing and diets are not addressed in this comment but are closely related to diversification of production, household livelihoods and trade</figcaption></figure>

# 1 Diversification of Production

Diversification of production, particularly for crops and cropping systems, has received increasing attention in recent years (Hufnagel et al. 2020) as a means of building resilience to climate change and increasing extreme weather events and also to improve the ecological performance of crops, reducing their harmful impacts on the climate and the environment (Tamburini et al. 2020). Increasing evidence also shows that bio-diverse ecosystems are capable of delivering additional ecosystem services without compromising crop yields (Tamburini et al. 2020) or even with benefits for crop production (Dainese et al. 2019).

Importantly, diversification of production should encompass different levels of the organisation (Fig. 1). Agroecology, an approach receiving increasing attention in research and agricultural practice (Wezel et al. 2014), attempts to explicitly leverage the benefits of agroecological relationships. Agroecological practices including diversification refer to the field, farm, landscape and regional scale and up to the broader food system (Wezel et al. 2014). However, while diversification of crops and cropping systems have frequently been investigated (Hufnagel et al. 2020), diversification of agricultural landscapes and regions also deserves consideration as it has many beneficial effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Tscharntke et al. 2021).

Any attempt to integrate approaches to diversify production across organizational levels will need to go beyond the land-based production sub-sector encompassing other sub-sectors such as aquaculture as well as vertical and urban farming. The importance of aquaculture as an integrated part of the global food system has been highlighted (Naylor et al. 2021) and in some world regions (e.g., Asia), food
contributions from inland-aquaculture is critically important (Naylor et al. 2021). However, despite progress in recent years, issues remain regarding the sustainability of production and the development of markets (Naylor et al. 2021) jointly with other production sectors to improve food systems resilience.

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

The concrete solutions for diversification of production will depend on the local and regional natural (e.g., soils, climate and geography) but also socio-economic and cultural conditions determining present farming systems. Understanding the ecological-economic trade-offs of diversified farming systems (Rosa-Schleich et al. 2019) is crucial for successful diversification strategies. Positive outcomes of crop diversity for agricultural employment worldwide have been reported but the economic costs of diversifying farming systems often outweigh the ecological benefits (Rosa-Schleich et al. 2019) suggesting the need for adequate policies to support the development of diverse and sustainable (ecological, economic and social) production and farming systems and households (FAO et al. 2021).

## 2 Diversification at the Household Level

A key goal of the food system is to enhance the well-being of individuals, and the households to which they belong. This requires a household-centric view of diversification and resilience. Given the prominent role of income in ensuring household well-being, diversification of income sources is critical. Three important sources of income diversification are: risk management, safety nets and labor market diversification.
*Diversification across states of nature:* With extreme weather events expected to become more frequent in the future (IPCC 2021), new forms of risk management will be needed. Traditional methods of community-based risk sharing are no longer viable when entire communities face common risks from drought, flooding and heat stress. Weather index insurance has been developed specifically for such circumstances (Hazell et al. 2010). Households enroll at the beginning of the season and payouts for all farmers in the disaster-affected region are made when an index for (e.g.) rainfall in the region drops below a pre-determined trigger level. This allows households to diversify their incomes across different ‘states of nature’, paying out money when the weather is normal and receiving money when drought or flooding disasters strike. This form of diversification has great potential to stabilize rural agricultural household incomes.

Since its inception, weather index insurance has faced challenges in reaching the poorest households – as they typically confront severe credit constraints. However, recent technological innovations like remote sensing and e-banking are permitting index insurance to thrive across the developing world. India and China, where 80% of all farms have some form of insurance, have led the way (GIZ 2021). In Africa, where 70% of the programs are private sector led – albeit often in partnership with the public sector – this market penetration is still very small. One of the most successful programs is the Agriculture and Climate Risk Enterprise (ACRE) program which has reached more than 1.7 million farmers in East Africa. ACRE works with local institutions such as cooperatives and agricultural finance providers to reach individual farmers (GIZ 2021). ACRE weather index insurance has allowed three-quarters of participants to access credit that would otherwise have not been available to them due to the risk of catastrophic losses. While promising, reaching its full potential will require education about the benefits of insurance as well as also improved historical weather information which is still scarce in much of the region (GIZ 2021).

*Social safety nets:* While weather index insurance provides an important source of income diversification for agricultural producers, it does not directly benefit non-farm households and fails to shield net buyers of food from food price spikes in the wake of extreme weather events. For these households, other social safety nets can play an important role. While widespread throughout much of the world, social protection programs have only recently emerged on the scene in Africa where they are rapidly expanding (Correa et al. 2021). This trend has been further accelerated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While social assistance and social insurance can be viewed as sources of income diversification in their own right, recent research suggests that such programs can also have important impacts on households’ livelihood strategies. By providing an assured source of income, social protection can reduce the risk associated with investments in new activities, including increased participation in commercial agricultural markets and increased farm productivity, as well as increased engagement in
non-farm activities (Correa et al. 2021). In a recent study of the Harmonized Social Cash Transfer program targeting ultra-poor, labor constrained households in remote, rural Zimbabwe, Pace et al. (2021) find significant impacts on income diversification over the medium run (four years). Specifically, they identify a shift from survival-led diversification, driven by seasonality, climatic uncertainty, land constraints and limited market access, to opportunity-led diversification, including higher paying non-farm activities, with attendant increases in food and non-food consumption.

*Rural-Urban Migration and Income Diversification:* While rural off-farm work can provide important income diversification opportunities, many rural households also choose to send one or more family members to work in urban areas. Rural-urban migration has been a long-standing means of diversifying and raising household income, with remittances from migrants to their communities of origin helping to ensure food security, reduce poverty, support children's education, ease credit constraints in farming, pay for farm inputs and repay debts (Deshingkar 2006). Furthermore, when an urban disaster arises, such as the East Asian financial crisis of 1997, the rural household connection can provide an important safety net.

The importance of migrants’ remittances to rural household well-being has been underscored during the COVID-19 pandemic. Border closures and lockdown restrictions have resulted in significant loss of jobs and economic activities throughout much of the developing world. Consequently, these remittances, a vital source of income for the rural villagers, have been largely lost (World Bank 2020). Thus, not only has the pandemic worsened poverty and inequality, it is also likely to leave long-lasting scars on labor markets, reversing progress on poverty and income inequality in many economies and reducing resilience.

## 3 Diversification Through the Global, Regional and Local Trading Systems

Weather index insurance, safety nets and household income diversification are necessary to ensure households’ food security, but they are not sufficient in the face of widespread weather disasters such as droughts and flooding which may jeopardize local and regional food availability. Here, robust markets and trade play a critical role in ensuring food security. There is perhaps no better illustration than that provided by pre-colonial India, where weather-induced famines were common, resulting in tens of millions of deaths. However, with the introduction of railroads in colonial India, large-scale interstate trade became possible and there was a dramatic reduction in the number of deaths associated with extreme weather events; improved market integration greatly enhanced food security by allowing for timely imports from food surplus regions (Burgess and Donaldson 2010).
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

Trade amongst nations can play the same role – mediating between food surplus and food deficit regions in the face of scarcity. However, this is only possible if government and private actors operate under a rules-based system with adequate information provided to everyone engaged in agricultural markets. The potential for markets to be destabilized by panic and misinformation was on dramatic display during the 2006–2008 food crisis when cascading export bans and panic greatly exacerbated the price rises for rice and wheat (Martin and Anderson 2012). These price spikes were particularly severe for consumers in the poorest countries. In the wake of that experience, the G-20 Ministers of Agriculture initiated a multinational, multiagency effort to provide improved market information. Nicknamed AMIS, this information system documents in detail government interventions – their scope, duration and modification, on a real time basis, along with up to date information on commodity stocks and production. As a consequence, over-reactions on the part of governments and markets to the disruptions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic were avoided (Jansen 2020). However, merely documenting these interventions is insufficient. It is important to reach a new multilateral agreement in agriculture that will prevent countries from intervening in markets during these crisis periods.

Of course, it is not enough to integrate national markets into the global economy. Many of the world's smallholder farmers and rural households are poorly integrated into local and regional markets, thus limiting their ability to benefit from intra- and international trade. In Ethiopia, a pilot effort dubbed P4P: Purchase for Progress, run by the World Food Program, works through farmer organizations in order to better integrate farm households into regional markets. This involves reducing transactions
costs and improving information flows. A recent study of the P4P pilot project in Ethiopia finds that these interventions have boosted spending by participating households by 25% – as well as sharply increased investment in children’s education (Gelo et al. 2020). This effort has benefited not only short-term resilience, but also long-term development and poverty reduction objectives.

## 4 Conclusions

While there are many different avenues to obtain greater food system resilience, we believe that the most fundamental of these is diversification, which can occur at many different levels and across components of the food system. This comment has focused on diversification of agricultural production and trade and on household-related responses. However, equally important for food system resilience will be diversification along the entire value chain as well as in consumption. Diversity in diets is a critical element for ensuring healthy consumer outcomes, while also carrying important implications for patterns of production and trade.

In closing, it should also be noted that many of the elements discussed in this comment interact in important ways. For example, while increased production risk will encourage farmers to diversify, greater market integration encourages specialization in production in order to increase expected household income (Keenan et al. 2021). Clearly, the relationships among diversification of production and other parts of the food system, particularly diversification of diets and markets including market access, are not straightforward and need more attention (Keenan et al. 2021). Food system modeling frameworks to assess resilience are at an early stage of development (Müller et al. 2020) but can be helpful in integrating the complex interactions between food, ecology, economy and society, thereby providing advice on critical trade-offs when diversifying food systems to improve their resilience.

**Acknowledgements** TH acknowledges support by the National Science Foundation (CBET 1855937 and OISE-2020635) and FE acknowledges support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2070 – 390732324). This chapter was published in Nature Food, 2 832-834 (2021).

## References

* Burgess R, Donaldson D (2010) Can openness mitigate the effects of weather shocks? Evidence from India’s Famine Era. Am Econ Rev 100:449–453

* Correa JS, Daidone S, Sitko N (2021) The missing link: understanding the role of social protection in fostering sustainable food system transformation in Africa. In: African Agriculture Status Report, AGRA
Dainese M et al (2019) A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop produc-
tion. Sci Adv 5:eaax0121

Deshingkar P (2006) Internal migration, poverty and development in Asia: including the excluded. IDS Bull 37:88–100

FAO, UNDP, UNEP (2021) A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. FAO

Gelo D, Muchapondwa E, Shimeles A, Dikgang J (2020) Aid, collective action and benefits to smallholders: evaluating the World Food Program’s purchase for progress pilot. Food Policy 97: 101911

GIZ (2021) Innovations and emerging trends in agricultural insurance: an update

Hazell PBR et al (2010) The potential for scale and sustainability in weather index insurance for agriculture and rural livelihoods. IFAD-WFP

Hertel TW, Elouafi I, Ewert F, Tanticharoen M (2021) Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses. A paper on Action Track 5. https://doi.org/10.48565/scfss2021-cz84

Hufnagel J, Reckling M, Ewert F (2020) Diverse approaches to crop diversification in agricultural research. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 40:14

IPCC (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press

Jansen M (2020) COVID-19 and the global economy. In: COVID-19 and the global economy

Keenan M, Karanja S, Pamuk H, Ruerd R (2021) Smallholder farming households’ make-or-buy decisions: linking market access, production risks, and production diversity to dietary diversity. In: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security

Martin W, Anderson K (2012) Export restrictions and price insulation during commodity price booms. Am J Agric Econ 94:422–427

Müller B et al (2020) Modelling food security: Bridging the gap between the micro and the macro scale. Glob Environ Change 63:1

Naylor RL et al (2021) A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature 591:551–563

Pace N et al (2021) Cash transfers’ role in improving livelihood diversification strategies and well-being: short- and medium-term evidence from Zimbabwe. Revis

Rosa-Schleich J, Loos J, Mußhoff O, Tscharntke T (2019) Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems – A review. Ecol Econ 160:251–263

Tamburini G et al (2020) Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci Adv 6

Tscharntke T, Grass I, Wanger TC, Westphal C, Batáry P (2021) Beyond organic farming – harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 36:919–930

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2019) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction, UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

Wezel A et al (2014) Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 34:1–20

World Bank (2020) COVID-19 crisis through a migration lens. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33634
**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_50.png" /></figure>
# Addressing Food Crises in Violent Conflicts

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Birgit Kemmerling ID, Conrad Schetter ID, and Lars Wirkus ID

## Recommendations

* **Respect access to food as a human right:** Any policy action needs to be based on the common understanding that access to food is a human right. Providing safe, continuous and sufficient access to food is foremost the respective government's role. Every government should pursue preventive policies and take emergency measures to secure food equally for all segments of its population. If a government lacks the capacity to prevent or mitigate a food crisis, it should allow and facilitate relief operations as demanded by humanitarian law. Any government or warring faction that prohibits parts of the population from access to food needs to be sanctioned.

* **Build bridges linking humanitarian assistance, development and peacebuilding:** Food assistance, if implemented well, plays a key role in mitigating the devastating effects of conflicts and contributing to peace. While short-term assistance needs to be based on sound conflict analysis and a better understanding of the structural factors that determine vulnerabilities, long-term food assistance should actively integrate peacebuilding approaches. In line with current debates regarding the humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus, improving food security requires greater cooperation and coordination among actors in humanitarian assistance, development cooperation and peacebuilding.

* **Integrate local capacities and perceptions:** Conflict-affected populations adopt multiple strategies to secure food, and these depend on a multitude of factors, such as the context, intensity and duration of the conflict, an individual's situation, access to resources and support, and governance. At the same time, local perceptions of terms such as “peace” and conflict narratives need to be taken into account, since they can differ from one place to another. Local capacities and

B. Kemmerling (✉) · C. Schetter · L. Wirkus

Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (BICC), Bonn, Germany

e-mail: birgit.kemmerling@bicc.de; conrad.schetter@bicc.de; lars.wirkus@bicc.de
response mechanisms to food crises and conflict, as well as local perspectives, need to be better understood and best practices integrated into relief operations and national response strategies.

* **Improve the links between early warning and early action in conflict-driven food crises:** While early warning systems for famine have advanced over the past decades, the links to early action have been weak. Recent developments in anticipatory actions have improved the links and have already addressed disasters in conflict contexts or the impact of conflict itself, but little is known about their effectiveness, and challenges remain, especially in accessing conflict data and data on food security in conflict settings. The development of an integrated platform combining early warning systems for famine and violent conflict could add important data that might serve as the missing link to assess famine, drought and conflict risk more comprehensively while advancing anticipatory humanitarian action in fragile and conflict-affected settings.

# 1 Introduction

Food insecurity remains one of the greatest global challenges. Since 2014, the number of people affected by hunger worldwide has been rising again: In 2020, an estimated number of 720–811 million people faced hunger, and the prevalence of undernourishment, having been stable for the past 5 years, increased by 1.5–9.9% (FAO et al. 2021). 155 million people in 55 countries or territories were classified as being in crisis conditions or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above<fnref n="1" />) – that number is 20 million more people than in 2019. Violent conflicts undoubtedly play a decisive role in current food crises. In 2020, more than 99 million people in 23 countries were affected by conflict-driven food crises (FSIN & GNAFC 2021). Violent conflicts, in particular, entail severe short- and long-term impacts on the nutrition status of children. For example, studies in different regional contexts find evidence that conflict-affected children are shorter than children born in regions not affected by conflict (Bundervoet et al. 2009; Akresh et al. 2011). Moreover, negative effects on child weight at birth were observed if the mother was exposed to conflict during pregnancy (Camacho 2008). Physical and cognitive impacts have also been found in adults who were exposed to conflict in their early years (Akresh et al. 2012).

Food insecurity and violent conflicts are mostly found in regions with a high degree of fragility. Africa is still the continent most affected by food crises: 66% of the population globally facing food crises or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or higher) are located in Africa (Fig. 1). In East Africa, particularly in Darfur (Sudan), South Sudan, and Tigray (North Ethiopia), armed conflicts, violent extremism, inter-communal violence and other localised tensions are the greatest threats to peace

<footnote n="1">¹IPC/CH Phase: Integrated Phase Classification is a standardised classification system to describe the anticipated severity of food emergencies/food insecurity according to a five-phase scale: minimal, stressed, crisis, emergency, famine. (https://fews.net/IPC)</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

Sources: Croicu, Mihai and Ralph Sundberg 2012; FAO 2021; FEWS.NET 2021; Messner et al. 2020.

