Transitioning To Zero Hunger - SDG 2 - HBK

Transitioning to
Zero Hunger
Transitioning to Sustainability Series: Volume 2
Series Editor: Manfred Max Bergman
Volumes in the series:
Volume 1: Transitioning to No Poverty Volume 10: Transitioning to Reduced

ISBN 978-3-03897-860-2 (Hbk); Inequalities
ISBN 978-3-03897-861-9 (PDF) ISBN 978-3-03921-160-9 (Hbk);
ISBN 978-3-03921-161-6 (PDF)
Volume 2: Transitioning to Zero Hunger
ISBN 978-3-03897-862-6 (Hbk); Volume 11: Transitioning to Sustainable
ISBN 978-3-03897-863-3 (PDF) Cities and Communities
ISBN 978-3-03897-870-1 (Hbk);
Volume 3: Transitioning to Good Health ISBN 978-3-03897-871-8 (PDF)
and Well-Being
ISBN 978-3-03897-864-0 (Hbk); Volume 12: Transitioning to Responsible
ISBN 978-3-03897-865-7 (PDF) Consumption and Production
ISBN 978-3-03897-872-5 (Hbk);
Volume 4: Transitioning to Quality ISBN 978-3-03897-873-2 (PDF)
Education
ISBN 978-3-03897-892-3 (Hbk); Volume 13: Transitioning to Climate Action
ISBN 978-3-03897-893-0 (PDF) ISBN 978-3-03897-874-9 (Hbk);
ISBN 978-3-03897-875-6 (PDF)
Volume 5: Transitioning to Gender Equality
ISBN 978-3-03897-867-1 (PDF) Life below Water
ISBN 978-3-03897-876-3 (Hbk);
Volume 6: Transitioning to Clean Water ISBN 978-3-03897-877-0 (PDF)
and Sanitation
ISBN 978-3-03897-775-9 (PDF) Life on Land
ISBN 978-3-03897-878-7 (Hbk);
Volume 7: Transitioning to Affordable and ISBN 978-3-03897-879-4 (PDF)
Clean Energy
ISBN 978-3-03897-776-6 (Hbk); Volume 16: Transitioning to Peace, Justice
ISBN 978-3-03897-777-3 (PDF) and Strong Institutions
ISBN 978-3-03897-880-0 (Hbk);
Volume 8: Transitioning to Decent Work ISBN 978-3-03897-881-7 (PDF)
and Economic Growth
ISBN 978-3-03897-778-0 (Hbk); Volume 17: Transitioning to Strong
ISBN 978-3-03897-779-7 (PDF) Partnerships for the Sustainable
Development Goals
Volume 9: Transitioning to Sustainable ISBN 978-3-03897-882-4 (Hbk);
Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure ISBN 978-3-03897-883-1 (PDF)
ISBN 978-3-03897-868-8 (Hbk);
ISBN 978-3-03897-869-5 (PDF)
Delwendé Innocent Kiba (Ed.)
Transitioning to
Zero Hunger
Transitioning to Sustainability Series
MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tianjin • Tokyo • Cluj
EDITOR EDITORIAL OFFICE
Delwendé Innocent Kiba MDPI
Centre National de Recherche Scientifique St. Alban-Anlage 66
et Technologique (CNRST) 4052 Basel, Switzerland
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated below:
Author 1, and Author 2. 2023. Chapter Title. In Transitioning to Zero Hunger. Edited by
Delwendé Innocent Kiba. Transitioning to Sustainability Series 2. Basel: MDPI, Page Range.
© 2023 by the authors. Chapters in this

volume are Open Access and distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY 4.0) license, which allows users to
download, copy and build upon published
articles, as long as the author and publisher
are properly credited, which ensures
maximum dissemination and a wider ISBN 978-3-03897-862-6 (Hbk)
impact of our publications. ISBN 978-3-03897-863-3 (PDF)
The book taken as a whole is distributed by ISSN: 2624-9324 (Print)
MDPI under the terms and conditions of the ISSN: 2624-9332 (Online)
Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-863-3
Contents
About the Editor vii

Contributors ix
Abstracts xi
1 Preface to Transitioning to Zero Hunger 1

DELWENDÉ INNOCENT KIBA
2 Challenges for Zero Hunger (SDG 2): Links with Other SDGs 9
RAMONA LILE, MONICA OCNEAN AND IOANA MIHAELA BALAN
3 The Power of Social Capital to Address Structural Factors of Hunger 67

GIAN L. NICOLAY
4 The Implications of Agroecology and Conventional Agriculture for 95

Food Security and the Environment in Africa
TERENCE EPULE EPULE AND ABDELGHANI CHEHBOUNI
5 Agroforestry: An Avenue for Resilient and Productive Farming through 115

Integrated Crops and Livestock Production
NUWANDHYA S. DISSANAYAKA, SHASHI S. UDUMANN, THARINDU D.
NUWARAPAKSHA AND ANJANA J. ATAPATTU
6 Improving the Diversity of Native Edible Plants and Traditional Food 137
and Agriculture Practices for Sustainable Food Security in the Future
PERMANI C. WEERASEKARA AND ANGELIKA PLOEGER
7 Eliminating Hunger: Yam for Improved Income and Food Security in West 175
Africa
BEATRICE AIGHEWI, NORBERT MAROYA, ROBERT ASIEDU,
DJANA MIGNOUNA, MORUFAT BALOGUN AND P. LAVA KUMAR
8 Coconut-Based Livestock Farming: A Sustainable Approach to Enhancing 197

Food Security in Sri Lanka
THARINDU D. NUWARAPAKSHA, SHASHI S. UDUMANN, NUWANDHYA S.
DISSANAYAKA AND ANJANA J. ATAPATTU
9 Approaches to Limiting Food Loss and Food Waste 215

IOANA MIHAELA BALAN, TEODOR IOAN TRASCA, IOAN BRAD,
NASTASIA BELC, CAMELIA TULCAN, BOGDAN PETRU RADOI AND
ALEXANDRU ERNE RINOVETZ
About the Editor
Delwendé Innocent Kiba, former Minister of Agriculture and Animal
Resources, is a soil scientist at the Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches
Agricoles (INERA) in Burkina Faso. He completed his PhD on Rural Development
at the Polytechnic University of Bobo-Dioulasso (UPB) in 2012. Thereafter, he
completed a postdoc in the Group of Plant Nutrition at ETH Zurich in Switzerland.
From 2014 to 2021, he was the overall coordinator of a project on sustainable soil use
in yam systems in West Africa (YAMSYS project). Kiba has co-authored numerous
publications on integrated soil fertility management in Africa and has given
numerous communications around the world. He has trained numerous students
(BSc, Ing., MSc, PhD). In addition to his work as a researcher, he was the general
secretary of the Soil Science Society of Burkina Faso from 2014 to 2017 and the
president of this society since 2017. Kiba’s research has been distinguished several
times, including the scientific prize of the Belgian Development Cooperation in
2007, the Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship in 2007, scientific prizes at the
Forum of Science Innovation and Technology (FRSIT) in Burkina Faso, finalist at
the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) scientific competition in
2010, and a co-recipient of the CSRS-Fond Eremitage award in 2019 for his active
participation in partnership research. He is affiliated with the African Academy of
Science (2021–2025).
vii
Contributors
ABDELGHANI CHEHBOUNI GIAN L. NICOLAY
PhD, International Water Research Institute MSc, Africa coordinator, Research Institute
(IWRI), Mohammed VI Polytechnic of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick,
University (UM6P), Benguerir, Morocco. Switzerland.
ALEXANDRU ERNE RINOVETZ IOANA MIHAELA BALAN

PhD, Faculty of Food Engineering, Assoc. Prof., Faculty of Management
University of Life Sciences “King Michael and Rural Tourism, University of Life
I” from Timisoara, Romania. Sciences “King Michael I” from Timisoara,
Timisoara, Romania.
ANGELIKA PLOEGER
Prof., Specialized Partnerships in IOAN BRAD
Sustainable Food Systems and Food Prof., Faculty of Management and Rural
Sovereignty, Faculty of Organic Tourism, University of Life Sciences “King
Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Michael I” from Timisoara, Romania.
Witzenhausen, Germany.
MONICA OCNEAN
ANJANA J. ATAPATTU Dr., University of Life Sciences “King
Dr., Agronomy Division, Coconut Research Michael I” from Timisoara, Romania.
Institute of Sri Lanka, Lunuwila, Sri Lanka.
MORUFAT BALOGUN
BEATRICE AIGHEWI Assoc. Prof., University of Ibadan, Ibadan,
Assoc. Prof., Department of Tropical Nigeria;
Agriculture, International Institute of International Institute of Tropical
Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.
BOGDAN PETRU RADOI NASTASIA BELC

Assoc. Prof., Faculty of Biotechnology,
PhD, Faculty of Food Engineering,
University of Agronomy and Veterinary
University of Life Sciences “King Michael
Medicine, Bucharest, Romania.
I” from Timisoara, Romania.
NORBERT MAROYA
CAMELIA TULCAN
Dr., International Institute of Tropical
Prof., Faculty of Engineering and Applied
Agriculture (IITA), Cotonou, Republic of
Technologies, University of Life Sciences
Benin.
“King Michael I” from Timisoara,
Romania.
PERMANI C. WEERASEKARA
Dr., Specialized Partnerships in Sustainable
DJANA MIGNOUNA
Food Systems and Food Sovereignty,
PhD, International Institute of Tropical Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences,
Agriculture (IITA), Cotonou, Republic of University of Kassel, Witzenhausen,
Benin. Germany.
NUWANDHYA S. DISSANAYAKA P. LAVA KUMAR
MSc (Reading), Agronomy Division, PhD, International Institute of Tropical
Coconut Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.
Lunuwila, Sri Lanka.
ix
RAMONA LILE
Prof., Faculty of Economics, “Aurel Vlaicu”
University of Arad, Arad, Romania.
ROBERT ASIEDU
Dr., International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.
SHASHI S. UDUMANN
MSc (Reading), Agronomy Division,
Coconut Research Institute of Sri Lanka,
Lunuwila, Sri Lanka.
THARINDU D. NUWARAPAKSHA
M.AETM, Agronomy Division, Coconut
Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Lunuwila,
Sri Lanka.
TEODOR IOAN TRASCA

Prof., Faculty of Food Engineering,
University of Life Sciences “King Michael I”
from Timisoara, Romania.
TERENCE EPULE EPULE

Dr., International Water Research Institute
(IWRI), Mohammed VI Polytechnic
University (UM6P), Benguerir, Morocco.
x
Abstracts
Preface to Transitioning to Zero Hunger

by Delwendé Innocent Kiba
Food insecurity remains a global concern, with challenges exacerbated by

social and health crises, namely the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical conflicts.
Experts agree that food security requires coordinated efforts for a transition to
zero hunger. Despite technological advances, agrifood systems still face significant
hidden costs linked to environmental, social, and health problems. Efforts to
address food security are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
adopted in 2015, but the FAO estimates that nearly 670 million people will still
suffer from hunger in 2030. This book explores the quest for a world with access
to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food, focusing on the need for inclusive, resilient,
and sustainable agrifood systems. It analyzes the drivers of hunger and the
sustainability of food production, offering pathways for a transition to zero hunger.
The chapters examine the links between SDG 2 and the other SDGs, the role of social
capital, and agroecology, presenting case studies on agroforestry, agrobiodiversity,
yam farming in West Africa, livestock farming integrated with coconut production
in Sri Lanka, and approaches to limit food waste.
Challenges for Zero Hunger (SDG 2): Links with Other SDGs
by Ramona Lile, Monica Ocnean, and Ioana Mihaela Balan
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ratified by the United Nations

