No abstract

No abstract

Emerging information on the interactions between the COVID-19 pandemic and global food systems have highlighted how the pandemic is accentuating food crises across Africa. Less clear, however, are how the impacts differ between farming systems. Drawing on 50 key informant interviews with farmers, village leaders and extension officers in South Africa and Tanzania, we identify the effects of COVID-19 and associated measures to curb the spread of the disease on farming production systems, the coping mechanisms adopted by farmers, and explore their longer-term plans for adaptation. We focus on a diverse range of production systems, from small-scale mixed farming systems in Tanzania to large-scale corporate farms in South Africa. Our findings highlight how COVID-19 restrictions have interrupted the supply chains of agricultural inputs and commodities, increasing the storage time for produce, decreasing income and purchasing power, and reducing labour availability. Farmers’ responses were heterogeneous, with highly diverse small-scale farming systems and those less engaged with international markets least affected by the associated COVID-19 measures. Large-scale farmers were most able to access capital to buffer short-term impacts, whereas smaller-scale farms shared labour, diversified to subsistence produce and sold assets. However, compounded shocks, such as recent extreme climate events, limited the available coping options, particularly for smaller-scale and emerging farmers. The study highlights the need to understand the characteristics of farm systems to better equip and support farmers, particularly in contexts of uncertainty. We propose that policy actions should focus on (i) providing temporary relief and social support and protection to financially vulnerable stakeholders, (ii) job assurance for farmworkers and engaging an alternative workforce in farming, (iii) investing in farming infrastructure, such as storage facilities, digital communication tools and extension services, and (iv) supporting diversified agroecological farming systems.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Global interest and investment in food system transformation should be accompanied by critical analysis of its justice implications. Multiple forms of injustice, and the potential role that research might play in exacerbating these, are key considerations for those engaging with food system transformation and justice.

Intensifying land use is often seen as a corollary of improving rural livelihoods in developing countries. However, land use intensification (LUI) frequently has unintended impacts on ecosystem services (ES), which may undermine the livelihoods of the same people who could benefit from intensification. Poorer households are disproportionately dependent on ES, so inequalities may also rise. A disaggregated analysis of LUI is thus fundamental to better understand how LUI can progress in an equitable manner. Using a suite of multiscale, multidisciplinary social-ecological methods and operationalising multidimensional concepts of land use intensity and wellbeing, we examine three case studies in rural Mozambique. Drawing on qualitative focus group discussions, 1576 household surveys and geospatial data from 27 Mozambican villages, we assess how wellbeing and inequality change with three common LUI pathways: transitions to smallholder commercial crop production, charcoal production, and subsistence expansion. Wellbeing improved with intensification of smallholder commercial and subsistence agriculture, inequality did not change. Intensification of unsustainable charcoal production showed no overall effect on either wellbeing or inequality. Improvements in wellbeing amongst the poorest households were only found with intensification of commercial crop production where villages had highly accessible markets. Our findings suggest that socioeconomic benefits from agricultural intensification and expansion may overcome localised environmental trade-offs, at least in the short term. However, unsustainable charcoal resource management and limited productive investment opportunities for rural households resulted in both reduced market access and limited wellbeing improvements. Sustainable and inclusive markets are therefore crucial developments alongside LUI to sustain wellbeing improvements for all households, to ensure that no one is left behind.