Layout: Lars Wirkus, Vincent Glasow; BICC; April 2021.

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by BICC.

<caption>**Fig. 1** Food insecurity, violent conflicts and fragility in Africa 2015–2021</caption>

and security. In Central Africa, continuous violent conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic has disrupted food production, as well as the food trade. Further conflict-driven food crises have
emerged in two other African regions: the Lake Chad Basin, comprising the borderlands of Cameroon, Chad, Niger and northern Nigeria, and the Central Sahel, affecting Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger (FSIN & GNAFC 2021). In both areas, insecurity and jihadist groups' expansionist aspirations have led to massive violent incidents and the displacement of populations, the destruction or closure of basic social services, and the disruption or permanent breakdown of productive activities, markets and trade flows. In Asia and the Middle East region, more than 39 million people are affected by conflict-driven food crises, especially in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Syria, where political, social and economic grievances or geopolitical tensions have sparked protracted violent and armed conflicts (FSIN & GNAFC 2021).

This chapter looks at the multiple dimensions between current food crises and violent conflicts and identifies four key areas for a comprehensive response that addresses food insecurity amid such violence.

## 2 Multiple Dimensions of Food Crises and Violent Conflicts

Over the past decade, a growing body of research has examined the mutual impact between violent conflicts and food insecurity (for an overview, see Brück et al. 2016; Martin-Shields and Stojetz 2019) and has indicated strong correlations on multiple layers. However, food insecurity, as well as violent conflicts, are characterised by a high degree of complexity and contextualisation. Thus, discussions about the state of food insecurity and the typology of violent conflicts tend to become objectives in themselves. Criteria for determining the state of food insecurity are usually based on the four dimensions of availability, access, stability and utilisation, and encompass a range of variables covering different sectors, such as health, food prices and agricultural production, as well as different levels, from the individual to the global. Reports on the state of food security usually include a general analysis of conflicts as one of the drivers of food insecurity.

Typologies of violent conflict differentiate between the duration and intensity of said conflicts, among root causes, key drivers or ways of mobilisation, and among domestic, regional and inter-state constellations (for an overview, see Demmers 2016).<fnref n="2" /> Each of these typologies entails a certain interpretation of violent conflicts. However, a categorisation of violent conflicts that centres on food (in)security is missing so far. To narrow this gap, we will link the logics of war to food (in)security. We will identify three dimensions of how violent conflicts have an impact on food (in)security.

<footnote n="2">²The question of when a violent conflict can be labelled as 'war' is still ongoing. Its definition in International Law (declaration of war) diverges from the one in Peace and Conflict Studies (e.g., number of causalities).</footnote>
## 2.1 Destruction and Food Insecurity

The general principle of violent conflicts is that belligerent parties aim to harm, defeat or even eliminate their 'enemy'. Consequently, the emergence of frontlines, battlefields and war zones is an inevitable effect of violent conflicts, even if the current technological upgrading of modern armies and warfare (e.g., drones) aims to increase the accuracy of military attacks (Prinz and Schetter 2017). This is why, by and large, violent interactions go hand in hand with physical destruction, affecting people's vulnerabilities in various ways and leading to vicious circles of violence and hunger (Buhaug and von Uexkull 2021).

In general, Collier (1999) finds that the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita declines at an annual rate of 2.2% during civil wars. However, since the majority of people in many of today's conflict-affected countries depend on small-scale farming to provide food and income for their households, small-scale agriculture is particularly affected. The destruction (e.g., bombing) or contamination (e.g., land mines, chemical weapons) of agricultural areas, as well as infrastructure (irrigation networks, roads, bridges, buildings, etc.), might force farmers to abandon agriculture altogether. Farmers may also no longer be able to cultivate their fields for lack of access to seeds and fertiliser, credits and capital, due to the uncertainty of access to buyers and markets and the displacement or killing of people (Baumann and Kuemmerle 2016).

Especially when the expansion of war zones provokes forced migration on a large scale, the impacts on food security are direct and severe, not only in the short term, but often also in the long term. Forced migration not only leads to the collapse of agricultural production and infrastructure, but also disrupts or interrupts local and regional supply chains and increases food prices in local markets. At the same time, displaced people have to give up their livelihoods as producers of food (farmers, pastoralists, etc.), and are thus exposed to food insecurity themselves (Brück et al. 2016), especially if they become dependent on food aid from humanitarian organisations and cannot restart agricultural activities.

The rehabilitation of war zones for food production and food supply takes decades. Clearing battlefields (de-mining), re-building physical infrastructure and establishing operational governance structures is costly and takes time. Moreover, such phases of post-war reconstruction are overshadowed by fierce disputes over access to and ownership of land and water, as property rights often change hands in times of war (Van Leeuwen and Van Der Haar 2016). Thus, food insecurity, for poor populations in particular, often persist beyond the end of a violent conflict.

## 2.2 Food (In)security and Warring Factions

Food supply is of strategic importance to any armed group, from large-scale armies to vigilante gangs (Justino and Stojetz 2018). This is why armed groups' presence and rule directly impact local food security and the control of production areas. Historically, the supply of large armies with food went hand in hand with the plundering of
food storages and the looting of civilian households and markets. Although looting is still a common strategy, the links between armed groups' presence and food security are more complex. Armed groups might show a strong interest in local food production and other goods. Combatants can take direct control over agricultural resources and livestock for sustenance or levy taxes on these products. For example, the Taliban have taken a *zakat* (Islamic tax) of 10% for any agrarian crop produced in the territory under their control in Afghanistan (Giustozzi 2019). Also, in Syria and Iraq, the agrarian zones seized by the Islamic State were maintained to a large extent, despite massive forced displacement (Eklund et al. 2017).

People in conflict-affected contexts also adjust their practices to changing politics and (local) political actors. To protect their livelihoods and food security, people might (voluntarily or under coercion) cooperate with armed groups (Martin-Shields and Stojetz 2019). On the one hand, individuals might participate in and support armed groups because they may benefit from the conflict through improved economic opportunities, such as access to food, looting and appropriation of agricultural land or livestock (Keen 1998). On the other hand, people, such as farmers in agricultural off-seasons, might be recruited as part-time fighters.

## 2.3 Hunger as a Weapon

When violent conflicts are directed against certain social segments, food insecurity can become “a weapon of war” (Messer and Cohen 2015), either as a direct strategy or a by-product. The goal is either to deprive a particular warring party of the population’s support or eliminate entire population groups (ethnic cleansing, genocide). Direct strategies include cutting off food supplies to harm hostile armies and the population supporting them (De Waal 2018). Similarly, blocking food access and destroying food infrastructure (“scorched earth”) are calculated military techniques that not only serve to ignite mass starvation, malnutrition and hunger among the population, but also to foster forced migration. Although the number of victims of mass starvation has declined in the past decades, it is still a widely used military strategy in ongoing conflict zones such as Yemen, South Sudan or the Central African Republic.

Strategies may also include preventing humanitarian access. In recent food crises, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Islamic State in Syria and commanders in South Sudan refused aid from humanitarian agencies. Governments themselves often violate the humanitarian principle and reject international relief operations, especially if they form part of the conflict, as could be witnessed in Syria and Yemen. The bypassing of humanitarian principle can also extend to donor governments; one reason for the delayed response to the food crisis in Somalia in 2011 was US anti-terrorist legislation, which made it difficult for humanitarian organisations to provide assistance to areas controlled by Al-Shabaab (De Waal 2018).

We have shown how the three interrelated dimensions of war logics – destruction, rule of armed groups and hunger as a weapon – have multiple effects on people’s food insecurity. However, other factors, such as (conflict-related) increases in food and seed prices, as well as (changing) climatic conditions, often amplify the exposure to conflict
and food insecurity (Martin-Shields and Stojetz 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic and the disruptions it caused in the global food system especially affect the food security of millions of vulnerable people (Zurayk 2020). In many of today’s conflict-affected countries, smallholder farmers, who are already vulnerable in the absence of conflicts (natural hazards), represent a large portion of the population. Conflict is an additional ‘shock’ that affects these populations’ livelihoods and well-being (Brück et al. 2016). In times of war, natural hazards affect the population much more severely and increase the difficulty of gaining access to food dramatically. As the most severe natural hazards, droughts exacerbate the effect of food (in)security. Droughts as ‘creeping’ or slow-onset disasters usually affect larger land areas than other types of disasters and make mitigation and adaptation strategies difficult to implement. Many of the adverse effects of drought often accumulate slowly and may persist for years after the event has ended (Wirkus and Piereder 2019).

What is less clear is whether food insecurity in turn sparks, intensifies or perpetuates conflict. While food insecurity alone is not likely to cause violent conflicts, it can increase social grievances in combination with socio-economic and political inequalities. These exclude parts of the population (particularly youths) from economic activities and participation in political decision-making processes, which ultimately can fuel civil unrest or conflicts (Brinkman and Hendrix 2011; Vestby et al. 2018). Besides structural conditions, rising food prices have been found to exacerbate the risk of political unrest and conflicts, particularly in urban settings. The dominant explanation for the vicious circle of price and violent conflict are consumer grievances: higher prices create or increase economic constraints and/or sentiments of (perceived) relative deprivation, which activate grievances that, in turn, can lead to conflict, whereas conflict is likely to increase food prices again (Raleigh et al. 2015). These grievances can be directed against the state if it fails to secure food for the population in the face of rising global food prices. In Africa, rising food prices and unrest were associated with more political repression (Berazneva and Lee 2013).

# 3 Addressing Food Crises and Violent Conflict

The complex relationships between food crises and violent conflicts require comprehensive and adapted policy actions. These actions must refer to the reduction of food insecurity as an effect of violent conflict and consider the reduction of violent conflict or conflict risks itself. We thus suggest four key areas for a multi-faceted response that addresses food insecurity and violent conflict.

## 3.1 Respect Access to Food as a Human Right During Violent Conflict

Access to food is a human right. Any government should pursue preventive policies and take emergency measures to secure food equally for all segments of its population. If a government lacks the capacity to prevent or mitigate a food crisis, it
should allow and facilitate relief operations as demanded by humanitarian law (Akande and Gillard 2019). However, national governments or belligerents are often unable or unwilling to respond adequately to food crises. At the same time, international relief operations face the challenges of reaching the people most in need and avoiding exacerbation of the conflict.

Therefore, all actors must comply both with the provisions to protect the popu-
lation from intended starvation and with humanitarian principles to guarantee
humanitarian access. Any government or warring faction that prohibits parts of the
population from access to food needs to be sanctioned. UN Security Council
Resolution 2417 is a major step in this direction. The Resolution stresses the
importance of compliance by belligerents with international humanitarian law and
condemns the denial of humanitarian access to affected civilians (UNSC 2018).
Most importantly, the Resolution stipulates that the obstruction of humanitarian
access in conflict settings can result in targeted sanctions, as already used, for
example, on Al-Shabaab in Somalia (Akande and Gillard 2019). Thus, the Resolu-
tion has the potential to be used by UN agencies to monitor and report robustly on
human-induced food crises in conflicts and call on the Security Council and the
international community to act (Zappalà 2019).

## 3.2 Build Bridges Linking Humanitarian Action, Development and Peacebuilding

The genuine role of international relief operations in food crises is to prevent or
alleviate human suffering induced by disasters and conflicts. Short-term food assis-
tance during conflict-driven food crises usually focuses on improving the food
consumption of conflict-affected people and communities. It also aims to support
the most vulnerable, such as displaced persons, children, and pregnant and nursing
women. However, relief operations in conflict settings often face challenges in
guaranteeing aid workers’ safety and security, gaining necessary data on affected
populations and reaching those people most in need in a timely and appropriate
manner (see, for example, Tranchant et al. 2019). At the same time, food interven-
tions risk becoming a source of conflict themselves, primarily because of an inad-
equate understanding of the conflict setting (Devereux 2000). The misappropriation
of food aid in particular, such as the usurpation of food by violent actors, can fuel
political grievances and perpetuate conflict. Moreover, food aid can undermine local
food production and markets and affect the development of local capacity (Hendrix
and Brinkman 2013). A clear and locally informed analysis of the conflict and its
context, as well as increased equity and accountability, is needed to prevent negative
impacts of food aid in conflict environments.

While short-term food aid focuses primarily on alleviating human suffering rather
than resolving violent conflict, long-term humanitarian assistance, as particularly
provided in protracted crises or post-conflict situations, can identify potential con-
flicts and address them, reducing the risk of conflict flare-ups. Usually, these
interventions have a stronger impact than the immediate supply of food (or cash/ vouchers) and already include development assistance measures. Long-term food assistance can therefore play a crucial role in building local capacity, restoring agricultural production and, ultimately, consolidating peace. However, it is crucial to initiate its provision early enough, to consider the actual needs of the most vulnerable people, and to include conflict analysis (Hendrix and Brinkman 2013; Lander and Richards 2019). Nevertheless, aid agencies need to be aware of the (globalised) food system in which local agricultural production is embedded and that the longer food aid is provided, the more it has a direct impact on the local food market and price trends. Therefore, they must avoid aid dependency, especially by affecting smallholders’ livelihoods (Delgado et al. 2021).

To effectively address these challenges, long-term food assistance needs to bridge humanitarian action, development intervention and peacebuilding. Thus, food assistance is a key instrument that should be addressed in current debates on the humanitarian–development–peace (HDP) nexus, which calls for greater cooperation and coordination among actors in humanitarian aid, development cooperation and peacebuilding.

## 3.3 Integrate Local Capacities and Perceptions

Conflict-affected populations adopt very different strategies in order to secure food. These strategies depend on multiple factors, such as the conflict's context, intensity and duration, the individual situation, access to resources and support, and governance. For example, rather than aiming to maximise agricultural profits, farmers may change their crop production to a low-risk, low-return strategy by switching from cash crops to less profitable crops, as the latter provide food for subsistence or can be easily transferred in case of displacement. However, maintaining these low-risk-low-return strategies after conflicts end affects their recovery and can further affect their livelihoods in the long run (Arias et al. 2017; Martin-Shields and Stojetz 2019).

Similarly, pastoralists may adapt livestock production to the conflict, e.g., by selling livestock to have sufficient cash or hiding livestock from armed groups or local ruling groups (Brück et al. 2016). Furthermore, studies have shown that households increase their use of safety nets to minimise uncertainty. Support ranges from cash transfers to in-kind assistance received by the household (Brück et al. 2019). Remittances are also an important safety net in responding to food crises and conflict, but much still needs to be learned about its role for affected people (Haan et al. 2012). Therefore, local response mechanisms to food crises and conflicts need to be better understood and successful practices incorporated into relief efforts and national response strategies while, at the same time, striving to avoid potential harm. At the same time, local perceptions of terms such as “peace” need to be taken into account, since they can differ from one place to another and, most importantly, differ from (Western) academic concepts (Ejdus 2021). It is important to understand local perspectives and to strengthen existing potentials for peace in order to integrate a peacebuilding perspective into food assistance interventions.
## 3.4 Improve the Links Between Early Warning and Early Action in Conflict-Driven Food Crises

Early warning mechanisms for famine such as FEWS NET have advanced over the past decades towards a better model for predicting and managing food crises. They provide decision-makers and relief organisations with a rigorous, evidence- and consensus-based analysis of food insecurity and acute malnutrition situations. Recent developments in anticipatory action aim to close the gap between forecasting tools and delayed response, but still face multiple challenges in adjusting these to conflict settings (Wagner and Jaime 2020).

First, in violent conflicts, access to data needed for comprehensive analysis and timely warning is often unavailable or out-of-date. Second, the announcement of a food emergency is highly political and often challenged by claims of sovereignty (Lander and Richards 2019). Third, even if warnings are timely and allow for careful planning, adequate finance mechanisms need to be in place, capacities of organisations built, and access to conflict-affected regions guaranteed. Fourth, a knowledge gap still exists between data that is available to assess the food security situation and data on conflict early warning. Accurate conflict early warning seems to be more challenging, especially when it comes to predicting the impact of conflicts (Maxwell and Hailey 2020). Conflict early warning and forecasting systems such as UCDP ViEWS, ACLED Pulse might have the potential to close the “conflict assessment gap” of current food crisis warning systems (Wirkus and Piereder 2019).