General Assembly in September 2015, embody a set of 17 objectives designed to
address the world’s most urgent challenges. SDG 2: Zero Hunger is intricately
linked with all other SDGs, aiming not only to eliminate global hunger but also
to collectively achieve the broader spectrum of all other SDGs. In this context, it
becomes imperative to address and resolve issues encompassing poverty, health,
education, inequality, and climate change in a comprehensive manner, while
fostering equitable development. SDG 2: Zero Hunger centers on the elimination
of hunger and malnutrition, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, and
enhancing productivity and incomes for smallholder farmers and food producers,
particularly in developing nations. Accomplishing these targets hinges on the
xi
development of resilient food systems, the promotion of innovative agricultural
technologies, including those geared towards climate resilience. SDG 2: Zero
Hunger encounters multifaceted challenges arising from climate change impacts,
rapid urbanization, and the imperative to foster sustainable agricultural practices
while reducing disparities. These challenges are inherently intertwined with the
goals of the broader SDGs framework, necessitating cooperative efforts, innovative
approaches, and concerted actions to guarantee global food security and
establish a sustainable and equitable future for all of humanity. This book chapter
underscores the undeniable direct and indirect links of SDG 2: Zero Hunger with
the entire spectrum of SDGs, substantiated through tangible examples, but also
the deficiencies and slow pace of progress. It also underscores the significance of a
holistic and integrated approach, emphasizing the need to address SDG 2 and its
complementary objectives in a synergistic manner, thereby facilitating tangible and
lasting progress towards a more promising future.
The Power of Social Capital to Address Structural Factors of

Hunger
by Gian L. Nicolay
This essay contributes to the theory of the current crises of the world food
system and agriculture, including persistent hunger. It is organized into seven
chapters and develops the critical importance of social capital in ending hunger.
The introduction highlights the importance of a theoretical understanding of
this issue to address the well-known symptoms under the guidance of the FAO.
Then, the commonly agreed upon five groups of structural factors of hunger are
recalled: poverty; wars and pandemics; gender, age, and race; divided societies; and
finally capitalist-driven economies including land grabbing. Thirdly, the concept
of social capital is proposed as related to social networks and social systems, and
the consequences of its neglect as a hunger parameter are explained. Agroecology,
often considered the solution since 2008, is critically analyzed and compared with
the food regime based on industrial agriculture. These two regimes are confronted
with a third method, applying the morphological analyses invented by Zwicky. The
surprising results are further developed into proposals on how social capital can
be created and used to end hunger. The essay develops around the main discourses
since the IAASTD report, the food crises of 2008, and the required transformation
into more sustainable forms. Social science and the concepts of social systems are
essential in this narrative. We see the underdeveloped social capital, particularly
xii
social networks and other local institutions related to national policies at the local
and rural levels, as a critical parameter and indicator to predict hunger or food and
nutrition insecurity. Empirical studies and experiments from the author’s research
and work in Africa support this short and dense essay, hoping to contribute to a
better understanding of ending hunger before 2050.
The Implications of Agroecology and Conventional Agriculture for

Food Security and the Environment in Africa
by Terence Epule Epule and Abdelghani Chehbouni
As global climate continues to change, changes need to be made in our

production systems to ensure global food production. These constraints are
daunting in Africa, as Africa is the most vulnerable region to climate change and
variability. Agroecology provides a unique opportunity for Africa to achieve the
twin challenges of food security and environmental resilience. This chapter aims at
examining the relative contributions of agroecology and conventional agriculture
towards resilient food security in Africa. The chapter examines the theoretical
foundations and components of these two paradigms as well as their contributions
to food security in Africa. This chapter also examines the likely benefits and
challenges associated with these systems and discusses in an integrated manner
which of these options offers the most likely resilient agricultural revolution for
Africa. The methodology is based on a bibliometric review of publications in the
grey and peer-reviewed literature on this subject. The compendium of 49 suitable
studies was culled through search engines such as Google Scholar, Scopus, SCI,
and ISI Web of Science. It is observed that agroecology needs more valorization to
be able to match the yields of conventional agriculture in Africa. Since agriculture
in Africa is mostly in the hands of smallholders, production is generally under
natural conditions driven by limited access to conventional production inputs.
Agroecology will require inputs from conventional production to be able to sustain
production, except the system is valorized.
xiii
Agroforestry: An Avenue for Resilient and Productive Farming
through Integrated Crops and Livestock Production
by Nuwandhya S. Dissanayaka, Shashi S. Udumann, Tharindu D. Nuwarapaksha
and Anjana J. Atapattu
The global population is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. With more
mouths to feed, achieving zero hunger becomes even more crucial to ensure
that everyone has access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food. Resilient and
productive farming practices are crucial in attaining this objective and aligning
with Sustainable Development Goal 2. By enhancing food security, promoting
sustainability, supporting rural development, adapting to climate change, and
conserving biodiversity, resilient and productive farming becomes an essential
pathway towards zero hunger, benefiting both present and future generations.
Agroforestry is a versatile, resilient farming approach that can be easily adapted
to most of the cropping systems worldwide. It involves combining trees, crops,
and/or livestock more efficiently and effectively to maximize land utilization
and food production with lower environmental impacts and financial costs.
This chapter provides an overview of different agroforestry systems suitable for
resilient farming. It explores criteria for selecting and managing appropriate plant
and animal species in agroforestry systems, highlighting the potential benefits in
terms of land utilization and food production while minimizing financial costs
and environmental impact. The chapter also explores the role of agroforestry in
biodiversity preservation, climate change adaptation and mitigation, economic
feasibility, and scaling up for resilient and productive farming.
Improving the Diversity of Native Edible Plants and Traditional

Food and Agriculture Practices for Sustainable Food Security in
the Future
by Permani C. Weerasekara and Angelika Ploeger
By the year 2030, agriculture will have to provide the food and nutrition
requirements of some eight billion people. These include eradicating hunger,
improving access to food, ending all forms of malnutrition, promoting sustainable
agriculture, and preserving food diversity. Food security is one of the global
challenges. Simultaneously, research and development are focused on improving
the productivity of a small number of existing crops that will improve global food
xiv
production instead of increasing the diversity of crops. The result is the loss of
agrobiodiversity. Humans cultivate about 150 of the estimated 30,000 species of
edible plants worldwide, and most of our diets consist of just 30 species. New
commercial crops and local wild plants can diversify global food production and
better allow local acclimation to the diverse environment humans inhabit. We
consider the values of and advantages and barriers to using local traditional food
plants and knowledge in Sri Lanka. Also, we examine the missed opportunity
to commercially produce local wild plants in Sri Lanka. We examine how wild
species have been determined to improve crop varieties and where efforts must
be concentrated to harness their value in the future. This chapter aims to improve
the use of traditional food plants through the diversification of food for sustainable
food production and practices in Sri Lanka. This will benefit fighting hunger and
improve sustainable biodiversity.
Eliminating Hunger: Yam for Improved Income and Food Security

in West Africa
by Beatrice Aighewi, Norbert Maroya, Robert Asiedu, Djana Mignouna, Morufat
Balogun and P. Lava Kumar
Yam, Dioscorea spp., is a valuable vegetatively propagated crop grown

in many parts of the tropics. In West Africa, the species Dioscorea rotundata is a
nutritious staple and provides food security and a means of livelihood to millions
of people. Yam is produced mainly by smallholder farmers using local landraces
with limited inputs. Increased annual production is attained by increasing the
area while productivity is low and stagnated. Significant contributors to the low
productivity include unavailability, high cost, poor quality of planting material,
nematode and viral infections, and declining soil fertility. The multiplication ratio
of yam in traditional production methods is low (1:3). Seed to replant the same
size of field harvested consumes about a third of the total production, i.e., about
23.6 million tonnes out of 70.8 million tonnes of the annual production of the West
African sub-region are reserved for planting the next crop. Improving the seed
yam multiplication ratio and productivity will improve the availability of more
yams for food. The initiative “Yam Improvement for Income and Food Security in
West Africa (YIIFSWA)” has developed new strategies for improved propagation of
quality yam planting materials and increased the multiplication ratio to 1:300 using
nodal vine cuttings from plants produced in hydroponic systems instead of tubers,
thereby releasing more tubers for food use. By using improved yam varieties with
xv
good agronomic practices as well as nematode and viral disease management,
the productivity of yam is improved. These improvements have great potential to
enhance food security and alleviate hunger and poverty.
Coconut-Based Livestock Farming: A Sustainable Approach to