While the use of conflict analysis is politically sensitive and needs to be considered carefully (Maxwell and Hailey 2020), an integrated platform developed to combine early warning data sets for famines and violent conflicts could provide a better basis for a more comprehensive assessment of famine, drought and conflict risk and advance anticipatory humanitarian action in fragile and conflict-affected settings.

Accounting for these four key areas could help national governments and international humanitarian and development organisations to take effective preventive, anticipatory and emergency action against food crises during violent conflict, while, at the same time, integrating peacebuilding approaches into long-term food interventions to address hunger and conflict.

## References

Akande D, Gillard E (2019) Conflict-induced food insecurity and the war crime of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare: the underlying rules of International Humanitarian Law. BSG Working Paper 2019/030. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-11/BSG-WP-2019-030.pdf

Akresh R, Verwimp P, Bundervoet T (2011) Civil war, crop failure, and child stunting in Rwanda. Econ Dev Cult Chang 59(4):777–810
Akresh R, Bhalotra S, Leone M, Osili UO (2012) War and stature: growing up during the Nigerian civil war. Am Econ Rev 102(3):273-277. https://doi.org/10.1086/660003

Arias MA, Ibáñez AM, Zambrano A (2017) Agricultural production amid conflict: separating the effects of conflict into shocks and uncertainty. HiCN Working Paper 245

Baumann M, Kuemmerle T (2016) The impacts of warfare and armed conflict on land systems. J Land Use Sci 11:672-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2016.1241317

Berazneva J, Lee DR (2013) Explaining the African food riots of 2007-2008: an empirical analysis. Food Policy 39:28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.007

Brinkman HJ, Hendrix CS (2011) Food insecurity and violent conflict: causes, consequences, and addressing the challenges. Occasional Paper no. 24. Accessed at https://www.wfp.org/publications/occasional-paper-24-food-insecurity-and-violent-conflict-causes-consequences-and-addressing-

Brück T, Habibi N, Martin-Shields C, Sneyers A, Stojetz W, van Wezel S (2016) The relationship between food security and violent conflict. Report to the Food and Agriculture Organization. Final Report to FAO. Accessed at https://isdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Food-Security-and-Conflict-2016-12-22.pdf

Brück T, d'Errico M, Pietrelli R (2019) The effects of violent conflict on household resilience and food security: evidence from the 2014 Gaza conflict. World Dev 119:150-164

Buhaug H, von Uexkull N (2021) Vicious circles: violence, vulnerability, and climate change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 46:545-568. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-014708

Bundervoet T, Verwimp P, Akresh R (2009) Health and civil war in rural Burundi. J Hum Resour 44(2):536-563

Camacho A (2008) Stress and birth weight: evidence from terrorist attacks. Am Econ Rev 98(2): 511-515. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.511

Collier P (1999) On the economic consequences of civil war. Oxford Economic Papers 51

De Waal A (2018) The end of famine? Prospects for the elimination of mass starvation by political action. Polit Geogr 62:184-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.09.004

Delgado C, Murugani V, Tschunkert K (2021) Food systems in conflict and peacebuilding settings. Pathways and interconnections. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Stockholm. Accessed at https://www.sipri.org/publications/2021/other-publications/food-systems-conflict-and-peacebuilding-settings-pathways-and-interconnections

Demmers J (2016) Theories of violent conflict: an introduction. Routledge, London

Devereux S (2000) Famine in the twentieth century. IDS working papers issue 105

Ejdus F (2021) Revisiting the local turn in peacebuilding. In: Kustermans J, Sauer T, Segaert B (eds) A requiem for peacebuilding? Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 41-58

Eklund L, Degerald M, Brandt M, Prishchepov AV, Pilesjö P (2017) How conflict affects land use: agricultural activity in areas seized by the Islamic State. Environ Res Lett 12(5):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa673a

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO (2021) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all. FAO, Rome. Accessed at https://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2021/en/

FSIN & GNAFC (2021) Global report on food crises. Joint analysis for better decisions. Accessed at https://www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-2021

Giustozzi A (2019) The Taliban at war 2001-2018. Hurst, London

Haan N, Devereux S, Maxwell D (2012) Global implications of Somalia 2011 for famine prevention, mitigation and response. Glob Food Sec 1(1):74-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.09.003

Hendrix C, Brinkman H (2013) Food insecurity and conflict dynamics: causal linkages and complex feedbacks. Stab Int J Secur Dev 2(2):1-18. https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.bm

Justino P, Stojetz W (2018) On the legacies of wartime governance. HiCN Working Paper 263

Keen D (1998) The economic functions of violence in civil wars. Oxford University Press for the International Institute for Strategic Studies
Lander B, Richards RV (2019) Addressing hunger and starvation in situations of armed conflict – laying the foundations for peace. J Int Crim Justice 17(4):675–698. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqz055

Martin-Shields CP, Stojetz W (2019) Food security and conflict: empirical challenges and future opportunities for research and policy making on food security and conflict. World Dev 119:150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.011

Maxwell D, Hailey P (2020) Towards anticipatory information systems and action: notes on early warning and early action in East Africa. Feinstein International Center and Centre for Humanitarian Change, Boston/Nairobi. Accessed at https://fic.tufts.edu/publication-item/towards-anticipatory-information-systems-and-action/

Messer E, Cohen MJ (2015) Breaking the links between conflict and hunger redux. Special Issue: Glob Food Sec 7(3):211–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.147

Prinz J, Schetter C (2017) Conditioned sovereignty: the creation and legitimation of spaces of violence in counterterrorism operations of the “war on terror”. Alternatives 41(3):119–136

Raleigh C, Choi HJ, Kniveton C (2015) The devil is in the details: an investigation of the relationships between conflict, food price and climate across Africa. Glob Environ Chang 32:187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.005

Tranchant JP, Gelli A, Bliznashka L, Diallo AS, Sacko M, Assima A, Siegel EH, Aurino E, Masset E (2019) The impact of food assistance on food insecure populations during conflict: evidence from a quasi-experiment in Mali. World Dev 119:185–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.027

UNSC (2018). Security Council resolution 2417 (2018) [on conflict-induced food insecurity]/ adopted by the Security Council at its 8267th meeting, on 24 May 2018. Accessed at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1627380?ln=en

Van Leeuwen M, Van Der Haar G (2016) Theorizing the land-violent conflict nexus. World Dev 78:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.011

Vestby J, Rudolfsen I, Buhaug H (2018) Does hunger cause conflict? Peace Research Institute Oslo – Climate & Conflict, 18 May 2018. Accessed at https://blogs.prio.org/ClimateAndConflict/2018/05/does-hunger-cause-conflict/

Wagner M, Jaime C (2020) An agenda for expanding forecast-based action to situations of conflict. GPPi Working Paper. Accessed at https://www.gppi.net/media/Wagner_Jaime_2020_Forecast-Based-Action-in-Conflicts.pdf

Wirkus L, Piereder J (2019) Early warning systems for drought and violent conflict – toward potential cross-pollination. In: Mapedza E, Tsegai D, Bruntrup M, Mcleman R (eds) Drought challenges: policy options for developing countries, Current directions in water scarcity research, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 165–181

Zappalà S (2019) Conflict related hunger, ‘starvation crimes’ and UN Security Council Resolution 2417 (2018). J Int Crim Justice 17(4):881–906. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqz047

Zurayk R (2020) Pandemic and food security: a view from the Global South. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev 9(3):17–21. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.014

**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_53.png" /></figure>
# In Brief: The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Pablo Arigita Baena, Anne Brunel, Yon Fernández-de-Larrinoa, Tania Eulalia Martinez-Cruz, Charlotte Milbank, and Mikaila Way

## Acronyms

<table><tr><td>CINE</td><td>Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and Environment</td></tr><tr><td>COP</td><td>Conference of Parties</td></tr><tr><td>FAO</td><td>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations</td></tr><tr><td>FPIC</td><td>Free, Prior and Informed Consent</td></tr><tr><td>GHG</td><td>Greenhouse Gases</td></tr><tr><td>HDP</td><td>Humanitarian Development Peace</td></tr><tr><td>ICC</td><td>Inuit Circumpolar Council</td></tr><tr><td>IFAD</td><td>International Fund for Agricultural Development</td></tr><tr><td>ILO</td><td>International Labour Organization</td></tr><tr><td>IPBES</td><td>Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services</td></tr><tr><td>IPFS</td><td>Indigenous Peoples' food systems</td></tr><tr><td>IPR</td><td>Intellectual Property Rights</td></tr><tr><td>LCIPP</td><td>Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples' Platform</td></tr><tr><td>PSUI</td><td>Indigenous Peoples Unit (FAO)</td></tr><tr><td>SDG</td><td>Sustainable Development Goal</td></tr><tr><td>UN</td><td>United Nations</td></tr><tr><td>UNFCCC</td><td>United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change</td></tr><tr><td>UNFSSS</td><td>United Nations Food Systems Summit</td></tr><tr><td>UNDPI</td><td>United Nations Department of Public Information</td></tr></table>

The Complete list of contributors is in Annex 2 of this chapter.

FAO. 2021. *The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples' food systems*. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4932en

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

P. A. Baena · A. Brunel · Y. Fernández-de-Larrinoa (✉) · T. E. Martinez-Cruz · C. Milbank
M. Way

FAO, Indigenous Peoples Unit, Rome, Italy
e-mail: Yon.FernandezLarrinoa@fao.org
# 1 Purpose of This Brief

This brief version of the White/Wiphala paper on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems summarises some of the key messages and conclusions from the full publication. The White/Wiphala paper was written at a time when the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) discussions followed 'Five Action Tracks.' While the White/Wiphala paper policy recommendations are laid out according to these five Action Tracks, the authors acknowledge that these themes cannot be looked at in isolation, and that any single strategy must be implemented within a broader context of supportive governance and an open-minded legislative environment.

Since the White/Wiphala paper was published, the UNFSS has replaced the five Action Tracks with five Action Areas. Contrastingly, this short brief is aligned with newly identified Action Areas and thirty (non-exhaustive) different coalitions emanating from the September 2021 Food Systems Summit.

The objective of this brief version, through the work of the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems and under the 'do no harm' principle, is to support the two goals of the Indigenous Peoples' Coalition. This is: to ensure the recognition, respect, protection, and support of Indigenous Peoples' food systems; and to upscale valid lessons learned from Indigenous Peoples' food systems capable of informing the transformation of other food systems towards sustainability and resilience. The overarching goal remains to promote the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This is particularly relevant within the context of the UN Decades of Ecosystem Restoration and the Decade of Indigenous Peoples Languages.

After the significant concerns experienced during the Summit with the rejection of the demands expressed by Indigenous Peoples, particularly on the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems as game-changers and the creation of an Indigenous Peoples' fund, we saw clear opportunities for a way forward with the overwhelming support from countries for a new and reinvigorated Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems.

This paper presents clear lessons that can be learned from Indigenous Peoples' approach to food and natural resources, which will contribute to the resilience and sustainability of food systems worldwide while supporting the wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples. It provides evidence on the sustainable characteristics and diversity of Indigenous Peoples' food systems, including how they have proven their resilience over time. The White/Wiphala paper brief will serve as a base for other documents that will support the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples and the different strategies that will be implemented to achieve the goals and objectives of the Coalition, resulting in more evidence-based recommendations.
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Circular representation of the relations in Indigenous Peoples' food systems</figcaption></figure>

While the extended version of the White/Wiphala paper was written with scientists and food system experts in mind, this chapter is aimed at media, member countries, policy-makers, and the general public (Fig. 1).

## Key Messages

- The current global food system is unsustainable; while we will need to double food production by 2050 to satisfy food demands, we also must reduce the contribution of the current food system to climate change, which accounts for about 30% of total GHG emissions, with 30% of that 30% being caused by food waste. Unmitigated, our food systems result in radically modified ecosystems, environments, coastlines, mountain tops, glaciers, water bodies, and weather patterns, with consequences for human wellbeing and life on earth. At COP26, the discussions indicated that, rather

(continued)
than mitigating, we need to think about adaptation, and Indigenous Peoples have shown us for centuries how to adapt to a changing world. Their Indigenous core values and principles of reciprocity, community-solidarity, balance, reutilisation and not wasting food are being progressively understood and incorporated into other contexts about food.

- Indigenous Peoples' foods systems are well placed to contribute to global debates about food. Despite this, Indigenous Peoples, their food and knowledge systems, and their ancestral territorial management practices continue to be marginalised in policy and decision-making and their Human and Indigenous Peoples Rights not respected. Numbering over 476 million worldwide, Indigenous Peoples live across over 90 countries and seven socio-cultural regions (ILO, 2019). They live in areas of rich biodiversity and sustain and enhance immense biocultural diversity and knowledge that has been carried on for generations. Their participation in the drafting and implementation of food policies is paramount in actualising their human rights and continuing their livelihoods, cosmogonies, cultures, and traditional knowledge systems, as well as the planet's ecological health.

- As guardians of 80% of the worlds' remaining biodiversity in their territories (Sobrevilla, 2008), Indigenous Peoples are fundamental knowledge holders in any global effort to make current food systems sustainable and resilient.

- Indigenous Peoples' food systems have been providing nourishment and healthy diets for hundreds of years through food generation and food production practices rooted in a comprehensive understanding of the environment and tailored territorial management. They make use of several hundred species of edible and nutritious flora and fauna, including traditionally cultivated crops, crop wild relatives, and animal wildlife (including bush meat, insects, fish, and aquatic species).

- Indigenous Peoples' food systems promote the equitable distribution of resources and power and support Indigenous identities and values, ensuring that no one is left behind. Indigenous Peoples' knowledge, cosmogony, practices, and worldviews differ from dominant mainstream science. Their food and knowledge systems are embedded with a biocentric approach that is intimately tied to nature and related to their cosmogonies.

- Indigenous Peoples' food systems cannot be characterised according to dominant conceptualisations of food systems presented as linear value chains.

- The Scientific group participating in the July 2021 UNFSS Pre-Summit acknowledged that, on the other hand, Indigenous Peoples' food systems constitute game-changing solutions, with a systemic approach to sustainability and resilience.

(continued)
- Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems are eroding, and their traditional knowledge is disappearing. Urgent actions are needed to guarantee the survival of Indigenous Peoples' food systems and the preservation of biodiversity on the planet.

- Efforts to protect and strengthen their food systems must be prioritised. However, Indigenous Peoples, their food systems, knowledge, and practices have been and continue to be marginalised in policy, science, and funding.

- Indigenous Peoples from the seven socio-cultural regions contributed actively to the 2021 UNFSS and to the global debates on transforming food systems towards sustainability and resilience and climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

- At the September 2021 Summit, Indigenous Peoples from the seven socio-cultural regions, the UNPFII, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, and FAO represented the Indigenous Peoples' food systems Coalition.

- The Coalition has two main goals: 1. Respect, recognise, protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples' food systems across the world; and 2. Disseminate and scale-up traditional knowledge and good practices from Indigenous Peoples' food systems with the potential to transform global food systems across the board.

What is the problem?

1. **Indigenous Peoples, their food systems, knowledge and practices, have been and continue to be marginalised in policy-making.** Numbering over 476 million worldwide, Indigenous Peoples live across over 90 countries and seven socio-cultural regions (ILO, 2019). They often reside in sites of rich biodiversity and possess rich biocultural diversity and knowledge that has been preserved for generations. Their participation in the drafting and implementation of food policy is crucial to the future continuation of their livelihoods.

2. **Indigenous Peoples' food systems cannot be characterised according to dominant conceptualisations of food systems that are presented as linear value chains.** Indigenous Peoples' food systems do not follow linear value chains, comprising different values, systems of governance, and cultural relations to food compared to value-chain-oriented food systems. Indigenous Peoples' food systems emphasise circularity and include many ways of obtaining, preparing, storing and sharing food.

What are the main characteristics of Indigenous Peoples' food systems, and what can they bring to the debate?

3. **Indigenous Peoples' food systems are embedded in a biocentric approach intimately tied to nature.** Compared to specialised, input-intensive systems of conventional food production, Indigenous Peoples

(continued)
generate a diversity of foods with minimal intervention on the ecosystems and use inputs endogenous to the local system. Indigenous Peoples' food systems are efficient in resource use, with little waste and wide circulation of resources. Material inputs tend to be fully used and recycled locally while also promoting biodiversity preservation, as they respect the seasonality of the systems.

4. **Indigenous Peoples' food systems promote the equitable distribution of resources and power and support Indigenous identities and values.** Food generative practices are often localised, using communal resources and supporting traditional governance systems. Exchange is often barter-based or based on reciprocal agreements. Indigenous Peoples' lands, waters and resources are often used, managed or governed collectively as a common resource under community-based management. Indigenous Peoples' systems of collective ownership of resources and food-sharing can thus support inter- and intra-community cooperation, the cultivation and maintenance of shared identities, and healthy, resilient and culturally appropriate food systems.

5. **Indigenous Peoples' knowledge, practices and worldviews differ from western science and provide a valuable contribution to current debates on sustainable food systems.** While the value of Indigenous Peoples' traditional knowledge has been recognised, Indigenous Peoples' views, cosmovisions, time-tested practices and relational values continue to be excluded in science and policy. The contribution of systemic observation carried by Indigenous Peoples' traditional knowledge is a time-tested scientific approach. The sensitive inclusion of Indigenous Peoples' traditional knowledge in policy will support the sustainable management of natural resources and the transformation of food systems for all.

6. **Indigenous Peoples occupy over a quarter of the world's land, and their food systems can help preserve global biodiversity.** There is evidence that lands and forests managed and governed by Indigenous Peoples can resist forest loss and experience lower rates of land conversion than forests within protected areas and undefined national forests. Indigenous Peoples' communities have persisted as custodians of the planet's food and genetic resources.

7. **Indigenous Peoples' food systems provide nourishment and healthy diets.** Indigenous Peoples' food systems make use of several hundred species of edible and nutritious flora and fauna, including traditionally cultivated crops, crop wild relatives and animal wildlife (including bushmeat, marine mammals, insects and fish). Indigenous Peoples' communities are feeling the effects of the dietary transition with increasing consumption of highly processed foods becoming a growing public health concern. With Indigenous Peoples already suffering higher malnutrition

(continued)
rates worldwide than their non-Indigenous counterparts, supporting the continuation of Indigenous Peoples' food practices is essential to future nutritional health.

What is needed to protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples' food systems?

8. **Indigenous Peoples' food systems are themselves a game-changing solution.** The speed at which Indigenous Peoples' food systems are eroding and their traditional knowledge systems disappearing requires urgent actions to guarantee the survival of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples' food systems are intimately tied to the natural world and can provide food and nutritional security while restoring ecosystems and maintaining biodiversity. Such protection and preservation are fundamentally aligned with the human and cultural rights that guarantee the survival of Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems Coalition: Supporting Indigenous Peoples' food systems

9. **The Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems builds upon the White/Wiphala Paper, establishing the objective of ensuring the understanding, respect, recognition, inclusion, and protection of Indigenous Peoples' food systems while providing evidence about their 'game-changing and systemic' nature.** To support this objective, the Coalition organises its work around two main goals: Goal 1: Respect, recognise, protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples' food systems across the world; and Goal 2: Disseminate and scale-up traditional knowledge and good practices from Indigenous Peoples' food systems with the potential to transform global food systems across the board.

## 2 Coalitions from the United Nations Food Systems Summit and the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems

In September 2021, at the UN Food Systems Summit, 30 coalitions organised into five Action Areas were announced, among them, the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems that falls within the Action Area of "Advance equitable livelihoods, decent work, and empowered communities." The Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems was endorsed by seven member countries: Canada, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, and Spain.

The Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems builds upon the White/Wiphala Paper, establishing the objective of ensuring the understanding, respect, recognition, inclusion, and protection of Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems while providing evidence about their game-changing and systemic nature. Table 1 summarises the objective and goals of the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food
<table><caption>**Table 1** Summary of Action areas vis-à-vis the Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems Coalition's goals</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="5">Main objective of the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems:</th></tr><tr><th colspan="5">Ensure understanding, respect, recognition, inclusion and protection of Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems (IPFS) post-UNFSS, providing evidence about their "game-changing and systemic" aspects.</th></tr><tr><th>Specific goals and actions recommended per Action Area</th><th>Action Area 1: Nourish all people</th><th>Action Area 2: Boost nature-based solutions of production</th><th>Action Area 3: Advance Equitable Livelihoods, Decent Work, & Empowered Communities</th><th>Action Area 4: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses</th><th>Action Area 5: Support Means of Implementation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Goal 1:</strong> Respect, recognise, protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples' food systems across the world.<ol><li>Strengthen policy and regulations to ensure that intensive and transformed food systems do not harm indigenous Peoples' food systems.</li><li>Work with national governments and international agencies to secure funding.</li><li>Support interculturality at all levels.</li><li>Support the drafting of national policies, research, and programmes to protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples' food systems, including them in decision-making, and focusing on Indigenous women, youth and elders.</li></ol></td><td>Engaging Indigenous leaders in policy discussions and devising strategies for accessing safe and nutritious foods. Develop new standards and legal frameworks to drive private sector change and hold companies accountable.</td><td>Proposals to increase agro-biodiversity for improved production and resilience. Include policies that promote agro-biodiversity preservation and specific actions at the field level.</td><td>Establishing forums that bring together government representatives, trade unions and employers' associations, as well as other key stakeholders and organisations, to set guidelines for equitable food systems.</td><td>Indigenous Peoples' perspectives and leadership must be incorporated within risk analysis and management. Blended financing mechanisms for small projects. Universal food access</td><td>Co-creation of platforms on which mutual respect for knowledge is ensured and that foster the inclusive and effective development of sustainable food systems. Innovative financing and investments for sustainable land management practices</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Crosscutting</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Indigenous Peoples' rights to self-determination, self-development, land tenure, self-governance and sovereignty must be respected to achieve the goals of each Action Area. The participation of Indigenous Peoples at the policy level is crucial for the success of Action Areas; they must have an active voice in designing and implementing policies and managing bodies and institutions that affect them. Intercultural policies in different areas must be developed and implemented to ensure that Indigenous Peoples' knowledge, food systems, languages, values and factors that have made them resilient can continue and be passed to younger generations</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>5. Support processes of inter- and intra-generational transmission of knowledge and horizontal capacity-building on Indigenous Peoples' food systems.<br>6. Strengthen the leadership of Indigenous youths for innovative intercultural approaches, integrating Indigenous Peoples' traditional knowledge, science, technology and management.<br>7. Promote seed security to ensure Indigenous Peoples' access to seeds and planting material that meets their preferences.</td><td>who will be the stewards of all this knowledge and strategy. This includes policies linked to education, health, social development, environment, agriculture/food, etc.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Goal 2: Disseminate and scale-up traditional knowledge and good practices from Indigenous Peoples' food systems with the potential to transform global food systems across the board</td><td>The establishment of a zero-hunger fund. Expansion of coverage of social protection systems</td><td>Scaling-out agroecological production systems and adopting regenerative agricultural practices for resilient landscapes at scale</td><td>Promoting labelling and certification schemes for Indigenous Peoples, driven forward by Indigenous Peoples. Creating a global matching investment fund for small-scale producers' organisations</td><td>Indigenous Peoples' perspectives, local knowledge, and leadership must be incorporated in risk analysis and management. Supporting biodiversity conservation strategies, such as the creation of biocentric centres.</td><td>Create a fund to research the potential of many Indigenous Peoples' food and support the use of funds by Indigenous-led researchers</td></tr><tr><td>1. Scale-up Indigenous Peoples' food systems by strengthening scientific and empirical research and intercultural co-creation processes.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><caption>Main objective of the Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems:<br>Ensure understanding, respect, recognition, inclusion and protection of Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems (IPFS) post-UNFSS, providing evidence about their "game-changing and systemic" aspects.</caption><thead><tr><th>Specific goals and actions recommended per Action Area</th><th>Action Area 1: Nourish all people</th><th>Action Area 2: Boost nature-based solutions of production</th><th>Action Area 3: Advance Equitable Livelihoods, Decent Work, & Empowered Communities</th><th>Action Area 4: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses</th><th>Action Area 5: Support Means of Implementation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2. Increase food systems' resilience and risk management by incorporating Indigenous Peoples' knowledge about ecosystems.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Promote Indigenous Peoples' leadership in food systems by sharing their food management, production, and processing models.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Provide evidence about Biocentric-Biocultural considerations in food for policy discussions.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Work with other coalitions to ensure the protection of Indigenous Peoples' food systems under the 'do no harm' principle and promote the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other related UN Declarations.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
Systems and how it overlaps with the Action Areas of the UNFSS2021 (More details on the Coalition are available in Annex 1).

## 3 Action Area 1: Nourish All People

*This Action Area could help countries connect to coalitions, initiatives, and resources around i. zero hunger, ii. healthy diets from sustainable food systems, iii. universal school meals, iv. food is never waste, v. the Food Coalition, vi. One Health, and beyond.*

### Key Contributions from Indigenous Peoples

1. Indigenous Peoples have developed unique territorial management practices to generate food while preserving biodiversity.

2. The biodiversity maintained by Indigenous Peoples supports a broad food base, which, in some cases, exceeds 250 edibles for food and medicinal purposes in a single food system, consisting of different species, varieties and breeds, including wild, semi-domesticated and domesticated species of plants, animals, and fish.

3. Despite the reported weather variability associated with climate change, the integration of seasonality into Indigenous Peoples' food practices is an important characteristic of their food system. This seasonality contributes to their resilience and self-sufficiency, ensuring numerous foods that guarantee dietary diversity. The combination of territorial management and generation techniques results in food systems that provide a broad base of foods from fields, forests, pastures, and waterways. At COP26, the need to invest in adaptation and mitigation strategies was highlighted. Indigenous Peoples are champions at adapting to their environment, and do not seek to adapt their environments to them, as conventionally happens with other societies. Indigenous Peoples' game-changing solutions can be scaled out as provably sustainable and resilient.

4. Indigenous Peoples' governance systems and solid social cohesion enable the maintenance of solid social bonds and solidarity within their communities, based on values of reciprocity and caring for each other, i.e., not leaving anyone behind. Indigenous trade and sharing networks are based on trusted relationships for acquiring and sharing foods from and with other communities.

5. Indigenous Peoples' land tenure and sovereignty are prerequisites to biodiversity conservation and adaptive capacity in confronting climate change and addressing global sustainability. There is strong evidence of the positive and central role of traditional governance practices and Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity in Indigenous Peoples' lands and territories while supporting the generation of healthy food. (ICC -Alaska, 2015)

### Recommendations for Action Area 1

6. Leaving no one behind can only be achieved by the overarching recommendation of **engaging Indigenous leaders in policy discussions and devising strategies to access safe and nutritious foods**. At the global level, the inclusion
of Indigenous Peoples and recognition of their knowledge in platforms, mech-
anisms and processes that affect their food systems should be promoted, such as
(i) UNFSS and outcomes; (ii) the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples
Platform (LCIPP); (iii) The Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and Agricul-
ture; and (iv) the Committee on World Food Security.

7. The establishment of a zero-hunger fund, proposed by the Summit, should not be done at the expense of Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, it is recommended that this global fund include a sub-fund allocated to and led by Indigenous Peoples to protect and preserve their food systems and that considers the wide variety of food systems, from the arctic region, to the rainforest, to the deserts. At COP26, a fund that will support degradation loss and reverse forest loss was announced. It is important to note that funds like this should consider a holistic approach and the wide range of landscapes and environments where Indigenous Peoples live other than the forest, e.g., include the complexity of food systems and their multipurpose nature, as well as consider environments from deserts to fishing landscapes.

8. The expansion of coverage of social protection systems proposed by the Summit is essential for Indigenous Peoples and must resolve the lack of recognition by governments of the Indigenous Peoples' populations living in their countries.

9. Develop new standards and legal frameworks to drive private sector change and hold companies accountable. This is fundamental to ending displacement situations, the expansion of the agriculture frontier into ecosystems, and the pollution and destruction of the environment undertaken by the private sector, often under state-run concession systems. During COP26, countries of the Global North committed to supporting the disproportionate effects of climate change, including Indigenous Peoples. If the Glasgow Climate Pact is committed to climate justice, Indigenous Peoples should receive investment to support their resilience and adaptation strategies.

10. In the case of Indigenous Peoples' food systems, the **principle of self-determination and self-determined development** is fundamental in critical areas such as intellectual property rights, harvesting rights, access to plant genetic resources, territorial rights, and the right to self-determination and self-governance.

11. The influence of predominant cultures and school education curricula that are not rooted in Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems have been linked to elevated rates of food insecurity, cultural degradation, erosion of traditional knowledge and loss of language in many Indigenous Peoples’ communities. Therefore, Indigenous Peoples must be **leaders in devising and implementing intercultural education, policies and strategies for sustaining their food systems and creating cultural security in education, health services, policies, programmes, and decision-making.** It is also vital to protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ connections to their knowledge and food systems, languages, values, and cultures, beginning with school children and community leadership.

12. **Building interventions to restore and sustain local food systems using locally preferred methods.**
# 4 Action Area 2: Boost Nature-Based Solutions of Production

*This Action Area could help countries connect to coalitions, initiatives, and resources around i. agroecology and regenerative agriculture, ii. blue and aquatic foods, iii. sustainable livestock, iv. AIMs for limate, v. a global soil hub, vi. efforts to stop and reverse biodiversity loss, and beyond.*

## Key Contributions from Indigenous Peoples

1. Indigenous Peoples are custodians of the majority of the planet's food and genetic resources and are stewards for the territories and biocultural processes that shape and support genetic diversity (Hunter et al., 2015; Garnett et al., 2018; Díaz et al., 2019; Hunter et al., 2020).

2. For thousands of years, Indigenous Peoples have managed their territories and natural resources in sustainable and dynamic ways that have allowed them to inhabit the same territories and preserve the natural resources, making them available for future generations.

3. Indigenous Peoples' food systems typically involve the generation of food from multiple distinct areas of the landscape and from a rich diversity of species, varieties and breeds, which diffuses the risk associated with any single resource and allows Indigenous Peoples to benefit from the diversity of resources from different ecological zones through the year. Biodiversity-rich practices contribute to resilience by providing insurance against resource failures, enabling adaptation of food resources over longer time frames through evolutionary processes, encouraging positive symbiotic interactions between species and areas in the landscape that support nutrient cycling, control pests and disease, and facilitate pollination, and sheltering the food system from the impact of ecological shocks. (Mijatović et al., 2013).

4. Indigenous youths are the future knowledge keepers of Indigenous Peoples' food systems, languages, knowledge, cultures, and lifeways. Their opportunities and decisions now will determine the future existence or extinction of Indigenous Peoples' food systems and territories across the world. To sustain their lifeways and cultures, Indigenous youths need to have opportunities for the intergenerational transfer of knowledge with their elders and be empowered, informed decision-makers in their communities, as well as regionally and globally. The health and empowerment of Indigenous youths are crucial for Indigenous Peoples' resilience and the planet's health.

## Recommendations for Action Area 2

5. Proposals to increase agro-biodiversity for improved production and resilience are critical to future nature-positive production in which Indigenous Peoples can play a significant role. Not only are Indigenous Peoples'
communities the custodians for significant proportions of the world's genetic resources, but their territories also encompass unique dynamic biocultural spaces that enhance and allow these resources to continue to evolve and adapt further to ongoing climate variability and other challenges. Also, Indigenous Peoples' intellectual property rights and leadership in policy work, such as the International Treaty on Plant and Genetic Resources and Convention on Biological Diversity, have a crucial role in preserving agrobiodiversity.

6. Scaling-out agroecological production systems and adopting regenerative agricultural practices for resilient landscapes at scale have the potential to conserve and promote nature-positive production. Indigenous Peoples' communities and farmers can make numerous contributions in this effort, given their rich knowledge, agroecological practices and access to a diversity of crop genetic resources.