Enhancing Food Security in Sri Lanka
by Tharindu D. Nuwarapaksha, Shashi S. Udumann, Nuwandhya S. Dissanayaka
Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) cultivation in Sri Lanka holds a significant position
in the agricultural landscape of the country, contributing to the social, economic,
and cultural lives of millions. Coconut-based livestock farming is an innovative
and sustainable approach that combines coconut cultivation with livestock
rearing to enhance food security and promote environmental sustainability.
This chapter provides an overview of the potential benefits, challenges, and
relevance of coconut-based livestock farming systems in achieving the sustainable
development goals (SDGs), particularly in relation to food security in Sri Lanka.
Coconut–livestock integration is a farming system that aims to establish a
synergistic relationship between livestock and coconut by integrating them on
the same land. This approach can be implemented in various forms, including
agroforestry, silvopastoral systems, mixed crop–livestock systems, and integrated
crop–livestock systems. The cultivation of forage crops in coconut plantations has
been identified as a substantial agricultural endeavor, presenting opportunities
for sustainable practices and livestock development. Fodder production and
conservation on coconut land, particularly through silage, are explored as crucial
components of coconut-based livestock farming. This chapter underscores the role
of this integrated approach in achieving the SDGs related to poverty eradication,
sustainable agriculture, responsible consumption, climate change mitigation, and
biodiversity conservation. Moreover, these systems play a key role in achieving
SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and its associated objectives, while also contributing to SDG
8, SDG 12, SDG 13, SDG 15, and SDG 17. The study concludes by highlighting the
potential of coconut-based livestock farming to contribute to the SDGs and promote
sustainable and inclusive agricultural practices in Sri Lanka.
xvi
Approaches to Limiting Food Loss and Food Waste
by Ioana Mihaela Balan, Teodor Ioan Trasca, Ioan Brad, Nastasia Belc, Camelia
Tulcan, Bogdan Petru Radoi and Alexandru Erne Rinovetz
Considering the general context of food loss and waste, the year 2011 marked
a significant turning point, with data published by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimating that more than a third of the
world’s food production is lost or wasted throughout the food chain. Alarmingly,
this situation persisted for over a decade, until 2022, showing a regressive trajectory
rather than improvement. This trend has had negative consequences, impacting
economic, social, and environmental conditions, although an exact quantification of
its effects remains elusive at present. Within this framework, the tandem challenges
of food loss and food waste have emerged as important issues within global food
systems, perpetuating a cycle of generating substantial volumes of edible food waste
annually. The current chapter introduces a holistic approach designed to address
the intricate facets of food loss and food waste across all stages of the food chain.
In this context, this chapter proposes key and complementary measures aimed at
mitigating these negative effects within relevant stages of the food chain. While the
chapter does not propose to offer an exhaustive analysis, it nonetheless synthesizes
the worldwide scenario, supplemented by a detailed illustration of the situation in
Romania as a representative model. The research methodology involved both the
examination of external data and the authors’ own published data. The chapter’s
overarching conclusion underscores the resounding significance: in the context
of Sustainable Development Goal 2—Zero Hunger, the reduction in food loss and
food waste emerges as a solution for increasing quantities of available food for
global population. This approach holds a dual boon, benefiting the environment
by reducing water and land resource consumption and subsequently reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The outcomes will provide increased productivity,
catalyze economic growth, and produce more sustainable societies.
xvii
Preface to Transition to Zero Hunger
Delwendé Innocent Kiba
1. Introduction
Food insecurity is a worldwide concern. Today, the quest for a world where
everyone has access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food has never been so
crucial. In 2021, around 2.3 billion people were food-insecure, seriously affecting
around 11.7% of the world’s population (FAO et al. 2022). Food insecurity has been
exacerbated by the social and health crises the world has been experiencing since 2019.
The COVID-19 crisis and the Russia–Ukraine conflict have fundamentally affected
food supply both for agricultural products and for the inputs used to produce them.
These crises have disrupted supply chains, limited access to markets, and increased
the vulnerability of marginalized populations (Ben Hassen and El Bilali 2022).
Experts agree that food security can only be achieved through inclusive,
resilient, and sustainable agrifood systems (FAO 2023). Agrifood systems go
beyond simple access to food and encompass the entire food chain, including the
production, processing, distribution, and consumption of agricultural and food
products (Neik et al. 2023). Agrifood systems are weakened by climate change, the
loss of biodiversity, and rising poverty. Although advancements in technology offer
promising avenues to enhance food production while minimizing environmental
impact (Foley et al. 2011), agrifood systems still generate significant hidden costs
linked to environmental, social, and health problems, as stated in the 2023 report of
the FAO.
Since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, efforts and initiatives to promote
sustainable agriculture, ensure food and nutrition security and eradicate hunger
have been deployed around the world. Today, there are many signs that the "zero
hunger" objective set out in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will not be
achieved. The FAO estimates that nearly 670 million people will still be suffering
from hunger in 2030. This was made clear at the UN Summit on Food Systems in
2021, where several nations made a firm commitment to implement policies aimed
at transforming agrifood systems.
This book analyzes the factors behind hunger and the sustainability of food
production, and highlights approaches aimed at a transition to zero hunger.
Chapter 1 deals exhaustively with the links between SDG 2 and the other
SDGs, in particular the global resolution of problems such as poverty, health,
1
education, and climate change, while Chapter 2 highlights the essential role of
social capital in combating the structural factors of hunger and provides a critical
analysis of agroecology. The analyses of agroecology and conventional food
production are expanded in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the resilience
and productivity of production systems and their sustainability, with a particular
focus on agroforestry and agrobiodiversity. Chapters 6 and 7 deal with case studies
of yam farming in West Africa and coconut-based livestock farming in Sri Lanka,
respectively, as contributions to achieving food security and improving people’s
incomes. Finally, in Chapter 8, approaches aimed at limiting food waste are
presented as solutions for achieving the "Zero Hunger" objective while contributing
to environmental sustainability.
2. Highlights
2.1. Pathways to Zero Hunger

SDG 2 aims to eradicate hunger and ensure food and nutritional security by
2030. Achieving this goal necessarily involves a phase of promoting sustainable food
production. This transition phase towards zero hunger requires tackling various
issues relating to the production, distribution, access, and use of foodstuffs. The
transition to zero hunger will undoubtedly require coordinated efforts at the national,
regional, and international level, with complex and multi-faceted challenges to
reconcile increased agricultural productivity with environmental protection and
global social and economic objectives (Okello et al. 2021). To this must be added
efforts to guarantee physical and economic access to sufficient, healthy, and nutritious
food, considering individual food preferences. Today, more than ever, it is necessary
to integrate nutrition into food production, as malnutrition is recognized as a global
phenomenon affecting both underdeveloped and developed countries (Beyerlee and
Fanzo 2019). It is important to consider indigenous food systems, particularly the
development of traditional crops that are often best adapted to their biophysical,
socio-economic, and cultural contexts, but which have unfortunately been neglected
until now (FAO 2022). In addition, the production of healthy, balanced, and
sufficient food requires access to innovations and technologies such as precision
agriculture, digital technologies, biotechnologies, and innovative solutions for the
storage and transport of foodstuffs. Access to innovations does not guarantee their
adoption by stakeholders. The adoption of innovations requires a good connection
between research and development through a transdisciplinary approach that enables
them to be co-created and correspond to the real needs of stakeholders. (Kiba
et al. 2020; Jacobi et al. 2022). Participatory and adaptive solutions that consider
2
local institutional capacities, the diversification of agroecosystems and ecological
management, and the quality of local diets should therefore be favored (Blesh et al.
2019). Sustainable land management is essential if the world is to achieve food
security. Soil, an essential support for agricultural production, is being degraded at
an exponential rate, although the extent and impact of this degradation cannot
be accurately assessed. It should be possible to develop a global approach to
disentangle the natural and anthropogenic causes of soil degradation, based on
ecological approaches to production and remote sensing (Bindraban et al. 2012).
None of the approaches toward zero hunger are possible without eradicating
poverty (SDG 1) and inequality (SDG 10) and improving the livelihood of people
(SDG 3). Finally, policy and governance around trade, land tenure, soil health, and
regulations that affect food production and distribution are necessary, as are good
partnerships between governments, non-governmental organizations, businesses,
and the research community to share the necessary knowledge and resources.
2.2. Case Studies

In Chapter 1, Ramona et al. explore the complex relationship between SDG 2
and the other SDGs to identify direct and indirect links. They show that SDG 2 does
not stand alone but is instead closely linked to all the other SDGs. To achieve zero
hunger, the authors stress the urgent need to find answers to the issues of poverty,
health, education, inequality, and climate change in a comprehensive manner. They
point out that given the interconnections between the different SDGs, zero hunger
cannot be achieved through isolated efforts, but rather through a synergy of actions
between government agencies, international organizations, civil society, private
companies, and other stakeholders, each naturally playing its role according to its
area of expertise. The authors suggest that policies and programs to tackle the root
causes of hunger should be formulated transparently and integrated into national
development programs that can be regularly monitored and evaluated.
In Chapter 2, Gian L. Nicolay examines the essential role of social capital in
combating the structural factors contributing to hunger. The author analyzes the
drivers of hunger, including poverty, wars, pandemics, climate change, gender,
age, race, societal divisions, and capitalism. He shows that social capital is a key
parameter for predicting and solving the problem of hunger. These include extension
systems, agencies that link farmers to markets and external agencies, innovation
platforms, farmer field schools, cooperatives, and business groups. According to
the author, these social organizations enable sustainable intensification to succeed
as an important element of the food system in low-income countries and improve
3
economic performance. The author also makes a critical analysis of agroecology,
comparing it with industrial agriculture, and proposes a morphological analysis and
solutions for a sustainable food production.
In Chapter 3, Epule and Chehbouni discuss the implications of agroecology
and conventional agriculture for food security in Africa. They highlight the fact that
the continent faces the daunting challenges of climate change and variability and
examine the contributions, benefits, and challenges associated with agroecology and
conventional agriculture. The authors stress the need to promote agroecology so that
it achieves the same yields as conventional agriculture. However, they recognize the
difficulty of getting out of the agroecology/conventional agriculture dilemma, given
the involvement of several factors in the African context. Looking ahead, the authors
suggest innovations to make conventional agriculture cleaner and more sustainable,
the multiplication of pilot studies on agroecology, and a political approach that is
both bottom-up and top-down to guarantee the success of the various initiatives.
The study by Dissanayaka et al. (Chapter 4) presents agroforestry—combining
trees, crops, and animals—as an important multi-purpose approach for the
productivity and resilience of production systems. They highlight different
agroforestry practices and the potential benefits in terms of land use, food production,
biodiversity conservation, and adaptation to climate change. Factors such as
site selection and planning, component selection, planting, system management
and harvesting, and the use of products are presented as key elements in the
implementation of agroforestry, although these elements may vary according to
the context and objectives. Finally, the authors discuss the limitations of agroforestry
systems and suggest ways of improving them.
Achieving food and nutritional security requires crop diversification, as
demonstrated by the authors Weerasekara and Plooger from Sri Lanka (Chapter
5). In this chapter, the importance of agrobiodiversity and the need to diversify
global food production are discussed, as are the risks of losing this agrobiodiversity.
The authors recommend the use of local traditional food plants to achieve food
and nutritional security. The study identified 85 species of food plants of great
importance. Traditional food preparation and preservation methods are presented
and discussed. From the authors’ analysis, it emerges that traditional local crops are
less costly and more environmentally friendly sources of food, since they are well
adapted to unfavorable climatic and edaphic conditions and have good resistance to
pests and diseases.
In Chapter 6, Aighewi et al. show the potential of a traditional crop such
as yam for achieving food security and improving household incomes in West
4
Africa. They also outline the challenges faced by yam farmers, including poor seed
quality. The authors present an initiative to improve yam production by setting up
formal quality seed production systems as part of the project ‘Yam Improvement
for Income and Food Security in West Africa (YIIFSWA)’. This initiative has led to
the production of certified yam seed and the development of yam seed markets.
Virus detection tools and technologies for eliminating infected sources, as well as
high-ratio propagation technologies, are presented as a strategy for improving yam
seed quality and productivity, thereby contributing to food security and reducing
household poverty.
In Chapter 7, Nuwarapaksha et al. show the importance of integrating coconut
cultivation and livestock production in the Sri Lankan context as an innovative and
sustainable approach offering mutual benefits, including increased productivity,
improved soil health, and reduced dependence on mineral fertilizers. The authors
argue that although this system provides livelihoods for farmers while conserving
natural resources, further research is needed to identify the most appropriate animal
and plant species.
Achieving zero hunger requires good management to minimize food waste.
Chapter 8 by Balan et al. looks at limiting food loss and waste, a pervasive problem
that persists despite global efforts. The authors map food losses around the world.
They highlight the importance of reducing food loss and waste in the context of
SDG 2 and propose key measures to mitigate these challenges at all stages of the
food chain, including production, storage, processing, distribution, retail and food
services, and household losses. Furthermore, the authors believe that it is essential
to identify and assess the factors contributing to food waste to effectively tackle
the problem. This chapter provides useful guidelines for authorities, businesses,
organizations, and consumers to help them adopt sustainable practices and promote
effective food management.
3. Conclusions
The transition to zero hunger calls for innovation throughout the chain of
the agrifood system. This book has examined the links between SDG 2 and the
other SDGs, as well as the role of social capital, agroecology, agroforestry, crop
diversification, innovative farming systems, and reducing food losses as essential
elements in achieving food and nutrition security. The book provides analyses and
solutions from a variety of authors that can be used by policy makers, researchers, and
practitioners engaged in the global effort to combat food and nutrition insecurity. The
5
discussions highlight the need for holistic and collaborative approaches to address
the complex web of challenges associated with achieving SDG 2 and related goals.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
Ben Hassen, Tarek, and Hamid El Bilali. 2022. Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine War on Global
Food Security: Towards More Sustainable and Resilient Food Systems? Foods 11: 2301.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beyerlee, Derek, and Jessica Fanzo. 2019. The SDG of zero hunger 75 years on: Turning full
circle on agriculture and nutrition. Global Food Security 21: 52–59. [CrossRef]
Bindraban, Prem S., Marijn Van Der Velde, Liming Ye, Maurits van den Berg,
Simeon Materechera, Delwendé Innocent Kiba, Lulseged Tamene, Kristín
Vala Ragnarsdóttir, Raymond Jongschaap, Marianne Hoogmoed, and et al. 2012.
Assessing the impact of soil degradation on food production. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 4: 478–88. [CrossRef]
Blesh, Jennifer, Lesli Hoey, Andrew D. Jones, Harriet Friedmann, and Ivette Perfecto. 2019.
Development pathways toward “zero hunger”. World Development 118: 1–14. [CrossRef]
FAO. 2022. The Future of Food and Agriculture: Drivers and Triggers for Transformation.
Available online: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0959en (accessed on 22 October 2023).
FAO. 2023. In Brief to The State of Food and Agriculture 2023: Revealing the True Cost of Food
to Transform Agrifood Systems. Available online: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7937en
(accessed on 24 October 2023).
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2022. In Brief to The State of Food Security and
Nutrition in the World. Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy
Diets More Affordable. Available online: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0640en (accessed
on 22 October 2023).
Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber,
Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Christine O’Connell, Deepak K. Ray, Paul C. West,
and et al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337–42. [CrossRef]
Jacobi, J., A. Llanque, S. M. Mukhovi, E. Birachi, P. von Groote, R. Eschen, I. Hilber-Schöb, D.
I. Kiba, E. Frossard, and C. Robledo-Abad. 2022. Transdisciplinary co-creation increases
the utilization of knowledge from sustainable development research. Environmental
Science & Policy 129: 107–15. [CrossRef]
6
Kiba, Delwendé Innocent, Valérie Kouamé Hgaza, Beatrice Aighewi, Sévérin Aké,
Dominique Barjolle, Thomas Bernet, Lucien N. Diby, Léa Jeanne Ilboudo, Gian Nicolay,
Esther Oka, and et al. 2020. A Transdisciplinary Approach for the Development of
Sustainable Yam (Dioscorea sp.) Production in West Africa. Sustainability 12: 4016.
[CrossRef]
Neik, Ting Xiang, Kadambot H. M. Siddique, Sean Mayes, David Edwards, Jacqueline Batley,
Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, Beng Kah Song, and Festo Massawe. 2023. Diversifying
agrifood systems to ensure global food security following the Russia–Ukraine crisis.
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7: 1124640. [CrossRef]
Okello, Moses, Jimmy Lamo, Mildred Ochwo-Ssemakula, and Francis Onyilo. 2021.
Challenges and innovations in achieving zero hunger and environmental sustainability
through the lens of sub-Saharan Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 50: 141–47. [CrossRef]
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
7
Challenges for Zero Hunger (SDG 2):
Links with Other SDGs
Ramona Lile, Monica Ocnean and Ioana Mihaela Balan
1. Introduction: SDG 2 and Its Integral Connection to the Sustainable