# 5 Action Area 3: Advance Equitable Livelihoods, Decent Work, & Empowered Communities

This Action Area could help countries connect to coalitions, initiatives, and resources around i. Decent Work and Living Incomes, ii. More and Better Jobs for Youths, iii. Making Food Systems Work for Women and Girls, iv. Indigenous Peoples Food Systems, and beyond.

## Key Contributions from Indigenous Peoples

1. Indigenous Peoples' food systems are based on inclusive agroecological networks that lead to equitable and sustainable livelihoods.

2. Indigenous Peoples' food systems have traditionally relied on sharing and barter exchange. Further, examples of small farmers and Indigenous Peoples' inclusive and sustainable agroecological networks advance equitable livelihoods for the communities involved in these exchange networks. The food that they produce and their exchange systems rely on diversified and low-input agriculture and short, domestic, and equitable value chains that ensure transparency and trust between producers and consumers, along with cultural security and preserving cultural values, such as sharing and reciprocity.

## Recommendations for Action Area 3

3. The establishment of forums that bring together representatives of government, trade unions and employers' associations, and other key stakeholders and organisations, such as cooperatives, small business organisations, women's groups, peasants' and Indigenous Peoples' organisations, has been proven to be an effective way of jointly designing and implementing common
strategies to promote decent work in the agri-food sector and economic development.

4. Labelling **and certification schemes for Indigenous Peoples' food, driven forward by Indigenous Peoples** to ensure their rights to self-determination and intellectual property rights. The integration of Indigenous Peoples' biocultural products in public procurement programmes and the creation of supportive infrastructure will facilitate physical access to markets and promote value chains for traditional food varieties.

5. **Investing in the intercultural education of Indigenous Peoples** to reach positions within research, policy-making and decision-making on matters that affect their livelihoods, territories and peoples. At COP26, examples of how intercultural education and research led by Indigenous Peoples can have a positive impact on their lives were presented, but more investment is needed to support intercultural education.

6. **The creation of a global matching investment fund for small-scale producers' organisations** to ensure decent and fair incomes, livelihoods and equitable development opportunities for local communities, especially for rural youths, women and Indigenous Peoples. All investments must respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their territories and ancestral domains, cultural heritage and landscapes, and traditional knowledge and practices.

# 6 Action Area 4: Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stresses

*This Action Area could help countries connect to coalitions, initiatives, and resources around i. Local food supply chains, ii. Climate-resilient development pathways, iii. The Humanitarian Development Peace (HDP) Nexus, iv. Safety nets, and beyond.*

## Key Contributions from Indigenous Peoples

1. As knowledge keepers of intergenerational traditional knowledge and experts on their local environments, Indigenous Peoples' leadership and expertise are critical to the global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Indigenous Peoples' perceptions of change, observational histories, and use of modern technologies with traditional practices position them to develop risk analysis and innovative strategies for climate change and safeguard food systems within their territories. Indigenous researchers and communities globally have developed their climate adaptation plans utilising technical data paired with value-based evidence to design more responsive solutions to community priorities. Many Indigenous Peoples are ahead of other entities in their planning and response to the climate crisis. Further, many Indigenous Peoples' communities and territories are among the most heavily impacted and vulnerable to climate change impacts.
Their territories and lands are priority areas for preserving ecosystems with endemic plants, animals, seeds, crops (wild and cultivated), and other food diversity elements essential for sustainable and resilient food systems.

2. Occasional gene flow between domesticated and wild species also contributes to the generation of unique genetic diversity. Indigenous Peoples frequently source new diversity from nearby communities or further afield and exchange materials with friends and relatives (Maxted et al., 2020).

3. Beyond simply the preservation of biological diversity, the vast biocultural diversity of Indigenous Peoples' food systems contributes a broad knowledge base that can inform and expand the set of possibilities and resources that humanity can draw upon in facing environmental uncertainty. Indigenous Peoples often possess rich environmental knowledge, encompassing a breadth of topics, including climate, botany, ecology, and spirituality, that guide resource use and land management practices.

4. Indigenous beliefs, rituals and values, in many cases, underpin collective action by enabling processes that gather and reconcile different viewpoints on how to respond to environmental issues (Ford et al., 2020).

5. Food-sharing is a norm in many Indigenous Peoples' communities, which helps buffer food availability and diversity during periods of stress (Zavaleta-Cortijo et al., 2020). Indigenous Peoples place significant value on learning by adopting and modifying existing practices and abandoning practices that no longer serve them. Learning is supported by the intergenerational exchange between Indigenous youths and elders and supports the continual adaptation of food systems in response to environmental change (Van Uffelen et al., 2021); most of this knowledge is passed through orality, and therefore Indigenous languages play a crucial role in maintaining the learning loop.

## Recommendations for Action Area 4

6. Indigenous Peoples' perspectives and leadership must be incorporated within risk analysis and risk management strategies to monitor, prevent and mitigate environmental shocks and change. During COP26, Indigenous Peoples demonstrated different strategies and innovations that they are using in monitoring and adapting to climate change, e.g., GIS and Indigenous knowledge to monitor the rise of rivers and oceans, land-use change and how it affects food seasonality, warning mechanisms for flooding, etc. Funds to support these monitoring and adaptation strategies should be promoted.

7. Indigenous Peoples' land tenure and sovereignty are prerequisites to adaptive capacity in confronting climate change and addressing global sustainability. That includes the right to access and manage traditionally occupied or used land, territories and resources, as well as the rights to mobility and passage to access food system resources.

8. Long-term conservation on food diversity in gene banks and the field, and sustained diversification of the food basket. Creation of biocentres that ensure food for all in a sustainable way.
9. **Blended financing mechanisms for small projects/initiatives** locally owned by women and youths to empower women's agency and leadership in developing resilience solutions. In COP26, Indigenous women and youths showcased their different climate change adaptation strategies and highlighted their role as knowledge holders of these strategies. Investment funds for ongoing projects and supporting alliances among different stakeholders should be promoted to reinforce their work and success.

10. **Universal food access:** enacting food as a public good. Indigenous Peoples perceive food as a concept beyond the nutritional and physical aspects that embodies culture, cosmogony, and territorial management.

11. **Intercultural education systems** that allow Indigenous Peoples to reclaim, preserve and restore their knowledge systems and their languages; these actions are crucial for supporting their resilience and the planet's.

12. **Intercultural health services and the institutionalisation of cultural security in health services:** To ensure quality and equitable health care provided to Indigenous Peoples and recognise the centrality of nutrition and culturally aligned foods and medicinal practices to support and sustain the health of Indigenous Peoples.

# 7 Action Area 5: Support Means of Implementation

*This Action Area could help countries connect to coalitions, initiatives, and resources around i. Finance, ii. Governance, iii. Science and Knowledge (e.g., True Value of Food; Indigenous Food Systems), iv. Innovation, Technology, & Data, v. Capacity, v. Human Rights, and beyond.*

## Key Contributions from Indigenous Peoples

1. Indigenous Peoples are crucial for the planet's sustainability, and both their food systems and they themselves are game-changers for the current food security and climate challenges and for achieving the SDG2030. However, they face structural racism and marginalisation that also force them to face economic poverty that stands in sharp contrast to Indigenous societies' cultural and ecological richness. Therefore, it is not possible to imagine world leaders meeting and trying to discuss and implement measures about sustainability and resilient food systems without including Indigenous Peoples, because they have been practising many sustainable and resilient strategies successfully in their communities and ecosystems before these terms were even conceptualised.

## Recommendations for Action Area 5

2. **The overarching rights to land, territories and natural resources, and the right to self-determination and cultural rights, are preconditions for the full and effective exercise and realisation of other rights.** During COP26, the pressure and forced displacement Indigenous Peoples face were highlighted; thus, to achieve the goals of the SGD2030, Indigenous Peoples' rights to land,
territories and resources must be fully respected and recognised, including their capacity for the management and co-management of resources that are at the heart of their food systems. The right to self-determination under the principle of “Nothing for or about Indigenous Peoples without Indigenous Peoples” is relevant for any external entity whose actions involve or impact Indigenous Peoples in any way that could affect their livelihoods, food systems, or territories. The implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent are the international standard for the rights-based approach with Indigenous Peoples.

3. **Policy-making and decision-making concerning food resources must start and end with Indigenous Peoples and their management and co-management of institutions and bodies** and, where relevant, in collaboration and cooperation with state government bodies that support such Indigenous-driven decisions. Any and all relationships with non-Indigenous Peoples at all levels require trust, respect, sharing and cooperation, as well as education to support Indigenous Peoples' food systems, thereby guiding and protecting the cultural integrity of Indigenous Peoples and their communities now and into the future.

4. **Indigenous Peoples should be leaders in devising strategies for developing their food systems based on their insights and priorities** for their communities. Policies must be created to be intercultural, and thus strengthen (not erode) Indigenous Peoples' values, foods and traditional knowledge.

5. **Create a fund to research and support the potential of Indigenous Peoples' food systems and resilience strategies supporting Indigenous-led researchers' use of funds.** Ensuring Indigenous Peoples' data sovereignty and governance are upheld and intellectual property rights are not violated.

6. The co-creation of **platforms within which mutual respect for knowledge is ensured and fosters inclusive and effective sustainable food system development**. There is a need to preserve, value, and respect the richness of Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems and further identify ways that bring together the synergistic strengths of scientific knowledge and Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems. The process of knowledge co-creation fostered by the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems is similar to that followed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and regards Indigenous Peoples' traditional knowledge systems and non-Indigenous scientific knowledge with equal respect and consideration. This process of co-creating knowledge identifies and builds synergies between Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems and scientific knowledge systems.

7. **Innovative financing and investments for sustainable land management practices** (for example, economic incentive systems such as payment for ecosystem services and carbon credits) offer ways for Indigenous Peoples to continue safeguarding and managing their territories in sustainable ways for the land and their food systems, with positive side effects such as sequestering carbon, maintaining carbon in ecosystems and preserving biodiversity while
also earning an income that sustains their communities' economic needs. However, these funds should be allocated directly to Indigenous communities, such as the investment announced at COP26 last November first, 2021, that will support Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

# Annexes

## Annex 1: Coalition on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems

### Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems Coalition

**Main objective of the Coalition:**

Ensure understanding, respect, recognition, inclusion, and protection of Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems (IPFS) post-UNFSS, providing evidence about their "game-changing and systemic" aspects.

**Goal 1: Respect, recognise, protect, and strengthen Indigenous Peoples' food systems across the world**

1. Strengthen policy and regulations to ensure that Indigenous Peoples' food systems are not harmed by intensive and transformed food systems.

2. Work with national governments and international agencies to secure funding.

3. Support interculturality at all levels.

4. Support the drafting of national policies, research, and programmes to protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems, including them in decision-making, with a special focus on Indigenous women, youths and elders.

5. Support processes of inter- and intra-generational transmission of knowledge and horizontal capacity building in regard to Indigenous Peoples' food systems.

6. Strengthen the leadership of Indigenous youths for innovative intercultural approaches, integrating indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge, science, technology and management.

7. Promote seed security to ensure Indigenous Peoples' access to seeds and planting material that meets their preferences.

**Goal 2: Disseminate and scale-up traditional knowledge and good practices from Indigenous Peoples' food systems with the potential to transform global food systems across the board**

1. Scale-up Indigenous Peoples' food systems by strengthening scientific and empirical research and intercultural co-creation processes.

2. Increase food systems' resilience and risk management by incorporating Indigenous Peoples' knowledge about ecosystems.

3. Promote Indigenous Peoples' leadership in food systems by sharing their models of food management, production, and processing.

4. Provide evidence about Biocentric-Biocultural considerations in food for policy discussions.

5. Work with other coalitions to ensure the protection of Indigenous Peoples' food systems under the 'do no harm' principle and promote the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other related UN Declarations.

**Science-based evidence to prioritise this Coalition (scientific references):**

The Scientific-Committee included the Wiphala paper as a reference document and recognised Indigenous Peoples' food systems as game-changers at the Pre-Summit. This Coalition builds on the Wiphala Paper and other research and scientific publications:

* FAO and Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. 2021. *Indigenous Peoples' food systems: Insights on sustainability and resilience in the front line of climate change*. Rome.
https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5131en

(continued)
* Settee and Shukla. 2020. *Indigenous Food Systems: Concepts, Cases and Conversations*. Canadian Scholars an Imprint of CSP Books, Inc.

* Jackson, G., McNamara, K.E., Witt, B. 2020. "System of hunger": Understanding causal disaster vulnerability of indigenous food systems, *Journal of Rural Studies*, Vol 73, Pages 163–175, doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.042.

* Dawson, N. M., B. Coolsaet, E. J. Sterling, R. Loveridge, N. D. Gross-Camp, S. Wongbusarakum, K. K. Sangha, L. M. Scherl, H. Phuong Phan, N. Zafra-Calvo, W. G. Lavey, P. Byakagaba, C. J. Idrobo, A. Chenet, N. J. Bennett, S. Mansourian, and F. J. Rosado-May. 2021. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. *Ecology and Society* 26(3):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319.

* Rosado-May, F., Urrieta, L. Jr., Dayton, A., Rogoff, B. 2020. *Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning Innovation as a Key Feature of Indigenous Ways of Learning*. Routledge

* Jackson, G. 2019. The influence of emergency food aid on the causal disaster vulnerability of Indigenous food systems. *Agriculture and Human Values*, 37, 761–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-10006-7

* Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B. &Spigelski, D. 2009. Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 339 pp.

* Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D. &Burlingame, B. 2013. Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems and Wellbeing: Interventions and Policies for Healthy Communities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 398 pp.

* Turner, N., Berkes, F., Stephenson, J., Dick, J. 2013. Blundering Intruders: Extraneous Impacts on Two Indigenous Food Systems, *Human Ecology*, Vol. 41, No 4, pp. 563–574. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24017347

## Mechanisms of implementation (Global to National levels):

The Coalition's working groups, supported by the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples' food systems, Indigenous Peoples' forums and experts mechanisms, will work on:

1. **Intercultural Co-Creation of Knowledge and Research:** To establish a research agenda on Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems, support policy-making, improve national-global programmes, and include interculturality in school meals, school-university curricula, and scientific dialogues.

2. **Financing the Strengthening of Indigenous Food Systems and Knowledge:** To collaborate with IFIs and development agencies to improve donor coordination and funding towards creating an Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems Global-Fund.

3. **Coordination at the Rome Level:** To facilitate coordination among member states, RBAS and Indigenous Peoples.

4. **National and Regional Dialogues:** To work with countries on national and regional dialogues on strengthening Indigenous Peoples' food systems.

5. **Monitoring, Reporting and Accountability:** To monitor post-UNFSS efforts to transform unsustainable and inequitable food systems and safeguard against harm to Indigenous Peoples.

6. **Support other UNFSS Coalitions:** To integrate Indigenous Peoples' views on sustainability.

7. **Inclusion in other Platforms:** To promote the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and the recognition of their knowledge and food systems in platforms, mechanisms and processes that affect them.

## Strategic partners (members, private sector, civil society, academia):

The following Member States have expressed interest in the Coalition; the formal structure of this group, including membership, will be determined after the Summit:
* Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Norway, the Dominican Republic, Spain, UNPFII, Global-Hub, FAO, WFP, IFAD.
* Indigenous Organizations/Communities from seven socio-cultural regions at the country and regional levels.

(continued)
**Monitoring and Evaluation (clear quantifiable indicators and targets linked to SDGs)**

Post-UNFSS activities must be guided by UNDRIP's rights of Indigenous Peoples and monitored through disaggregated data and Indigenous Peoples' sensitive indicators.

This Coalition will work with other coalitions, identifying measurable outcomes and indicators, such as: land and resource rights; support for Indigenous Peoples' institutions, knowledge and food systems; participation by Indigenous Peoples in decision and policy-making; states' efforts to commit to non-discrimination in international conventions and in adopting laws and policies.

This Coalition will oversee the election of Indigenous Peoples' representatives to the Advisory Group to the RBAs coordination food systems hub, and will participate in the SGs Two-year Stocktake of this process and of the 2030 Agenda, contributing at the national level to Resident Coordinators and UN Country Teams' reports.