Development Goals Framework
Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comprise a comprehensive framework of
17 interconnected objectives (SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 2: Zero Hunger, SDG 3:
Good Health and Well-being, SDG 4: Quality Education, SDG 5: Gender Equality,
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG 8:
Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure,
SDG 10: Reduced Inequality, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG 12:
Responsible Consumption and Production, SDG 13: Climate Action, SDG 14:
Life Below Water, SDG 15: Life on Land, SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong
Institutions, SDG 17: Partnerships to achieve the Goals). These goals collectively
address some of the most important global challenges, spanning from poverty
and hunger to inequality, climate change, and sustainable economic growth. The
inception of the SDGs can be traced back to the 2012 United Nations Summit on
Sustainable Development, commonly referred to as Rio+20, which underscored the
need for a unified approach to tackle these pressing issues (UN The 17 Goals n.d.;
Otto-Zimmermann 2012).
The process of crafting the SDGs was characterized by inclusivity, involving
governments, the private sector, civil society, and diverse stakeholders on a
global scale. This collaborative endeavor encompassed extensive consultations,
negotiations, and rigorous studies to pinpoint critical concerns and delineate specific
objectives to combat them. The culmination of this process was the unanimous
adoption of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015 by the United
Nations General Assembly, serving as a clarion call for collective action to achieve
these aims by 2030 (UN Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development n.d.).
One pivotal goal within this framework is SDG 2: Zero Hunger, which is
intricately intertwined with all the other SDGs, forming a nexus of interdependence
that underscores the significance of these connections. SDG 2 is dedicated to
9
eliminating hunger and malnutrition, fostering sustainable agriculture, and uplifting
the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, particularly in developing nations. The
attainment of SDG 2 necessitates a holistic approach that addresses an array of
challenges, from the far-reaching impacts of climate change to the ramifications
of rapid urbanization and disparities in resource distribution. To realize this goal,
the imperative lies in nurturing resilient food systems, propelling technological
innovations, and fostering cross-border collaborations (UN Goal 2: Zero Hunger
n.d.; Cohen 2017; Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal
Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) n.d.).
The interconnectedness of SDG 2 with the entire spectrum of SDGs is undeniable
and bears immense importance (Wong 2021). For instance, the elimination of poverty,
the enhancement of healthcare and education, and the advancement of gender
equality are all integral to ensuring food security and eradicating malnutrition.
Similarly, efforts to combat climate change, promote sustainable consumption and
production, and enhance partnerships across sectors are all enablers of achieving
SDG 2. By simultaneously addressing the multifaceted challenges within these
interconnected goals, SDG 2 assumes a central role in fostering a world characterized
by equity, resilience, and sustainability (Dörgő et al. 2018a; Guachalla 2023).
The SDGs provide a visionary blueprint for confronting multifarious global
challenges through collective action (UN Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly
on 6 July 2017 n.d.; Wong 2021). Among these, SDG 2 stands as a linchpin, intricately
woven into the fabric of all other goals. By synergistically addressing poverty, health,
education, inequality, climate change, and more, while championing sustainable
agricultural practices and inclusive development, SDG 2 serves as a lighthouse, guiding
humanity towards a more just, prosperous, and sustainable future.
2. Methodology
The information provided in this chapter draws upon an extensive analysis of
both peer-reviewed literature and grey literature. A comprehensive exploration of
relevant publications was conducted across renowned databases, namely Google
Scholar, Scopus, Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), and the Scientific Citation
Index (SCI) Web of Science. This chapter extensively considers international literature,
encompassing a total of 131 peer-reviewed and grey literature studies. Of this total,
three publications were authored by the authors. The time span covered by the
chosen papers was open-ended; however, all the studies featured in this review
maintained a focus on SDGs.
10
The search process employed keywords, such as “SDG 2: Zero Hunger”, “SDGs”,
“policies and programs addressing the causes of hunger”, and “shortcomings and
limitations of SDGs”. The ensuing dataset facilitated the identification of key themes
aligned with the objectives delineated in this chapter.
Probing the intricate web of connections between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and the
remaining 16 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) required a systematic analysis
to distinguish direct and indirect links. By scrutinizing the objectives, underlying
principles, and underlying interdependencies of each SDG, a comprehensive
understanding of their intricate relationships emerged.
The identification of direct connections between SDG 2 and other goals was
relatively straightforward. In cases where the language of the SDGs explicitly
mentioned hunger, food security, or nutrition, a direct relationship was evident.
For instance, the alignment between SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 2 was palpable, as
poverty often underpins hunger and malnutrition. Similarly, SDG 3: Good Health
and Well-being explicitly ties nutrition to health, solidifying a direct link between
these goals.
Indirect links were discerned by analyzing the synergies, shared objectives,
and common principles between SDG 2 and other goals. Indicators that signaled a
broader connection included themes, such as sustainable production, responsible
consumption, equitable access to resources, environmental conservation, and
economic growth. For example, the resonance between SDG 2 and SDG 8:
Decent Work and Economic Growth was clarified by the shared emphasis on
enhancing livelihoods, while the alignment between SDG 2 and SDG 12: Responsible
Consumption and Production was revealed through their mutual focus on
sustainable resource utilization.
In cases where multiple SDGs addressed overlapping themes, a holistic
perspective was applied to ascertain the nature of the connection. For instance,
while the link between SDG 2 and SDG 13: Climate Action was not overt, it emerged
as a crucial interrelation when considering the impact of climate change on food
systems and agricultural productivity.
Furthermore, recognizing the systemic nature of the SDGs, the
interconnectedness between goals was assessed through a perspective of
sustainability. Goals promoting education, gender equality, clean energy, and strong
institutions were identified as underpinning the foundation for achieving SDG 2
(Otto-Zimmermann 2012). These indirect relationships became evident as the pursuit
of these goals contributed to enhancing food security, sustainable agriculture, and
equitable access to resources.
11
The identification of direct and indirect connections between SDG 2: Zero
Hunger and the 16 other SDGs was a process of meticulous analysis, considering
explicit mentions, shared objectives, thematic alignments, and holistic sustainability
perspectives. Also, the concrete examples of good practices and innovations in the
field of sustainable food and agriculture, as well as related fields, identified in this
chapter, demonstrate how SDG 2: Zero Hunger can be achieved through integrated
and innovative solutions.
This comprehensive approach clarified the intricate fabric of interdependencies.
Analyzing the targets of each SDG separately, we identified common key elements
that were considered relevant in presenting the link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger
and the other SDGs.
3. Characteristics and Mutual Key Elements of Links between SDG 2:

Zero Hunger and Other SDGs
3.1. The Link between SDG 1 and SDG 2

The major challenge in the link between SDG 2 and SDG 1 lies in addressing the
inseparable problem of global poverty and hunger. This direct connection is crucial
for resolving a complex dilemma. SDG 1 and SDG 2 are closely intertwined, and
achieving their objectives can contribute to building a more sustainable, equitable,
and prosperous world (Pakkan et al. 2023; UN Resolution Adopted by the General
Assembly on 6 July 2017 n.d.).
There is a direct link between SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 2: Zero Hunger.
Understanding this link is important in addressing the inseparable problem of global
poverty and hunger. SDG 1 and SDG 2 are directly interconnected, and achieving
their goals can help achieve a more sustainable, equitable, and prosperous world
(Figure 1).
• Nutritious food
• Enough food
• Sustainable development
• Equitable development
Figure 1. Mutual key elements of SDG 1 and SDG 2. Source: Figure by authors.
Poverty and hunger are often interconnected and form a vicious circle. People
living in poverty are often unable to secure the necessary daily food, exacerbating
12
malnutrition and health problems. At the same time, people suffering from
malnutrition and food-related illnesses are often too sick or weak to work and support
themselves, which can lead to poverty (Pakkan et al. 2023; Pradhan et al. 2017).
Therefore, reducing poverty and hunger is an interrelated and essential goal
to achieve sustainable development (Box 1). Improving access to nutritious and
sustainable food can help reduce poverty by increasing the productivity and incomes
of farmers and others in the food sector, as well as creating jobs in the sector
(Guang-Wen et al. 2023; Tremblay et al. 2020). Poverty reduction can also help
increase access to food by increasing the purchasing power of the poor (Inter-Agency
and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) n.d.;
UN Global SDG Indicators Database n.d.; Janoušková et al. 2018).
Box 1. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and poverty.
– Bangladesh: In poor rural areas of developing countries, people often make a living from agriculture
and fishing. If these people do not have access to resources such as seed irrigation and proper
farming tools, they cannot produce enough food to feed their families and sell the surplus to make
a living. Thus, poverty makes them vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition. The Bangladeshi
government has launched several poverty reduction programs including the “National Social
Protection Program” welfare program and the “IFAD” program, which provide loans and training
to poor farmers. Bangladesh has also made significant progress in fighting hunger by improving
agricultural production, access to drinking water, and transport infrastructure (International Fund
for Agricultural Development—Bangladesh n.d.).
– India: Poor people often live in urban slum areas where resources are limited. These people often live
in unsanitary and overcrowded conditions without access to adequate food or clean water. These
poor living conditions make them vulnerable to nutrition-related diseases and other conditions, such
as diabetes and heart disease, which can lead to malnutrition and ultimately starvation. If poor
people do not have access to education and decent jobs, they cannot afford to procure nutritious
food and ensure food security for their families. In addition, poverty can lead to forced migration,
which can exacerbate the problem of hunger in regions affected by conflict and natural disasters.
The Government of India has launched a welfare program called “Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan
Yojana” (PMGKY), which aims to provide financial aid to poor and vulnerable individuals affected
by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, India has introduced a series of agricultural policies
aimed at improving food security including the “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” (PMFBY)
program which offers crop insurance (Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), India n.d.).
3.2. The Link between SDG 2 and SDG 3

The challenges in the link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 3: Good
Health and Well-being lie in the intricate interplay between adequate food, nutrition,
and overall health. The essential relationship between these goals underscores that
13
hunger and undernutrition can adversely impact health and immunity (Guang-Wen
et al. 2023; Tremblay et al. 2020). The challenge emerges from orchestrating
a harmonious synergy between these two goals to optimize overall health and
well-being while effectively curbing hunger and malnutrition (Pakkan et al. 2023;
Pradhan et al. 2017).
Adequate food and nutrition are essential for people’s health and well-being,
and hunger and undernutrition can adversely affect health and immunity (FAO,
IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
Therefore, promoting adequate nutrition and sustainable food production can
significantly contribute to improving people’s health and well-being and achieving
SDG 3 (Figure 2).
• Adequate nutrition
• Diseases prevention
• Health and immunity
• Improving people’s condition
Achieving SDG 2 and SDG 3 is closely and directly linked, as adequate food
and nutrition are essential for health and well-being, and hunger and undernutrition
can adversely affect health.
SDG 3 aims to ensure universal access to health services and promote physical
and mental health, and adequate nutrition plays an important role in achieving this
goal. Nutritious and balanced foods provide the body with the nutrients it needs to
prevent diseases associated with poor nutrition, such as malnutrition, obesity, and
diabetes (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
On the other hand, malnutrition and undernutrition can affect a person’s immune
system, making them more vulnerable to disease and infection. By ensuring access to
nutritious and balanced food, you can help boost immunity and prevent disease.
SDG 2 aims to reduce the number of people suffering from hunger and
malnutrition by promoting access to nutritious and sustainable food. In addition,
SDG 2 aims to improve food production by using sustainable agricultural practices
and by promoting an efficient and responsible food system (Box 2).
14
Box 2. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase health and well-being.
– Brazil: National School Feeding Program: This program provides nutritious food to approximately
42 million students in public schools in Brazil, thereby promoting adequate nutrition and combating
malnutrition. Brazil has also introduced a law banning the sale of unhealthy food in public schools
(FAO 2015).
– India: National Nutrition Mission: This program aims to improve the nutrition and health of children
aged 0–6 years. The program provides nutritional supplements and nutrition education to mothers and
children in poor rural and urban communities (National Nutrition Mission, India n.d.).
– USA: SNAP Program: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides food
assistance to millions of low-income Americans who are experiencing hunger or malnutrition. The
program also encourages the purchase of nutritious food and promotes access to local agricultural
markets (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) USA n.d.).
– USA: Farm-to-School Initiative: This initiative promotes the purchase of local and sustainable
food products for schools in Delaware State, thereby helping to reduce environmental impacts and
promote healthy eating (Farm-to-School USA n.d.).
3.3. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 4

There is an indirect link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 4: Quality
Education. The challenges in the connection between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and
SDG 4: Quality Education arise from the intricate indirect relationship between
these goals. While promoting access to quality education can indirectly contribute to
achieving SDG 2 by enhancing knowledge about healthy eating, food production,
and sustainable practices, the effectiveness of this link relies on several factors.
Education’s potential to empower individuals to make informed choices regarding
food and support sustainable agriculture practices faces challenges in ensuring
widespread access to quality education (Pradhan et al. 2017). The alignment between
SDG 2 and SDG 4 depends on addressing barriers to education, such as limited
access, gender disparities, and economic constraints.
While education can equip people with practical skills related to food cultivation,
preparation, and sustainable farming techniques, translating these skills into
actionable steps to reduce hunger necessitates overcoming barriers, like limited
resources and infrastructure. Moreover, promoting gender equality through
education can positively influence access to food, but this requires addressing
deeply ingrained societal norms and overcoming gender-related barriers to education
(Guang-Wen et al. 2023; Balan et al. 2022a; Tremblay et al. 2020). Similarly, while
education’s role in reducing poverty has the potential to enhance access to food,
overcoming systemic economic challenges and ensuring equitable educational
15
opportunities are essential components of bridging the gap between these goals.
Thus, while the link between SDG 2 and SDG 4 holds potential, the challenges lie in
addressing disparities in education access, gender equality, and poverty reduction to
effectively contribute to hunger alleviation and sustainable food practices (Di Fabio
and Rosen 2020; Pradhan et al. 2017).
Promoting access to quality education can contribute to achieving SDG 2
and reducing hunger in several ways. Education can help people understand the
importance of healthy eating and how food is grown and processed. Thus, people
can make informed choices when it comes to food and support sustainable food and
agricultural practices that can help achieve SDG 2 (Figure 3).
• Raising awareness
• Developing skills and competences
• Promoting gender equality
• Poverty reduction
Promoting access to quality education can significantly contribute to achieving

SDG 2 and reducing hunger by raising awareness, developing skills and competences,
promoting gender equality, and reducing poverty. Education can help people learn
practical skills, such as growing vegetables and fruit, preparing nutritious food,
and using sustainable farming techniques. These skills can help people sustainably
feed their families and communities and help achieve SDG 2. Education can help
promote gender equality, which can have a positive impact on access to food. In many
communities, women grow food and prepare food, and education can help increase
their chances of accessing resources and becoming leaders in their community
(Pakkan et al. 2023).
Education can help reduce poverty, which can have a direct impact on access to
food. People who have access to education are more likely to find a well-paying job
and improve their financial situation, which can enable them to buy more nutritious
food and feed their families in a more sustainable way (Box 3).
16
Box 3. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase quality education.
– Ghana—The Ghana National School Feeding Program was launched in 2005 and aims to provide
free nutritious food to primary school students. Through this program, Ghana has been able to
improve the quality of food consumed by students and encourage parents to send their children to
school. In addition, the program has had a positive impact on the local economy, as food is purchased
from local producers. In addition, as well as academic subjects, children are also taught about
growing plants, food processing, and nutrition. Thus, children are taught how to grow their own
food and prepare healthy and nutritious meals, which helps to raise awareness and develop the skills
and competencies needed to help achieve SDG 2 (Ghana School Feeding Programme (GSFP) n.d.).
– Brazil—The Family Agriculture Food Acquisition Program (PAA) in Brazil was launched in 2003
and aims to promote local agriculture and provide healthy food for public schools in rural areas.
Through this program, schools buy food directly from local producers, which helps them sell their
products and improve their income. In addition, students receive healthy and nutritious food, which
helps reduce hunger and improve their health. An educational program was launched for children
from low-income families. In the program, children learn about healthy eating, how food is processed,
and the impact of food on health and the environment. Also, children are taught how to cook healthy
and nutritious meals with local and sustainable food. Thus, children learn to choose healthy foods
and cook nutritious meals, which helps to raise awareness and develop the skills and competencies
needed to help achieve SDG 2 (De Souza et al. 2023).
– India—India’s National Mid-Day Meal School Feeding Program was launched in 1995 and aims
to provide free nutritious food to primary and secondary school students in rural and urban areas.
Through this program, India has been able to increase school attendance and improve children’s
nutrition. In addition, the program has had a positive impact on the local economy, as food is
purchased from local producers. At the same time, a professional training program for women was
established. In the program, women are taught how to grow vegetables and fruits in a sustainable
way and how to process and sell their produce. Also, women learn about nutrition and how food
can be used to fight hunger and malnutrition in their community. Thus, the program contributes
to the development of skills and competences needed to help achieve SDG 2, by promoting gender
equality and reducing poverty (Mishra 2023).