# Annex 2: The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems

## Contributors

**Members of Global-Hub and the Technical Editorial Committee** Danny Hunter (Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT); Gam Shimray (Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact); Thomas Worsdell; (Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact); Anne Brunel (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Gennifer Meldrum (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Ida Strømsø (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Luisa Castañeda (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Mariana Estrada (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Mikaila Way (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Yon Fernandez de Larrinoa (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Charlotte Milbank (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit, University of Cambridge); Pablo Arigita Baena (FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit); Tania Martinez (Greenwich University, Natural Resources Institute); Harriet Kuhnlein (McGill University, Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and Environment); Bhaskar Vira (University of Cambridge).

**Members of Global-Hub** Amparo Morales (Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe); Dennis Mairena (Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe); Ernesto Marconi (Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe); Gabriel Muyuy (Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe); Luis Alfredo Rojas (Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe); Myrna Cunningham Kain (Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe); Carolina Herrera (Fundación Gaia Amazonas); Juliana Sanchez (Fundación Gaia Amazonas); Julieth Rojas (Fundación Gaia Amazonas); Maria Isabel Valderrama (Fundación Gaia Amazonas); Pamela Katic (Greenwich University, Natural Resources Institute); Julie Brimblecombe (Monash University); Tero Mustonen (Snowchange Cooperative); Bhogtoram Mawroh (The Indigenous Partnership on
Agrobiodiversity and Food Sovereignty); Lukas Pawera (The Indigenous Partnership on Agrobiodiversity and Food Sovereignty); Phrang Roy (The Indigenous Partnership on Agrobiodiversity and Food Sovereignty).

**Contributors from Africa** Boris Ibela (Association pour le devenir des autochtones et de leur connaissance originelle); Davy Pouaty Nzembialela (Association pour le devenir des autochtones et de leur connaissance originelle); Pierre Mondjo (Association pour le devenir des autochtones et de leur connaissance originelle); Sandrine Moughola (Association pour le devenir des autochtones et de leur connaissance originelle); Bakari Chaka (Maasai Mara University); Charity Konana (Maasai Mara University, Individual Expert from the Maasai Community); Mariam Wallet Aboubacrine (Tin Hinan, women's association); Abdallah Marjan (Maasai Mara University); Osano Aloys (Maasai Mara University); Morompi Ole Masago (Maasai Mara University).

**Contributors from the Arctic** Dalee Sambo (Inuit Circumpolar Council, Individual contribution); Vera Metcalf (Inuit Circumpolar Council, Individual contribution); Vernae Angnaboogok (Inuit Circumpolar Council, Individual contribution); Carolina Behe (Inuit Circumpolar Council, Individual contribution).

**Contributors from Asia** Pradeep Metha (Central Himalayan Institute for Nature & Applied Research); Lalita Bhattacharjee (Meeting the Undernutrition Challenge, FAO); Fidel Rodriguez (FAOPH, FAO Representation Office in the Philippines); Jeffrey Oliver (FAOPH, FAO Representation Office in the Philippines); Jasmine Magtibay (FAOPH, FAO Representation Office in the Philippines); Kathleen Ramilo (FAOPH, FAO Representation Office in the Philippines); Melanie Sison (FAOPH, FAO Representation Office in the Philippines); Virginia Agcopra (FAOPH, FAO Representation Office in the Philippines); Dharmen G. Momin (Garo tribe, Individual contribution); Neelam Kerketta (Oraon tribe, India, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi); Mardha Tillah (Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment); Basavi Kiro (Torang Trust).

**Contributors from Latin America** Samuel Cauper Pinedo (Asociación Centro Indígena para el Desarrollo Sostenible); Gloria Amparo Miranda Zambrano (Departamento de Estudios Culturales, Demográficos y Políticos. División de Ciencias Sociales y Administrativas, Campus Celaya-Salvatierra. Universidad de Guanajuato, Mexico); Liseth Escobar (National University of Colombia, Amazonia Campus); Olga Lucía Chaparro Africano (National University of Colombia, Amazonia Campus. Honorary Fellow Researcher in the Latin American, Caribbean and Iberian Studies Program (LACIS) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison); Jenny Chicaiza (pueblo Kayambi, Red de jóvenes Wambra Páramo); Carmen Laura Paz Reverol (pueblo wayuu, Fundación Indígena Lumaa, Universidad del Zulia).

**Contributors from North America** Hannah Tait Neufeld (Indigenous Health Wellness and Food Environments, School of Public Health and Health Systems, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo); Steven Holley (Dena'ina (the Many People), Alaska Village initiative, Alaska Carbon Exchange); Erin Riley (Division
of Community and Education, Institute of Youth, Family and Community-IYFC USDA/National Institute of Food and Agriculture-NIFA); Kellyann Jones-Jamtgaard (Division of Community and Education, Institute of Youth, Family and Community-IYFC, USDA/National Institute of Food and Agriculture-NIFA); Jamie Betters (Oneida Nation); Debra Nkusi (First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Indigenous Services Canada); Lesya Marushka (First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Indigenous Services Canada); Andrea Carmen (International Indian Treaty Council, Yaqui Nation); Joseph Gazing Wolf (Lakota, Standing Rock Sioux Nation, Arizona State University, USA); Tara Maudriez (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Individual contribution); Sara Moncada (The Culture Conservancy, Yaqui Nation); Robert Brown (Oneida Nation); Vicki Hebb (University of Nevada Reno, Community Services – Extension Mineral County, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe); Jonathan Long (US Forest Service); Tracy Morgan (Washington State University, FRTEP Tribal Extension under the Kalispel Tribe of Indians; Friend of Kalispel Tribe).

**Contributors from the Pacific** Jane Lokomaika'ikeakua Au (Kānaka 'Ōiwi (Native Hawaiian) 'Āina Momona); Dr Kamana Beamer (Kānaka 'Ōiwi (Native Hawaiian), Center for Hawaiian Studies in the Hui 'Āina Momona Program at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa).

**Contributors on COVID-19 and Resilience** Carol Zavaleta-Cortijo (Quechua from Peru, Unidad de Ciudadanía Intercultural y Salud Indígena (UCISI), Facultad de Salud Pública y Administración, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Eranga K. Galappaththi (Individual (expert) contribution).**General contributions.** Amy Ickowitz (Center for International Forestry Research); Alexandre Meybeck (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry research programme of the CGIAR); Vincent Gitz (Center for International Forestry Research, the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) research programme of the CGIAR); Junko Nakai (FAO, Natural Resources Management Officer); Francesco N. Tubiello (FAO, FAOSTAT); Alvaro Toledo (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Daniele Manzelaa (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Francisco Lopez (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Kent Nnadozie (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Mario Marino, Technical Officer (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Mary Jane Ramos De la Cruz (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Olivier Rukundo (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Rodica Leahu (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Tobias Kiene (FAO, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources); Anneleen Van Uffelen (FAO, Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment); Ghislaine Gill (FAO, Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment); Irene Hoffmann (FAO, Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment); Monika Kobayashi (Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment); Preetmoninder Lidder (FAO, Office of the Chief Scientist); Jessica Vega Ortega (Global Indigenous Youth Caucus); Ajay Rastogi and Lok Chetna Manch (IIED and members of the Biocultural Heritage Working Group); Alejandro Argumedo (IIED
and members of the Biocultural Heritage Working Group); Dr. Chemuku Wekesa (Kenya Forestry Research Institute, IIED and members of the Biocultural Heritage Working Group); Dr. Philippa Ryan (RBG Kew, IIED and members of the Biocultural Heritage Working Group); Dr. Yiching Song (Farmer Seed Network (China), IIED and members of the Biocultural Heritage Working Group); Krystyna Swiderska (IIED and members of the Biocultural Heritage Working Group); Gina Kennedy USAID Advancing Nutrition, IUNS Task Force on Traditional and Indigenous Food Systems and Nutrition, Individual contribution); Rosalaura Romeo (Mountain Partnership Secretariat in FAO); Samantha Abear (Mountain Partnership Secretariat in FAO); Sara Manuelli (Mountain Partnership Secretariat in FAO); Valeria Barchiesi (Mountain Partnership Secretariat in FAO); Yuka Makino (Water and Mountains, Mountain Partnership Secretariat in FAO); Angus W. Naylor and Prof. James D. Ford (Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds, Leeds, Arctic/Canadian Arctic Individual contributions); Lev Neretin (Safeguards, Climate Risks and Bioeconomy Team of FAO).

# Glossary

**Biocentrism** An ethical approach that holds that all life deserves equal consideration and has, therefore, rights of existence and standing.

**Biodiversity conservation** The practice of protecting and preserving the abundance and variety (biodiversity) of all species, regardless of classification, ecosystems and genetic diversity, on the planet (IFAD, 2015 and Convention on Biological Diversity).

**Bushmeat** Meat for human consumption derived from wild animals (IPBES Glossary).

**Communal resources or “common property”** Rights held by members of a community to land and other natural resources (e.g., pastures) that members can use independently of one another (FAO Glossary). Common property is characterised by the following elements: overarching ritual and cosmological relations with traditional lands; community “rights” of control over land disposal (sometimes delegated to traditional leaders); kinship or territory-based criteria for land access; community-based restrictions on dealings in land with outsiders; and principles of reversion of unused land to community control (IFAD, 2015).

**Community-based natural resource management** An approach to natural resource management that involves the full participation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and resource users in decision-making activities, and the incorporation of local institutions, customary practices and knowledge systems in management, regulatory and enforcement processes. Under this approach, community-based monitoring and information systems are initiatives by Indigenous Peoples and local community organisations to monitor their community's wellbeing and the state of their territories and natural resources, applying a mix of traditional knowledge and innovative tools and approaches (IPBES Glossary).
**Conservation** Includes protection, maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration and enhancement of populations and ecosystems. This implies sound biosphere management within given social and economic constraints, producing goods and services without depleting natural ecosystem diversity.

**Co-creation (of knowledge)** The collaborative process of bringing a plurality of knowledge sources and types together to address a defined problem and build an integrated or systems-oriented understanding of that problem (Armitage et al., 2011).

**Cosmogonies** A vision of reality that places the highest importance or emphasis on the universe or nature, as opposed to an anthropocentric vision, which strongly focusses on humankind as the most important element of existence (IPBES Glossary).

**Customary tenure** Rules and norms that communities devise and uphold to regulate how their lands are acquired, owned, used and transferred. Many rules and norms are tested over generations (hence, “traditions” or “customs”). IFAD Glossary

**Customary use of biological resources** Uses of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation and sustainable use requirements (Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD).

**Ecosystem services** The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food and water; the pollination of crops; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational and cultural benefits; and supporting services, such as the nutrient cycling that maintains the conditions for life on Earth (IPBES Glossary).

**Empowerment (of Indigenous Peoples)** The process of increasing the opportunity of Indigenous Peoples to take control of their own lives (IFAD, 2015).

**Endemism** The ecological state of a species being unique to a defined geographic location, such as an island, nation, country or other defined zone, or habitat type; organisms that are indigenous to a place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere (IPBES Glossary).

**Equitable benefit-sharing** Equitable distribution of benefits among stakeholders (modified from IPBES).

**Food generation** Viewed in contrast to food production, food generation relates to consumptive activities involving minimal human intervention within the ecosystem. Food generation includes hunting, fishing and gathering activities, which traditionally rely on a deep understanding of the seasonality of ecosystems, the availability of food sources, and knowledge that supports the recollection of food spontaneously generated by the system.

**Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)** Operational principle empowering local communities to give or withhold their consent to proposed investment and development programmes that may affect their rights, access to lands, territories and resources, and livelihoods. Defined by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

**Holism** Holistic perspectives consider a large number of variables qualitatively, while science tends to concentrate on a small number of variables quantitatively (adapted from Berkes and Berkes, 2009).
**Hunter-gatherers (present-day)** A term used to refer to small-scale, mostly egalitarian, societies that subsist primarily on food that has been obtained directly from the environment – through hunting animals, gathering plant food, fishing or scavenging. A more general term for this is “foraging,” and such peoples are also sometimes referred to as “foragers” – or often “post-foragers,” given that most such societies no longer survive through these subsistence techniques alone. They constitute a tiny fraction (less than 1 percent) of the 476 million peoples referred to as Indigenous (Lee et al., 1999).

**Indigenous food** Foods from the natural environment that became included in the cultural food use patterns of a group of Indigenous Peoples (FAOTERM).

**Indigenous language** Not only methods of communication, but also extensive and complex systems of knowledge that have developed over millennia. They are central to the identity of Indigenous Peoples, the preservation of their cultures, worldviews and visions and an expression of self-determination. Indigenous languages are critical markers of the cultural health of Indigenous Peoples. When Indigenous languages are under threat, so too are Indigenous Peoples themselves (UNDPI, 2018).

**Indigenous Peoples** In accordance with international consensus, the four following criteria apply when considering Indigenous Peoples: priority in time, with respect to occupation and use of a specific territory; the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, which may include the aspects of language, social organisation, religion and spiritual values, modes of production, laws and institutions; self-identification, as well as recognition by other groups, or by state authorities, as a distinct collectivity; and an experience of subjugation, marginalisation, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination, whether or not these conditions persist (FAO, 2010).

**Indigenous Peoples' traditional knowledge** Cumulative body of knowledge (for example, know-how), practices and manifestations maintained and developed by Indigenous Peoples with long histories of interaction with their natural environment. Indigenous Peoples' knowledge is adapted to the local culture and transmitted orally from generation to generation (adapted from FAOTERM).

**Knowledge system** A body of propositions that are adhered to, whether formally or informally, and are routinely used to claim truth. They are organised structures and dynamic processes (a) generating and representing content, components, classes or types of knowledge, that are (b) domain-specific or characterised by domain-relevant features as defined by the user or consumer, (c) reinforced by a set of logical relationships that connect the content of knowledge to its value (utility), (d) enhanced by a set of iterative processes that enable evolution, revision, adaptation and advances, and (e) subject to criteria of relevance, reliability and quality (IPBES Glossary).

**Land rights** Property rights pertaining to land. There are three principal rights linked to the spatial dimension of land: use rights, control rights and transfer rights (FAOTERM).
**Land tenure** The relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land. More than one person may hold rights to a parcel of land, which gives rise to the concept of a "bundle of rights" (adapted from FAOTERM).

**Linguistic diversity** Range of variations exhibited by human languages (IFAD Glossary).

**Local food** Local food refers to food that is produced near its point of consumption.

**Marginalisation** The process of pushing particular groups of people – usually minorities such as Indigenous Peoples or rural women – to the edge of society by not allowing them to have an active

**Oral tradition** A variety of spoken forms, including proverbs, riddles, tales, nursery rhymes, legends, myths, epic songs and poems, charms, prayers, chants, songs, dramatic performances and more, used to pass on knowledge, cultural and social values, and collective memory. They play a crucial part in keeping cultures alive (IFAD Glossary).

**Ownership** The rights to land that are, in everyday language, associated with the ability to use, control, transfer or otherwise enjoy a land parcel as long as those activities are allowed by law. In statutory tenure, it is often associated with freehold. However, land law does not tend to define explicitly what is meant by "ownership" (FAOTERM).

**Pastoralism** A wide family of livestock-based, livelihood/food production systems, which are specialised in improving the animals' diet and welfare through different forms of mobility (from short movements to nomadism), thus managing their grazing itineraries at a variety of scales in time and space (FAO, forthcoming).

**Protected areas** A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (IUCN Definition 2008).

**Reciprocity** Within this report, the concept acknowledges a moral and practical obligation for humans and biota to care for and sustain one another and arises from human gratitude and reverence for the contributions and sacrifices made by another biota to sustain humankind.

**Restoration** The active intervention and management of degraded biotic communities, landforms and landscapes in order to restore biological character, ecological and physical processes and their cultural and visual qualities (FAOTERM).

**Rituals** Understood as a network of practices, knowledge and behaviours, rituals associated with food form a key role in maintaining Indigenous world views, passing on practices and values and strengthening the sense of community and collective responsibility to conserve socio-ecological systems (Anacio, 2017).

**Self-determination** The ability or power to make decisions for oneself, especially to decide how to be governed. The UNDRIP (article 3) recognises the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
**Self-sufficiency** A group is considered self-sufficient by its ability to produce all the materials it consumes and to consume what it produces. Self-sufficiency refers to a closed loop from production to consumption to production. It is a model, sometimes an ideal that is never achieved. Economic self-sufficiency is in total contrast to complete market economy, in which everything produced is traded and everything consumed is secured through trade (Callan and Coleman, eds., 2018).