There is an indirect link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 5: Gender
Equality. The challenges in the connection between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 5:
Gender Equality stem from the intricate indirect relationship that relies on addressing
gender disparities and empowering women. While gender equality is essential for
achieving SDG 2: Zero Hunger, challenges arise in transforming this linkage into
tangible outcomes.
Women’s pivotal role in agriculture and food production, coupled with limited
access to resources and technology, presents a challenge in bridging the gap between
gender equality and hunger alleviation (Hoddinott and Haddad 1995). While
17
promoting gender equality can facilitate women’s access to resources and technology
for improved agricultural activities and food production, addressing deeply rooted
gender norms and overcoming systemic barriers to women’s empowerment are
critical. The vulnerability of women to hunger and malnutrition due to limited
access to food, healthcare, and gender discrimination underscores the need for
gender-sensitive strategies. However, translating gender equality initiatives into
reduced hunger demands navigating the complexity of societal perceptions and
deeply ingrained biases. Ensuring women’s participation in decision-making
processes is vital, yet challenges lie in dismantling existing power structures and
fostering an inclusive environment (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
Promoting gender equality holds the potential to significantly contribute to
SDG 2 by enhancing food production and reducing hunger and malnutrition.
Nevertheless, challenges revolve around confronting traditional norms and biases
that hinder women’s access to resources, healthcare, education, and decision-making
processes (Di Fabio and Rosen 2020). Achieving true gender equality requires
addressing deeply rooted systemic issues and enacting comprehensive policies
that empower women economically, socially, and politically. Consequently, the
success of the link between SDG 2 and SDG 5 lies in dismantling barriers that restrict
women’s potential, fostering inclusivity, and creating an enabling environment that
transcends stereotypes and biases to effectively reduce hunger and improve food
security (Lucato et al. 2018).
Gender equality is important for achieving SDG 2 for several reasons (Figure 4).
• Women play a key role in

agriculture and food production
• Women are more affected by
hunger and malnutrition
• Women's participation in decision-
making processes
Women play a key role in agriculture and food production because, in many
countries, women are responsible for agricultural work and food production.
However, they often have limited access to the resources needed to develop their
agricultural activities and improve their food production. Promoting gender equality
can ensure that women have access to the resources and technology needed to
18
develop their agricultural activities and improve their food production. This can
contribute to achieving SDG 2 by increasing food production and reducing hunger.
Women are more affected by hunger and malnutrition, because women are often
more vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition than men. This is due to several factors,
such as limited access to food and medical services, as well as gender discrimination.
Promoting gender equality can ensure that women have access to food and health
services, as well as equal opportunities in education and the labor market. This can
contribute to achieving SDG 2 by reducing hunger and malnutrition.
Women’s participation in decision-making processes is very important, because
promoting gender equality can ensure that women have a greater role in
decision-making processes related to agricultural policy and food production.
This can help create more effective policies to reduce hunger and malnutrition
(Guang-Wen et al. 2023; Tremblay et al. 2020).
Promoting gender equality can significantly contribute to achieving SDG 2 by
increasing food production and reducing hunger and malnutrition (Box 4). Ensuring
access to the necessary resources and technology for women, as well as promoting
equal participation of women in decision-making processes, can contribute to
the development of more effective policies and programs to reduce hunger and
undernutrition (Pakkan et al. 2023).
Box 4. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase gender equality.
– In Rwanda, the “One Cow per Family” program provides cows to women in poor communities
to increase milk and meat production, which has led to improved family nutrition and increased
incomes. Under this program, women are given priority in receiving the cows, as they are considered
to need more resources to support their families. Thus, promoting gender equality and ensuring
women’s access to agricultural resources can contribute to achieving SDG 2 (Nilsson et al. 2019).
– In India, the Organization of Women Honey Producers (WIHPA) helps women produce and market
honey by providing them with access to equipment, funding, and training in honey production.
These agricultural activities are an important source of income for women and help reduce poverty
and hunger. Promoting gender equality in the agricultural sector can increase women’s access
to such opportunities and could contribute to achieving SDG 2 (Organization of Women Honey
Producers (WIHPA), India n.d.).
– In Nepal, the Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition Program (WHCNP) aims to reduce
maternal and child malnutrition through education and health services. Within the program, special
attention is paid to promoting gender equality through mothers’ groups and counseling sessions.
Improving the health of women and children can help reduce undernutrition and achieve SDG 2
(Maternal, Child Health and Nutrition Project, Nepal n.d.).
19
There is an indirect link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 6: Clean water
and sanitation. The challenges in the connection between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation arise from the intricate interplay between food
security and water access. While the indirect link between these goals highlights
their mutual influence, challenges emerge in ensuring holistic solutions to food and
water-related issues. Recognizing the role of clean water and proper hygiene in
food production underscores the importance of access to clean water in enhancing
agricultural productivity (Dora et al. 2015; Hutton and Haller 2004). Yet, challenges
exist in guaranteeing sufficient and safe water sources for irrigation, especially
in regions where water scarcity prevails. Addressing this challenge necessitates
innovative water management strategies and technologies that can sustainably
support agriculture.
Furthermore, the interrelation between access to clean water and foodborne
illnesses poses a challenge in reducing the risks of malnutrition and disease
transmission. Ensuring clean water sources for agriculture and proper hygiene
practices is crucial to prevent the contamination of food and waterborne diseases.
However, overcoming infrastructural and awareness-related hurdles to ensure the
availability of clean water in rural areas and promoting hygienic practices remains a
challenge in many regions (Pakkan et al. 2023).
The prevention of conflicts over water resources is another challenge embedded
in the linkage between SDG 2 and SDG 6. As water scarcity intensifies globally,
competition for water resources becomes more pronounced, particularly in regions
where water availability is limited. While clean water is essential for food production,
challenges emerge in maintaining equitable access to water resources for both
agriculture and domestic use (Simonovic 2002). Collaborative efforts are needed to
establish effective water management frameworks that promote sustainability and
prevent disputes over water allocation.
The success of the connection between SDG 2 and SDG 6 hinges on
addressing challenges associated with water scarcity, contamination, and equitable
water resource distribution. Collaborative approaches that involve governments,
local communities, and international organizations are crucial for devising and
implementing water management strategies that ensure clean water access for
agriculture, promote proper hygiene practices, and prevent conflicts over water
resources. This demands a comprehensive and integrated approach that recognizes
the intricate relationship between food security and water availability, while
navigating challenges specific to each region’s context.
20
Understanding this link is important for addressing food and water security
issues in an integrated manner (Figure 5).
• Food and water security

• Adequate sanitation services
• Proper hygiene
• Preventing the conflicts over
water resources
Clean water and hygiene are essential for food production. This is because water
is one of the most important factors for agriculture and food production. Farmers need
water to irrigate crops and feed animals. Ensuring access to clean water and adequate
sanitation services can help increase food production and reduce hunger (Box ??).
Access to clean water and proper hygiene can help prevent foodborne illness.
Contaminated water can contribute to the transmission of foodborne illness and
increase the risk of malnutrition. By promoting access to clean water and proper
hygiene, the risk of disease and malnutrition can be reduced.
This can help prevent conflicts over water resources. This is especially important
in areas where water resources are limited. Access to clean water and adequate
sanitation services can help prevent conflicts and promote the sustainable use of
water resources.
Box 5. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase access to clean water
and sanitation.
– In rural Africa, many farmers rely on subsistence agriculture, and water is a crucial factor in
this activity. Providing access to drinking water sources and irrigation technologies can support
increased agricultural production and food security in poor regions of Africa (Mbatha et al. 2021).
– In some parts of Nigeria, children are missing out on going to school because of water-related
diseases. For example, diarrhea and water-borne infections can prevent children from learning and
developing intellectual skills. By providing clean water and adequate sanitation services, disease can
be reduced and, thus, education and economic development can be supported in these communities
(Ali 2022).
21
– In many parts of the world, women and girls are responsible for collecting water. In rural Africa,
this task can take up several hours a day, time that they cannot spend on productive activities such
as farming or education. Providing drinking water sources close to communities can help reduce
this burden and, thus, allow women and girls to devote more time to productive activities (Kayser
et al. 2019; Parry and Gordon 2021).
– In congested cities where water is limited, domestic water can be reused for plant irrigation and
other agricultural activities. Thus, reducing household water use can support reducing water use
for agriculture and increasing water resources available for both purposes. This can help reduce
hunger and malnutrition in urban areas, as well as promoting the sustainable use of water resources
(Chen et al. 2021; Egbuikwem et al. 2020).

There is an important indirect link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 7:
Clean and Affordable Energy. This link mainly concerns the need to use energy
sustainably to support food production and improve access to food sustainably.
The challenges embedded in the connection between SDG 2: Zero Hunger
and SDG 7: Clean and Affordable Energy revolve around the intricate balance
between energy sustainability and food security. While the indirect link highlights
the significance of utilizing energy resources efficiently to support food production
and distribution, several challenges need to be addressed to achieve these objectives
sustainably. The requirement for energy in various stages of the food supply chain,
from cultivation and processing to transportation and storage, underscores the
importance of accessing clean and affordable energy sources. However, challenges
emerge in promoting the adoption of sustainable energy solutions, such as solar
or wind energy, across all sectors of the food system. Overcoming financial and
infrastructural barriers to integrating renewable energy technologies into food
production processes remains a challenge in many regions.
Moreover, ensuring equitable access to clean and affordable energy resources
is crucial for improving access to food sustainably. Challenges arise in remote and
underserved areas, where energy infrastructure is lacking, hindering efficient food
storage and preservation, as well as agricultural production processes (Singh et al.
2018). Addressing these challenges requires collaborative efforts between governments,
the private sector, and international organizations to develop and implement energy
infrastructure projects tailored to the specific needs of these communities.
The link between SDG 2 and SDG 7 also encompasses the imperative of reducing
food loss. While access to clean and affordable energy can enhance food storage
and transportation systems, challenges exist in ensuring the widespread adoption
22
of energy-efficient technologies that minimize food loss and waste. This demands
investment in innovative solutions and awareness-raising initiatives to promote
sustainable practices across the food supply chain (Pakkan et al. 2023).
Ultimately, addressing the challenges within the connection between SDG 2
and SDG 7 requires a holistic approach that accounts for energy sustainability,
food security, and equitable access. Collaborative endeavors are needed to foster
technological innovation, policy development, and financial support for clean and
affordable energy solutions, enabling sustainable food production, reducing food
loss, and enhancing access to nutritious food (Singh et al. 2018; Di Fabio and Rosen
2020). This intricate relationship underscores the need for integrated strategies that
acknowledge the potential of sustainable energy to contribute to achieving SDG 2,
while also considering the diverse challenges specific to various regions and contexts
(Figure 6).
• Sustainable energy for food

production
• Access to energy to improve
access to food
• Access to energy to reduce food
loss
Food production requires energy, for example, to irrigate crops, to process and
package food, or to transport it to consumers. Using energy from sustainable sources,
such as solar or wind energy, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help ensure
sustainable food production.
Access to clean and affordable energy can improve access to food by improving
food storage and preservation, by increasing the efficiency of production processes
and by improving access to refrigeration systems in rural and peripheral areas (Singh
et al. 2018). Access to energy can help reduce food loss by improving the efficiency
of refrigeration systems, by improving transportation systems, and by improving
access to food storage and preservation systems.
So, the use of energy from sustainable sources can help ensure sustainable food
production and reduce food loss, which can help achieve SDG 2. Also, access to clean
and affordable energy can improve access to food and can help reduce hunger and
malnutrition (Box 6).
23
Box 6. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase access to clean and
affordable energy.
– Using solar energy to irrigate crops—In regions where irrigation is needed to increase food
production, solar energy can be used to power the necessary water pumps. This can be a sustainable
solution that reduces dependence on unsustainable energy sources and can help increase food
production (Arshad and Khalid 2022; Schnetzer and Pluschke 2018).
– Using renewable energy for food processing—Energy is needed to process and package food. The
use of renewable energy, such as wind power or hydroelectric power, can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and contribute to more sustainable food production (Bielski et al. 2021; Anser et al. 2021).
– Using clean energy to transport food—Transporting food to consumers requires energy. The use
of fossil fuels leads to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Using clean energy, such as
electricity, can help reduce environmental impacts and increase the sustainability of food production
(Sharma et al. 2021; Jouzdani and Govindan 2021).
– Using clean energy for food storage and preservation—Access to energy can help improve food
storage and preservation. Refrigeration systems are necessary to keep food fresh and safe for
consumption. The use of clean energy can help reduce energy costs and increase the affordability of
refrigeration systems in rural and peripheral areas (Pandiselvam et al. 2019).