**Spirituality** A fundamental belief in the sacredness of nature, Earth and the universe.

**Stewardship (of the environment)** The actions taken by individuals, groups or networks of actors, with various motivations and levels of capacity, to protect, care for or responsibly use the environment in pursuit of environmental and/or social outcomes in diverse social-ecological contexts (Bennett et al., 2007).

**Subsistence** Subsistence is the process whereby people supply themselves with the necessities of life, such as food and shelter. Subsistence relates primarily to self-provisioning by small productive units, often families. These groups are referred to as autarkic for being able to supply all their own needs with no dependence on or interaction with others to obtain necessities (Callan and Coleman, eds., 2018).

**Territory** Lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by Indigenous and local communities.

**Traditional custodian** The group, clan or community of people, or an individual who is recognised by a group, clan or community of people, in whom the custody or protection of the expressions of culture are entrusted in accordance with the customary law and practices of that group, clan or community (IFAD, 2015).

**Traditional lands and territories** Lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by Indigenous and local communities.

**Traditional resources** Tangible or intangible assets of biological, spiritual, aesthetic, cultural and economic value used traditionally by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

**Traditional medicine** The medicinal preparations, often based on centuries-old traditions, that contain derivatives from plants or animals that have proven or reputed medicinal properties (CITES Glossary).

**United Nations Declaration of Rights on Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)** Adopted by the General Assembly in September 2007, the UNDRIP contains provisions on land, natural resources and subsistence activities relevant for the realisation of Indigenous Peoples' right to food and food sovereignty. It also includes the protection of traditional knowledge, biodiversity and genetic resources, and sets limits on the activities of third parties on the territories of Indigenous communities without their consent.

**Use rights ("usufruct")** Right to use the land for growing crops, passage, grazing animals and the utilisation of natural and forest products. A holder of a use right may not have the right to sell the property, etc. (FAO TERM).

**Value systems** Set of values according to which people, societies and organisations regulate their behaviour. Value systems can be identified in both individuals and social groups (IPBES Glossary).
**Vulnerability** The ability to be easily physically, emotionally or mentally hurt, influenced or attacked. Vulnerable groups define those who have insufficient access to the quantity and quality of food that would ensure a healthy life and/or are at risk of losing such access altogether (World Food Programme [WFP]).

**Wellbeing** A context- and situation- dependent state, comprising basic material for a good life, freedom and choice, health, good social relations and security (UN, 2008).

**Western science (also called modern science)** A broad term to refer to knowledge typically generated in universities, research institutions and private firms following paradigms and methods typically associated with the “scientific method” consolidated in Post-Renaissance Europe on the basis of wider and more ancient roots. It is typically transmitted through scientific journals and scholarly books. Some of its central tenets are observer independence, replicable findings, systematic scepticism and transparent research methodologies with standard units and categories.

**Wild food (or “uncultivated food”)** Wild plants, animals and insects that are not cultivated or reared in captivity. They are part of the minor crops and underutilised species, and include roots and tubers, vegetables and leafy vegetables, fruits, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, game and mammals gathered for food (Bioversity International, 2017).

**Worldviews** Worldviews defined by the connections among networks of concepts and systems of knowledge, values, norms and beliefs. Individual person's world-views are moulded by the community to which the person belongs. Practices are embedded in worldviews and are intrinsically part of them (e.g., through rituals, institutional regimes, and social organisation, but also in environmental policies, in development choices, etc.).

## References<fnref n="1" />

Anacio DB (2017) Threats and challenges to ensuring the requirement of biodiversity and ecosystem services for the indigenous begnas ritual system of Sagada, Northern Philippines. In: Karki M, Hill R, Xue D, Alangui W, Ichikawa K, Bridgewater P (eds) Knowing our lands and resources: indigenous and local knowledge and practices related to biodiversity and ecosystem services in Asia. UNESCO, pp 6–14

Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learn-ing to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Chang 21(3): 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006

Bennett EL, Blencowe E, Brandon K, Brown D, Burn RW, Cowlishaw G, Davies G et al (2007) Hunting for consensus: Reconciling bushmeat harvest, conservation, and development policy in West and Central Africa. Conserv Biol 21:884–887

<footnote n="1">¹This brief summarises the full [White/Wiphala paper](#), which may be referred and contains the full reference list.</footnote>
Biodiversity International (2017) Mainstreaming agrobiodiversity in sustainable food systems: Scientific foundations for an agrobiodiversity index. Rome, Italy. (Also available at https://hdl.handle.net/10568/89049)

Callan H, Coleman S (eds) (2018) The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, vol 12. Wiley, New York

Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P et al (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need to transformative change. Science 366(6471). [online], [Cited 12 May 2021]. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100

FAO (2010) FAO Policy on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Rome, FAO 44 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/I4476E/i4476e.pdf)

FAO (2021a) The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples' food systems. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4932en

FAO (2021b) The share of food systems in total greenhouse gas emissions. Global, regional and country trends, 1990–2019. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No. 31. Rome. https://www.fao.org/food-agriculture-statistics/data-release/data-release-detail/en/c/1454718/

Ford JD, King N, Galappaththi EK, Pearce T, McDowell G, Harper SL (2020) The resilience of Indigenous Peoples to environmental Change. One Earth 2(6):532–543

Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Molnár Z, Robinson CJ, Watson JEM et al (2018) A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat Sustain 1:369–374

Hunter D, Burlingame B, Remans R (lead authors) (2015) Biodiversity and nutrition. In Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health, a State of Knowledge Review (Romanelli et al. eds). Convention on Biological Diversity/World Health Organization

Hunter D, Borelli T, Gee E (2020) Biodiversity, Food and Nutrition: A New Agenda for Sustainable Food Systems. Routledge

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2015) Indigenous Peoples Glossary, 2nd edn, Rome

ILO (2019) Implementing the ILO indigenous and tribal peoples convention No. 169: towards an inclusive, sustainable and just future, Geneva

ICC-Alaska (2015) Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to Assess the Arctic From an Inuit Perspective. Technical Report, Anchorage

Lee RB, Heywood Daly R, Daly R (1999) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. University Press, Cambridge

Maxted N, Hunter D, Ortiz R (2020) Plant Genetic Conservation. Cambridge University Press

Mijatović D, Van Oudenhoven F, Eyzaguirre P, Hodgkin T (2013) The role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to climate change: towards an analytical framework. Int J Agric Sustain 11(2):95–107

Sobrevilla. (2008) The role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation. The Natural but Often Forgotten Partners, Washington, DC

United Nations Department of Public Information (UNDPI) (2018) Indigenous languages [online]. New York [Cited 31 August 2020]. www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/04/Indigenous-Languages.pdf

Van Uffelen A, Tanganelli E, Gerke A, Bottigliero F, Drieux E, Fernández-de-Larrinoa Y, Milbank C, Sheibani S, Strømsø I, Way M, Bernoux M (2021) Indigenous youth as agents of change – actions of Indigenous youth in local food systems during times of adversity. FAO, Rome

Zavaleta-Cortijo C, Ford JD, Arotoma-Rojas I, Lwasa S, Lancha-Rucoba G, García PJ, Miranda JJ, Namanya DB, New M, Wright CJ, Berrang-Ford L (2020) Climate change and COVID-19: reinforcing Indigenous food systems. Lancet Planet Health 4(9):e381–e382
**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_56.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

Sayed Azam-Ali, Hayatullah Ahmadzai, Dhrupad Choudhury, Ee Von Goh, Ebrahim Jahanshiri, Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, Alessandro Meschinelli, Albert Thembinkosi Modi, Nhamo Nhamo, and Abidemi Olutayo

# 1 Context

**Business-as-Usual Is Not Working** Marginal environments and the indigenous people who cultivate them have one thing in common – they are forgotten. Their soils and climates, crops and livestock, beliefs and knowledge systems rarely attract academic interest, policy studies or investment. Marginal environments refer to less-favorable agricultural areas (LFAAs) characterized by constrained agricultural potential and resource degradation attributable to biophysical and politico-socio-economic factors (Pender and Hazell 2000). Their low production potential is driven by rugged terrains, extreme weather conditions, poor soil and water quality, lack of socio-economic connectivity and limited exposure to agricultural intensification opportunities. In such regions, drought and erratic rainfall, salinization, and other factors present significant constraints for intensive agriculture. Marginal environments encompass all LFAAs and any favorable agricultural areas (e.g., areas not constrained by biophysical factors) with limited access to rural infrastructure and agricultural markets where cost-effective production is unfeasible (without additional support) under given conditions, cultivation techniques, and policy or

S. Azam-Ali (✉) · E. V. Goh · E. Jahanshiri
Crops For the Future, Cambridge, UK
e-mail: sayed@cropsforthefutureuk.org

H. Ahmadzai · N. Nhamo · A. Olutayo
International Center for Biosaline Agriculture, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

D. Choudhury
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal

T. Mabhaudhi · A. T. Modi
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

A. Meschinelli
Global Forum for Agricultural Research and Innovation, Rome, Italy
macro-economic settings. The agricultural expertise of indigenous communities is often overlooked by decision-makers, who, instead, advocate interventions based on mainstream crops and external technologies. While such approaches have had demonstrable impacts on food security and poverty alleviation elsewhere, they often fail in indigenous communities where a vast range of crops are cultivated in diverse production systems and in marginal environments. As a result, agricultural yields in marginal areas continue to decline and the gap between the actual and potential yield of mainstream food crops widens (Mustafa et al. 2021; Chimonyo et al. 2020; Leakey 2020). Hunger, malnutrition, and poverty in indigenous communities continue to increase, as one in five people on the planet is malnourished (UN Environment Programme 2020).

**We Need Diverse Food Systems** An alternative to top-down technological packages is to approach the existential challenges that indigenous people face from their own perspectives and resources. However, the agrobiodiversity and associated knowledge systems that these communities have protected for millennia are under threat. Nearly 10% of all domesticated breeds of animals for food and agriculture are already extinct and another one million plant and animal species now face extinction (Brondizio et al. 2019). Many of these species are climate-resilient and nutritious crops. For example, millet and gluten-free grains such as amaranth, teff and quinoa are rich in vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids, phytochemicals, and antioxidants, and crops such as finger millet, cowpea and bambara groundnut are also adapted to extreme weather (drought and heat stress) and poor soil conditions (Mabhaudhi et al. 2019a; Tadele 2018). While the genetic diversity found in indigenous farming systems could become the foundation for future agricultural and food systems, of over 30,000 edible plants, fewer than 30 species grown as monocultures now provide most of the food consumed by 7.8 billion people (FAO 2018). These mainstream crops monopolize agricultural research, investment, support and formal markets.

**Languages Are the Basis of Knowledge** From over 7000 languages, only six are spoken by half the global population (Eberhard et al. 2020). Roughly 40% of languages are now classified as endangered and as few as 600 might still be spoken in 2100 (Krauss 1992). For indigenous people, this represents not just a catastrophic loss of languages, but of cultural and ethnic identity and agricultural knowledge that, without a written record, has been conveyed verbally for generations. Where a language is unwritten, or its speakers are illiterate, the indigenous knowledge of a community, along with potential solutions to modern challenges facing humanity, are lost.

**Climate Change and Sustainable Development** Climate change threatens those least able to withstand its impacts. In 2015, UN member parties agreed to limit mean global temperature increases to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels (TheWorldCounts 2021). Predicted global heating is between 3.1 and 3.7 °C (Salawitch et al. 2017). The consequences of such increases and the frequency of extreme events will disproportionately impact indigenous people – since many already live in hostile and marginal environments. However, indigenous people are inheritors of a unique
social and cultural identity, have a distinct historical continuity and traditional knowledge of how people have interacted closely with their environments, and have developed and passed on such expertise across many generations (Berkes 2008; Kingsbury 1998). It has been estimated that indigenous people have an approximate population of 476 million across 90 countries, with about 5000 distinct cultures, accounting for most of the world's cultural diversity (UN 2009).

Of the seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), SDG1 commits the world to *eradicate poverty in all its forms*, and SDG2 to *end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture* (UN 2021). This entails moving from an economic definition of poverty (lack of income) and hunger (lack of food) to a multidimensional concept involving sustainable livelihoods, healthy diets, knowledge of food heritage and agricultural systems and the agency of communities to make their own decisions. A more articulate and inclusive notion of poverty and hunger eradication means achieving sustainable livelihoods, better nutrition and greater resilience of *all* communities, including indigenous people, to climate shocks.

## 2 Approach

The consolidation of mainstream agriculture, the decline of species and associated knowledge and the climate crisis all call for a different approach for indigenous people living in hostile environments. In such circumstances, it is they, not us, who are the experts. The challenge is how research can help these communities become agents of change and co-owners of innovations to help secure sustainable livelihoods and healthier lifestyles. Rather than being seen as passive recipients of external technologies, indigenous people need fair and equitable partnerships with research, education, extension, and private institutions that recognize human rights as the basis for sustainable food systems. This means that, wherever possible, the development of agricultural products, value chains, markets and food systems should remain under the jurisdiction of indigenous communities in terms of benefits, intellectual property, labor conditions, and negotiating power. This includes the contribution of underutilized or 'forgotten' crops and their knowledge systems to food security, balanced diets, income generation, agricultural diversification and better use of marginal lands.

## 3 Evidence

**Knowledge Diversity** Marginal environments are biogeographically distinct, and their communities are culturally diverse. For indigenous people to secure sustainable livelihoods and healthier lifestyles, we need research approaches that suit the particularities of regions and people and knowledge systems that provide the best options for different circumstances. This requires complementary skills to address
systemic challenges to the whole food system, rather than just its components and networks from which viable options can be considered, evaluated and delivered by indigenous people in their own localities.

**Knowledge Partners** While there are many knowledge systems for mainstream agriculture, we are not aware of any integrated system that relates specifically to marginal environments and indigenous people. However, a number can be adapted to these circumstances by research institutions with expertise in different biogeographical regions. For example, Crops For the Future (CFF) has developed *CropBASE* as a global knowledge base for under-utilized crops (Mohd Nizar et al. 2021), their suitability (Jahanshiri et al. 2020), economic potential and nutritional values in different environments. Along with its partners in the Association of International Research and Development Centers for Agriculture (AIRCA), CFF has proposed a Global Action Plan for Agricultural Diversification (GAPAD) (Association of International Research and Development Centers for Agriculture 2016). The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) facilitates the *Global Framework for Climate Service* (ICIMOD 2021). to collate, curate, and share data so as to support robust planning and policy decisions for climate resilience in mountain regions. The International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA) has developed integrated drought management, monitoring/early warning systems, vulnerability and impact assessment and mitigation for crop diversification with under-utilized, stress-tolerant crops for food, feed and biofuel (ICBA 2021). The UKN *Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems* is building resilient, sustainable and healthy food systems for climate-resilient agriculture to improve human wellbeing and livelihoods in semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa (UKZN 2021).

**Impact Pathways** The Global Forum for Agricultural Research and Innovation (GFAR) is building collective actions to improve the livelihoods of poor farmers, including those in indigenous and other communities living in marginal areas, by enhancing the market value of forgotten foods and the crops from which they derive, intervening in supply chain bottlenecks and mobilizing small producers as co-innovators. By recognizing the rich local knowledge behind forgotten foods, GFAR members seek sustainable avenues for a community-centered, pro-poor transformation of food systems and the reorientation of research and innovation governance. For this, GFAR is co-ordinating a *Collective Action on Forgotten Foods* and a *Manifesto for Forgotten Foods* that explicitly calls for novel research and innovation systems (GFAR 2017).

# 4 Indigenous Food Systems and Knowledge: Challenges in Diverse Settings

**Biogeographical and Cultural Diversity** While each marginal region and indigenous community is unique, some themes and challenges link them. Common research and innovation approaches can be shared and applied across environments.
Here, we consider food systems in four biogeographical regions representing a significant proportion of the world's marginal land area, indigenous people and agricultural biodiversity. We then identify innovations, investment opportunities, priorities, and proposed actions to help transform indigenous peoples' food systems in marginal areas through agricultural diversification beyond mainstream crops and systems.

**Arid (Drylands, Biosaline Soils and Coastal Regions)** The importance of traditional food systems, especially in drylands, where indigenous people reside, cannot be over-emphasized. Indigenous people often hold a historical link between environmental heritage and food systems (Kuhnlein et al. 2013). Recent agricultural interventions have widely acknowledged the role of the indigenous knowledge of local people in the development of food systems in drylands. Effective and sustainable utilization of their cultural heritage regarding food systems can support environmental services, food preservation and food storage. Integration of various knowledge systems in co-innovation and co-production can transform traditional food systems, including food sovereignty, to avoid future hunger and malnutrition (Huambachano 2018; Pingault et al. 2020).

Despite the harsh environmental conditions in drylands, some indigenous food crops have exhibited outstanding performance and unmatched adaptation (Mabhaudhi et al. 2019a). Plant physiological adaptation to environmental stress has been a subject of intense research on dryland crops. Plant responses such as photosynthetic rate alteration, leaf area reduction, stomatal conductance regulation and waxy-substance production have been reported (Hasegawa 2013; Van Zelm et al. 2020). Drought evasion, albeit at the expense of biomass accumulation, has also been studied for many indigenous food crops. Similarly, rhizosphere microbiota (bacteria and fungi) cultivation has resulted in improved adaptation to water and nutrient stresses (Prasad et al. 2019). The application of microsymbionts and the rhizobiology associated with this innovation has explained, in part, the mechanisms of adaptation to stress by plant roots. Rhizobacterial nutrient solubilization, mobilization and salt mitigation using Azotobacter spp. has been found to increase synergy from inoculation (Srividhya et al. 2020). Mycorrhizal associations have also increased nutrient abstraction from the soils by 30%. Thus, co-inoculation with various species such as *Anthrobacter sp.*, *Bacillus sp.*, *Paenibacillus sp.*, *Pseudomonas sp.*, and *Rhizobia sp.* yielded between a 50% and 70% increase in nutrient uptake and use while enhancing photosynthesis and systems defense (Barriuso et al. 2008). Secretion of root exudates and stimulation of lateral root branching increased phosphorus uptake in the soil (Weih et al. 2018).

Both water- and nutrient-use efficiency are a function of the plant phenotype, management, and root architecture. Molecular marker-assisted breeding has made some inroads into the characterization of polygenic effects in relation to dryland environments. There is evidence that water-use efficiency (WUE) increases with water deficit, but not beyond 40% of irrigation requirement (Yu et al. 2020). The combination of high WUE and nutrient-use efficiency (NUE) in indigenous crops can improve yields. Recent developments in integrated drought monitoring and early
warning systems have shaped mitigation options for smallholder farmers. With the adoption of controlled environment farming to produce vegetables, indigenous farmers will have the capacity and means to boost production and save about 90% water requirement (Eigenbrod and Gruda 2015). Research that introduces, evaluates, and adapts under-utilized crops for dietary diversification in marginal environments is underway. Several crops with proven tolerance to salt, salinity and/or water stress have been studied in drylands. So far, crop diversification has focused on cereals, legumes, fruit trees and fodder crops. There is evidence of improved crop yields, increased popularization of nutrient-dense crops and fodder suitable for drylands. Examples of dryland food crops include fruit trees (date palms), types of millet (finger-, pearl-, proso-, fonio-millet), pseudo cereals (amaranth, buckwheat, and quinoa), cereal grass (teff), pulses (chickpea, faba bean, pigeon pea lentil and groundnut), halophytes (Cumin, Salicornia, and Colocynths) and oilseeds (mustard, sesame, sunflower, safflower, and rapeseed). These crops have high nutritional values and are adaptable to harsh growing conditions. The genetic diversity among these crop species has been preserved and limited to the communities where they were being cultivated, e.g., teff in East Africa (areas around Ethiopia and Eritrea). Commercialization of these crops will contribute significantly to sustainable food and nutrition security.

Indigenous food systems face natural and anthropogenic extinction. While breeding techniques have advanced, only a handful of indigenous crops have received the required promotional support to facilitate widespread utilization.

**Semi-Arid (Seasonally Dry, Rainfed, Impoverished Soils)** Semi-arid regions are a subtype of environment with an aridity index (ratio of total annual precipitation to potential evapotranspiration) between 0.20 and 0.50 (Lal 2004). These regions are characterized by mean annual precipitation between 200 and 700 mm (Gallart et al. 2002), often with stormy character, clustered in alternating seasons. A complex range of topography, biodiversity and variability in rainfall and microclimatic conditions has meant frequent exposure to droughts and floods, with grievous implications for agricultural production, ecosystem services and social and cultural relations. The food system context across semi-arid sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is one of significant environmental, political, socio-economic and cultural diversity. However, the region is regarded as being among the world's most food-insecure (Umetsu et al. 2014; Sutherland et al. 1999). Compounding threats, such as climate change, environmental degradation and increasing populations, have left many marginal communities vulnerable to food and nutritional insecurity (Mugari et al. 2020). This insecurity is further compounded by globalization and the homogenization of the food system, both of which have relegated many African indigenous crops, which are suited to these environments, to the status of neglected and under-utilized species (Chivenge et al. 2015).

Across SSA, food systems rely primarily on the staple food crop production of a few major crops and a few minor or endemic food crops (including under-utilized species) (Leff et al. 2004). Cereal staple crops such as maize, sorghum, wheat and pearl millet are grown and consumed extensively by rural farmers across the region
(Lal 2016; van Ittersum et al. 2016; Hadebe et al. 2017; Bvenura and Sivakumar 2017). However, rural farmers also rely on indigenous crops and associated knowledge systems to ensure their food security (Mabhaudhi et al. 2019b). They augment field crop harvests with different types of seasonal edible wild fruits, vegetables, and roots identified, harvested and processed using indigenous knowledge.

Rural farmers, usually women, are generally regarded as the custodians of underutilized indigenous and traditional crops and the knowledge of their cultivation and use. It is generally recognized that, although indigenous food plants have, in the past, played an important role in the diet of African communities, the industrialization of food systems and formalization of markets has resulted in a decline in the use of African indigenous and traditional food crops. Also, in most cases, the promotion of Green Revolution technologies has inadvertently exacerbated inequalities and food insecurity. For example, in the 2000s, and after the massive roll-out of hybrid technologies, evidence from Rwanda (Dawson et al. 2016) and Ghana (Vercillo et al. 2020) showed significant growth in agriculture's contribution to the GDP. However, this was accompanied by greater inequalities and food insecurity for rural communities.

On the other hand, reports suggest that under-utilized crops offer a pathway to a more sustainable and equitable agricultural system for SSA, capable of addressing several SDGs related to socio-economic and socio-ecological wellbeing (Mabhaudhi et al. 2016). Researchers argue that one of the unintended outcomes of the global agro-industrial food system has been the replacement, and subsequent relegation, of under- = utilized indigenous and traditional crops through the introduction of exotic and (now considered) “major” crops that were often higher-yielding, but also more input-intensive. This has led to the neglect of traditional crop species that had previously formed the basis of local indigenous food systems, which were resilient, sustainable and healthy.

Despite the lack of support, many smallholder farmers use indigenous crop species as nutritious foods that support cultural and ecosystem services. Many of these crops are favored in local markets for both household consumption and as medicines (Chandrasekara et al. 2016). Using traditional methods and knowledge, farmers select, harvest, store and trade indigenous crop varieties that possess desirable nutritional, medicinal and pharmaceutical properties (Dansi et al. 2012). Decades of research have shown that indigenous crops and associated knowledge-systems can improve food and nutritional security in marginal environments. However, it is important to identify traditional tools and strategies that can help address production constraints within marginal farming communities when integrated with modern and digital technologies.

**Humid (Tropical, Rainforests)** Tropical rainforests are home to many indigenous people and serve as a lifeline for many forest-dependent communities. While not all are indigenous, indicative estimates show that, globally, there are approximately 1.3 billion forest-dependent peoples (Chao 2012). Their food systems are complex chains of production, distribution, consumption, recirculation of food refuse, and the acquisition of trusted foods and ingredients from other populations built on a
diversity of local or traditional practices for ecosystem management. These practices include multicropping, resource rotation, succession management, landscape patchiness management, and various methods of managing unpredictable ecological surprises (Whyte 2015; Berkes et al. 2000). Social mechanisms behind these practices include adaptations for the generation, accumulation, and transmission of knowledge; the use of local stewards and rules for social regulation; mechanisms for cultural internalization of traditional practices; and the development of appropriate world views and cultural values (Wiersum 1997; Kuhnlein and Receveur 1996). Resources are collectively managed, relying on group decisions, often by consensus and involving elders (Garí 2001). As the result of a constant struggle between modernization and survival, indigenous peoples have developed flexible strategies to maintain relatively stable and sustainable food systems that are biodiverse, resilient, and long-serving. While there is ample variation in the practices of each indigenous community living in the humid tropics, they share certain similarities in adaptive management. These include an emphasis on feedback learning, the treatment of uncertainty and unpredictability and resilience mechanisms that confer obvious advantages over conventional “modern” productive models (Toledo et al. 2003; Wilson and Woodrow 2009; Goldsmith 2012).

Tropical rainforests cover only a small part of the earth’s surface (about 7%), yet house over half the species of plants and animals on the planet (Lima et al. 2020). High deforestation rates result in a significant reduction in the area and geography of mature tropical forests and a loss of diversity of tropical forest species (UN DESA 2009). As a consequence, many native societies of the rainforest have already been destroyed, and those cultures that still exist face a grim future due to poor policies and practices (Ohenjo et al. 2006). Indigenous peoples experience extreme disparities compared with greater-than-global averages in obesity, undernutrition and micronutrient malnutrition, as well as other health gaps that are grounded in poverty and marginalization (Port Lourenço et al. 2008; Companion 2013; Davis and Wali 1994).

Conflicts of land tenure and assimilationist policies have compelled and compounded the migration of indigenous peoples to urban areas (Hansungule and Jegede 2014; Xanthaki 2003; Lin 1994). This exodus contributes to their inability to realize sustainable diets based on local species and traditional knowledge (Kuhnlein 2003; Dounias et al. 2007; Dounias and Froment 2011; Berbesque et al. 2014; Powell et al. 2015; van Vliet et al. 2015; Ickowitz et al. 2016; Crittenden and Schnorr 2017; Kraft et al. 2018; Bethancourt et al. 2019; Reyes-García et al. 2019; Fernández 2020). Consequently, their vast knowledge and guardianship of 80% of global species diversity is also diminished and lost (FAO 2017). Not only are forest-dwelling cultures losing their forests, they are also losing their next generations to whom they would pass on the traditional indigenous knowledge and practices built over generations. There is a critical urgency to act before the current living generation of knowledge-holders and the species that they have inherited are lost forever. Recognizing this importance, there have been sporadic efforts to document this knowledge, resulting in highly variable data that lack workability and comparability (Agrawal 2002; Ngulube 2002; Quek and Friis-Hansen 2011; Naming et al. 2010;
Shapi et al. 2011). This piecemeal approach highlights the need for a global knowledge base of indigenous species and systems and the design of systematic approaches and methods of data collection and observation. As well as the continuing efforts to reverse the dispossession and marginalization of indigenous peoples, the recognition of their roles and knowledge should be increasingly advocated, not only for the benefit of their own communities, but as part of a collective global public good.

Without the contribution of indigenous peoples to international health and sustainability targets, many of the United Nations’ SDGs cannot be achieved, most notably SDG1 (zero poverty anywhere) and SDG2 (food security and improved nutrition). The design of sustainable food systems is also necessary in order to ensure the delivery of healthy, safe, and nutritious foods in both sustainable and equitable ways in an era of changing climates. In each case, the knowledge of indigenous communities can provide essential contributions to sustainable diets and climate-resilient food systems (Kuhnlein et al. 2019).

**Mountains** The mountains and uplands of the world are home to diverse food systems, each with its accompanying repository of indigenous knowledge evolved through generations of empirical experience. In the Hindu Kush Himalaya, rangelands constitute around 60% of the land use, and Yak herding, Angora goat and sheep rearing form the basis of food systems in large parts of the Tibetan Plateau and the higher altitudes (Miller and Craig 1996; Miller 1999). On the southern slopes, transhuman pastoral communities carry out seasonal migrations, their animals grazing in the high-altitude *Bugyals* (pastures) during summer and descending to lower altitudes during the cold winter months (Mitra et al. 2013). The food system of these communities is linked to mixed farming systems across their migratory routes, and food grains are predominantly obtained from farmers in exchange for milk products. Mixed farming systems with cereal-based agriculture and livestock rearing, intricately linked to forests, constitute the food system in the mid-altitudes of western Himalaya. These systems are built around upland cereals – buckwheat, millet, amaranthus - and legumes, complemented with milk and milk products. In the Eastern Himalaya and much of the uplands of Southeast Asia, shifting cultivation, with a rich diversity of cereals, legumes, tubers and leafy vegetables, together with small ruminants, piggery and poultry, constitutes the food system of diverse communities inhabiting the region (Ramakrishnan 1992; Rerkasem and Rerkasem 1995; Cramb et al. 2009; Mertz et al. 2009). Regenerating fallows and young forests also form important constituents of the food system of shifting cultivators (Delang 2006; Cairns 2007; Rodericks 2020). Small pockets of settled agriculture, predominantly consisting of wet terraces and complemented with animal husbandry, and intricate links with forests are also found in pockets of Eastern Himalaya, with the Aji-system of the Apatanis in Arunachal Pradesh, the Zabo system of the Chakesangs of Nagaland and the Buun system of the Khasis of Meghalaya being prominent agricultural systems in a landscape otherwise dominated by shifting cultivation (Kumar and Ramakrishnan 1990; Agarwal and Narain 1995; Sundriyal and Dollo 2013; Mulyoutami et al. 2009). Further south, in the uplands of Southeast
Asia, Forest Gardens complement shifting cultivation and wet paddy systems constituting an important part of food systems of upland communities in Indonesia (Mulyoutami et al. 2009).

Knowledge systems and traditional practices associated with food systems of indigenous communities are rich. They reflect a deep understanding of crop, soil and water dynamics and the functioning of the surrounding environment. Animal husbandry and rangeland management of pastoralists centered around rotational grazing suggest an understanding of the carrying capacity of rangelands and high-altitude meadows. The intricate link between agriculture, animal husbandry and forests found in western Himalayan mixed farming systems similarly reflect an understanding of the link among forest litter, animal dung, nutrient management and crop productivity. Indigenous knowledge of shifting cultivators suggests a robust risk management strategy and underlies the conservation and management of a wide diversity of crops, together with a range of landraces. Food systems of these communities also extend to fallow management and indicate an indigenous understanding of the food and nutritional value of wild edibles and animal products supported by regenerating fallows and forests. The indigenous knowledge of shifting cultivators also includes weed management and traditional knowledge of soil management practices, including an understanding of crops best suited to each soil condition. This indigenous knowledge base offers opportunities for developing solutions to several of the challenges arising out of land degradation and climate-induced stress emerging in present-day upland agriculture. Indigenous food systems and the knowledge associated with such systems are under threat today. With the transition to commercially important monocropping driven by markets and a policy promoting commercialization and homogenization, indigenous food systems are rapidly being replaced by cash crop plantations and commercial agriculture (Fox et al. 2009; van Vliet et al. 2012). The rapid erosion of agro-germplasm has serious consequences for ensuring food and nutritional security of the future, as many of the crops found in food systems of the mountains are not only recognized future smart crops, but also important as ‘building blocks’ for developing stress-tolerant, nutrient-dense crops of the future crucial for ensuring food and nutritional security and attaining Zero Hunger (Kadambot et al. 2021).

## 4.1 Innovations and Investment Opportunities

Current agricultural policies promote staple crops for mainstream agriculture in favorable areas. This has been at the expense of indigenous and under-utilized crops, many of which are well adapted to hostile environments and yield nutritious products. Many favored agricultural lands have reached their saturation potential, are often overexploited due to demographic pressure, and are increasingly impacted by climate change. If we are to nourish more people on a hotter planet, marginal regions will have to play a more significant role in food systems. However, the current promotion of healthier diets and sustainable food systems has excluded indigenous