There is an indirect link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 8: Decent Work
and Economic Growth. This link refers to the fact that reducing poverty and hunger
can contribute to economic growth and the creation of decent jobs. The agricultural
sector plays an important role in the global economy, and increasing productivity
and market access for farmers in rural areas can contribute to economic growth and
the creation of decent jobs (Guang-Wen et al. 2023).
The challenges inherent in the relationship between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth encompass intricate socio-economic
dynamics that require careful consideration. The indirect link between these
two goals underscores the potential of reducing poverty and hunger to catalyze
economic growth and the emergence of decent employment opportunities. While
the connection emphasizes the role of the agricultural sector in this process, a
range of challenges must be addressed to realize this potential comprehensively
(Tremblay et al. 2020).
Agriculture’s pivotal role in the global economy highlights the significance
of enhancing productivity and market access for rural farmers. Yet, challenges
persist in ensuring the equitable distribution of resources, technology, and training,
particularly in marginalized regions. Overcoming barriers to accessing markets,
24
securing fair prices, and navigating supply chains remain uphill tasks, especially for
small-scale farmers.
Investments in agriculture and related infrastructure are pivotal for driving
job creation in rural areas. However, challenges arise in securing adequate funding
and ensuring these investments are sustainable, considering the varied needs and
contexts of different regions. Moreover, the need for infrastructure development
extends beyond agriculture, encompassing transportation, storage, and processing
facilities, all of which require careful planning and execution.
Addressing malnutrition and hunger’s impact on productivity necessitates
not only improved access to nutritious food but also holistic health and wellness
interventions. Overcoming challenges in delivering comprehensive healthcare
services, particularly in remote areas, is pivotal for enhancing workforce productivity
and contributing to economic growth (Pakkan et al. 2023).
In the food industry, while job opportunities span agriculture, processing,
distribution, and food services, challenges arise in ensuring decent working
conditions, fair wages, and worker rights. Tackling issues, such as informal
employment, gender disparities, and poor labor practices, requires collaborative
efforts between governments, businesses, and civil society.
To leverage the connection between SDG 2 and SDG 8 effectively, an integrated
approach is essential. This approach should encompass policy measures that promote
equitable resource distribution, technological innovation, and capacity-building
initiatives for farmers, particularly in marginalized areas. Equally crucial is investing
in education and skill development, which can empower individuals to access decent
employment opportunities in the food industry (Guang-Wen et al. 2023; Tremblay
et al. 2020). Furthermore, addressing gender inequalities and promoting sustainable
labor practices are vital steps toward achieving both SDG 2 and SDG 8, fostering
a symbiotic relationship between improved food security and economic growth
(Figure 7).
• Economic growth by stimulating

the agricultural sector
• Agricultural sector job creation
• Increase productivity due to
access to food
• Food industry job creation
25
Investments in the agricultural sector and related infrastructure, such as irrigation,
transport, storage, and processing, can contribute to job creation in rural areas.
Malnutrition and hunger can reduce people’s productivity and work capacity.
Therefore, reducing these problems can contribute to increased productivity and
economic growth (Box 7).
The food industry can provide job opportunities in a variety of areas, such as
agriculture, food processing, distribution, and food services (Guang-Wen et al. 2023;
Tremblay et al. 2020).
Box 7. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase access to decent work
and economic growth.
– In Sub-Saharan Africa, 70% of the active workforce works in the agricultural sector, but agricultural
production is constrained by climatic conditions and limited access to inputs and infrastructure.
Therefore, investments in agricultural infrastructure such as irrigation and roads can help increase
productivity and create decent jobs in the agricultural sector (World Bank Open Data n.d.; Mueller
2019; Fosu 2015).
– In Ethiopia, the government’s “Productive Safety Net” program has created job opportunities
in the agricultural sector for more than 1 million people and improved the food security of rural
communities (Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), Ethiopia n.d.).
– In India, the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) aims to create jobs in rural areas
by promoting rural entrepreneurship and improving credit and market access (National Rural
Livelihoods Mission—NRLM, India n.d.).
– In Ghana, the government’s Planting for Food and Jobs program supported farmers in rural areas by
providing agricultural inputs at subsidized prices and improving rural infrastructure. The program
has helped to increase agricultural production and create jobs in the agricultural sector (Planting
for Food & Jobs, Ghana n.d.).
– In Brazil, the government’s “Fome Zero” (Zero Hunger) program has helped reduce poverty and
hunger by providing food at subsidized prices and supporting farmers in rural areas. The program has
created job opportunities in the agricultural sector and in the food industry (Da Silva et al. 2011).

There is a direct link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 9: Industry,
Innovation and Infrastructure. This link refers to the fact that investment in
infrastructure can help increase productivity and efficiency in the agricultural sector,
which can help reduce poverty and hunger. Investments in agricultural infrastructure,
such as irrigation, storage, transportation, and food processing, can help improve
agricultural production and efficiency.
26
The challenges tied to the interconnection between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and
SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure reflect a multifaceted landscape that
demands comprehensive attention. The direct link between these goals underscores
the potential of infrastructure investments and agricultural innovation to bolster
productivity, efficiency, and economic growth, thereby reducing poverty and hunger.
While this nexus holds promise, several challenges warrant consideration to harness
its benefits effectively (Guang-Wen et al. 2023; Tremblay et al. 2020).
Investing in agricultural infrastructure, encompassing irrigation, storage,
transportation, and food processing, is pivotal for enhancing agricultural output.
Nonetheless, challenges arise in ensuring equitable access to these resources,
especially among marginalized communities. Overcoming barriers related to
resource allocation, technological diffusion, and regulatory frameworks is crucial for
achieving equitable agricultural development.
Innovation in agriculture, ranging from advanced technologies to improved seed
varieties, can amplify productivity and efficiency. However, disparities in technological
access and adoption hinder progress, particularly in resource-constrained regions.
Bridging the technological gap and ensuring knowledge dissemination are imperative to
leverage innovation’s potential for reducing hunger and poverty (UN Progress towards
the Sustainable Development Goals n.d.).
Infrastructure investments, including transportation and connectivity enhancement,
have the capacity to generate employment and economic growth in rural areas. Yet,
realizing these benefits necessitates overcoming logistical challenges, inadequate funding,
and ensuring that infrastructure development aligns with local needs.
Access to technology, such as digital platforms and mobile phones, has
the potential to empower farmers with market information and better pricing
mechanisms. However, challenges of digital divide, lack of digital literacy, and
inadequate connectivity must be addressed to enable equitable access to these tools
and ensure farmers’ effective integration into modern markets (Pakkan et al. 2023).
To maximize the synergistic relationship between SDG 2 and SDG 9, holistic
strategies are essential. These strategies should prioritize inclusive infrastructure
development, ensuring that marginalized communities benefit from improved
transportation, storage, and processing facilities. Additionally, fostering innovation
requires initiatives that provide equitable access to technological advancements and
promote knowledge sharing among farmers. Collaboration between governments,
private sector entities, and civil society is pivotal for creating an enabling environment
that supports both agricultural development and technological innovation, ultimately
contributing to the achievement of SDG 2 and SDG 9 objectives (Figure 8).
27
• Agricultural infrastructure
improve production
• Innovation increase efficiency and
productivity in agriculture
• Investments in infrastructure create jobs
• Access to technology reduce
poverty and hunger
Figure 8. Key mutual elements of SDG 2 and SDG 9. Source: Figure by authors.
Innovation in agriculture, such as the development of new agricultural

technologies or more productive seeds, can increase efficiency and productivity
in the agricultural sector, which can help reduce poverty and hunger. Investments in
infrastructure, such as building roads, bridges, and transport lines, can help create
jobs and economic growth in rural areas. Access to technology, such as mobile phones
or online platforms, can help farmers sell their products at better prices and access
market and price information (Box 8).
Box 8. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase industry, innovation

and infrastructure levels.
– India: The National Irrigation Development Program was launched in 2015 to increase agricultural
productivity and reduce dependence on rain. The program aims to build irrigation infrastructure
for six million hectares of agricultural land, which could help increase agricultural production and
reduce poverty in rural areas (Vohra and Saxena 2022).
– Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia: The DigiFarm Farm Development Program was launched in 2017 by
Safaricom, the country’s largest mobile phone operator, to give farmers access to high-quality seeds,
fertilizers, and other agricultural inputs through their mobile phones. The DigiFarm platform
provides farmers with information on innovative farming techniques and access to agricultural
markets, which can help increase their productivity and income (DigiFarm: A Digital Platform for
Farmers n.d.).
– Brazil: In 2019, the Brazilian government announced USD 1.3 billion in agricultural infrastructure
investments to increase productivity and improve access to agricultural markets for smallholder
farmers. Investments include improvements to roads and bridges, irrigation and storage systems,
and the creation of a loan guarantee system for farmers (World Bank 2020).
– Ghana: In 2017, the Ghanaian government launched the National Agriculture Program “Planting
for Food and Jobs” to increase agricultural production and reduce food imports. The program
provides subsidies for seeds, fertilizers, and other agricultural inputs and promotes innovative
farming techniques, such as terrace farming and the use of irrigation. In its first year, the program
supported more than 200,000 farmers and helped increase food production (Planting for Food &
Jobs, Ghana n.d.).
28
There is an indirect link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 10: Reducing
Inequalities. Poverty and inequality are major contributors to hunger and malnutrition.
At the same time, hunger and malnutrition can exacerbate inequality and poverty.
The interconnectedness between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 10: Reducing
Inequalities entails multifaceted challenges that underscore the intricate relationship
between hunger, poverty, and inequality. While an indirect link exists between
these goals, their symbiotic nature underscores the imperative of addressing
them in tandem. Hunger and malnutrition are both consequences and causes
of inequality and poverty, disproportionately impacting marginalized groups
such as those residing in rural areas or extreme deprivation. Resolving this
predicament necessitates concerted efforts to address challenges tied to access,
resources, and living standards for disadvantaged communities (UN Progress
towards the Sustainable Development Goals n.d.).
Inequalities can engender food inaccessibility, rendering it unaffordable for
impoverished populations who lack the means to secure nutritious meals or cultivate
their sustenance due to limited resources and land access (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF,
WFP and WHO 2021). Reducing inequalities holds the key to mitigating hunger and
malnutrition by ensuring equitable access to food and essential health services for
all, regardless of socioeconomic status. Correspondingly, combating hunger can be a
catalyst for reducing inequality, uplifting living conditions, and enhancing resource
availability for marginalized communities.
Harmonizing efforts to alleviate hunger, malnutrition, and inequality is pivotal
to fostering a society where all individuals can access nourishing sustenance and a
decent standard of living. The convergence of SDG 2 and SDG 10 objectives signifies
a collaborative approach that leverages policy interventions, resource allocation, and
community engagement to effect transformative change. Empowering marginalized
communities through equitable access to food, health services, education, and
opportunities is a fundamental step toward realizing the vision of eradicating hunger
and inequalities (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2021). Thus, intertwining the
pursuit of SDG 2 and SDG 10 yields a synergistic approach that resonates with the
essence of sustainable development (Figure 9).
Hunger and malnutrition disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities,
such as those in rural areas or those living in extreme poverty. These communities need
support and investment to gain access to food and improve their living standards.
29
• Hunger effect on disadvantaged
communities
• Inequality to food access
• Reducing inequality reduce hunger
and malnutrition
• Fighting hunger reduce inequality
Inequality can make food unaffordable for some people, especially those living
in poverty. They cannot afford to buy nutritious food or grow their own food due to
lack of resources and access to land (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
Reducing inequality can help reduce hunger and malnutrition by improving
access to food and health services for all people, regardless of social position or
income. Fighting hunger can help reduce inequality by improving living standards
and access to resources for disadvantaged communities (Box 9).
Box 9. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and inequalities.
– India—In India, there is a wide disparity between rural and urban areas in terms of access to
nutritious food. In recent years, the Indian government has launched food distribution programs
for the poorest citizens, as well as projects to improve infrastructure in rural areas to help people
grow their own food. These efforts have had a positive impact on reducing hunger and malnutrition
in the country and have contributed to a reduction in inequalities (George and McKay 2019).
– Brazil—In Brazil, the government introduced a program called “Fome Zero” (Zero Hunger), which
aims to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in the country. The program includes distributing free
food to poor families, improving access to drinking water, and promoting sustainable agriculture.
These efforts have had a significant impact on reducing hunger and malnutrition in Brazil,
particularly among disadvantaged communities (Da Silva et al. 2011).
– Kenya—In Kenya, the government has launched a program called “Kilimo Biashara” (Agriculture
for Business), which aims to support local agriculture and promote food security in the country.
The program includes the distribution of seeds and agricultural machinery, as well as training
farmers in modern farming techniques. These efforts have helped improve food production and
reduce hunger and malnutrition in Kenya (Kilimo Biashara Program, Kenya n.d.).

SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities is also directly linked to SDG 2:
Zero Hunger. The goal of SDG 11 is to make cities and human settlements more
inclusive, safer, more resilient, and more sustainable. Urbanization and the growth
30
of cities have an impact on food systems and agriculture. As cities expand, the
agricultural space around them shrinks, which can lead to a decrease in local food
production and an increase in dependence on imports. Urbanization can also lead to
increased consumption of processed and fast food, which can be less healthy and
less nutritious than fresh, local food.
The interconnection between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 11: Sustainable
Cities and Communities presents a complex tapestry of challenges emanating from
the dynamic relationship between urbanization, food systems, and sustainable
development. The symbiotic bond between these goals accentuates the intricate
interplay between urban growth and food security. Urbanization’s expansion
and city development hold implications for agriculture and food systems, often
leading to diminished local food production due to shrinking agricultural spaces
and escalating reliance on imports. Concurrently, urbanization fosters an upsurge in
the consumption of processed and fast foods, potentially compromising nutritional
quality (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
The nexus of SDG 2 and SDG 11 centers on ensuring urban communities’ access
to healthy, safe, and nutritious food. In this vein, championing urban agriculture and
fortifying food storage and distribution infrastructure are pivotal shared aspirations.
Moreover, both goals underscore the imperative of judiciously managing natural
resources. Urban agriculture can counterbalance food imports, optimize land use,
and bolster local economies by generating jobs in agriculture and associated sectors.
This aligns with SDG 2 and SDG 11 objectives of fostering economic growth and
sustainable development.
Furthermore, the objectives of sustainable urbanization and appropriate
resource management are underscored by urban agriculture’s potential to curtail
greenhouse gas emissions via reduced food transport and enhanced energy efficiency
in farming practices. Yet, the intrinsic linkage between SDG 2 and SDG 11 confronts
challenges, particularly the negative impact of unchecked urban development on
soil, water, and air quality that can undermine agricultural productivity and food
quality (Nilsson et al. 2016).
Thus, the link between SDG 2 and SDG 11 resonates with joint actions to promote
resilient, sustainable, and inclusive communities. A holistic urban development
strategy encompassing improved infrastructure, transport systems, and responsible
urban planning can facilitate food access and distribution. To harmonize these
goals, initiatives must address both urban challenges and agricultural resilience,
thereby forging pathways toward zero hunger and sustainable urban progress (FAO,
IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020). In essence, the intertwined narratives of
31
SDG 2 and SDG 11 highlight the confluence of urban transformation and food
security, underscoring the need for comprehensive strategies that nurture both
thriving communities and nourishing sustenance (Figure 10).
Food security and access to healthy and nutritious food are essential to ensure
the health and well-being of urban communities. In many cities around the world,
access to fresh, healthy food is limited, and this can lead to health problems, such
as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Cities also produce a significant
amount of food waste and contribute to climate change through greenhouse gas
emissions from transportation and the production of processed foods. In this context,
urbanization can lead to the increased consumption of processed food and fast food,
which can be less healthy and less nutritious than fresh and local food, so SDG 2 and
SDG 11 are closely related and have several common elements.
• Food security and access to

healthy food
• Efficient use of natural resources
• Job creation
• Promoting sustainable
development
People in urban environments need access to healthy and safe food, and this is
a common goal for both SDG 2 and SDG 11. To achieve this goal, it is important to
promote urban agriculture and create adequate infrastructure for food storage and
distribution.
SDG 2 and SDG 11 also focus on the sustainable use of natural resources. Urban
agriculture can help reduce the dependence on imported food and promote efficient
land use in urban areas. SDG 2 and SDG 11 aim to create job opportunities for local
communities. Urban agriculture can play an important role in creating new jobs
in the agricultural sector and related services. SDG 2 and SDG 11 aim to promote
sustainable development and appropriate resource management. Urban agriculture
can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing food transport and increasing
energy efficiency in agricultural processes.
Also, improving urban infrastructure, including transport systems, can help
facilitate access to food markets and transport food from rural areas to urban areas
(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
32
On the other hand, uncontrolled urban development and pollution can have
a negative impact on soil, water, and air quality, which can lead to a decrease in
agricultural production and food quality.
There is, therefore, a strong interdependence between SDG 2 and SDG 11, as the
sustainable development of cities and urban communities can significantly contribute
to reducing hunger and improving food security. At the same time, uncontrolled
urban development can lead to a decrease in agricultural production and food quality,
which can exacerbate food security problems. Therefore, addressing the issues
of sustainable development of cities and urban communities should also include
solutions to support the development of the agricultural sector and to improve access
to food and food security, so that it can achieve the goal of SDG 2: Zero Hunger and
encourage sustainable urban development (Box 10).
Box 10. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and increase the levels of sustainable
cities and communities.
– India: Cities in India are experiencing rapid population growth and uncontrolled urbanization,
which has resulted in increased air, water, and soil pollution. This has had a significant impact on
food security, as many agricultural crops are affected by pollution. In addition, access to fresh and
healthy food is limited in many cities, which has led to health problems such as obesity and diabetes.
To address these issues, the Indian government has launched the Smart Cities Mission, which aims
to develop sustainable and inclusive cities, with a focus on improving urban infrastructure and
transport. In addition, the program aims to improve food quality and food safety by supporting local
agricultural production and promoting urban agriculture (Smart Cities Mission India n.d.).
– Brazil: Brazil is one of the largest agricultural countries in the world but also one of the most
urbanized. The growth of cities led to a reduction in agricultural land and an increase in food
imports. To address these issues, the Brazilian government launched the “Cidades Sustentáveis”
(Sustainable Cities) program, which aims to improve the quality of life in cities through sustainable
development. The program encourages the development of urban agriculture and community
gardens to improve access to fresh and local food and reduce dependence on imports (Index of
Sustainable Development of Cities—Brazil n.d.).
– United States of America: In the United States, many cities face problems of poverty and limited
access to healthy and fresh food, known as “food deserts.” To address these issues, the US government
launched the Good Food Purchasing Program, which aims to improve food quality and food safety
by promoting the purchase of local, sustainable, and healthy food in public food systems, such as
schools, hospitals, and prisons (Good Food Purchasing Program USA n.d.).

SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production are
directly linked in several ways due to their impact on the environment and natural
33
resources. Sustainable agriculture and responsible production are central to both
SDG 2 and SDG 12 (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
The interrelation between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 12: Responsible
Consumption and Production spawns an intricate web of challenges stemming from
their shared commitment to environmental sustainability and resource management.
The convergence of sustainable agriculture and responsible production echoes in both
goals, with sustainable agricultural practices seeking to optimize food production
while minimizing environmental repercussions (Salasan and Balan 2022). This
duality champions SDG 2 by enhancing food security while safeguarding precious
natural resources. Similarly, SDG 12’s emphasis on eco-friendly production, reduced
emissions, and waste prevention resonates across both goals, advocating for a greener
footprint (Balan et al. 2022a).
Promoting prudent natural resource management resonates as a crucial facet in
both SDG 2 and SDG 12. This encompasses judicious stewardship of agricultural
land, water, and other resources, alongside curbing food and resource wastage.
Sustainable resource use can bolster nutritional security, sustainable development,
and environmental conservation by curtailing deforestation, preserving biodiversity,
and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2020).
Moreover, SDG 12 champions the ethos of sustainable consumption and
production, underscored by a drive to minimize food waste. This facet synergizes
with SDG 2 by optimizing resource utilization. Enabling a circular economy
stands as a shared objective, seeking to curb natural resource consumption through
enhanced recycling, reuse, and regeneration. This ethos not only addresses food
waste but also elevates resource efficiency, thereby fostering economic growth and
employment prospects.
Furthermore, access to clean and sustainable energy forms an instrumental
nexus within SDG 2 and SDG 12. The deployment of such energy sources plays
a pivotal role in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, averting climate change’s
detrimental impact on agriculture and food security. Moreover, clean energy
catalyzes economic growth, poverty alleviation, and sustainable infrastructure
development, thus harmonizing the dual aspirations of both goals.
In summation, the direct link between SDG 2 and SDG 12 navigates the
trajectory towards comprehensive sustainability. Nurturing sustainable agriculture,
minimizing waste, ensuring food safety, and fostering international collaboration
form the keystones to realizing the dual aspirations of these SDGs. This symbiotic
relationship underscores the interdependence between eradicating hunger and
advancing responsible consumption and production practices, constituting a
34
dynamic blueprint for a harmonious coexistence of humanity and the environment
(Figure 11).
• Sustainable agriculture
• Improving natural resource
management
•Reducing food waste
•Circular economy
• Clean and sustainable
energy
Sustainable agriculture promotes ecological and resource-efficient agricultural

practices that can improve food production while reducing the environmental impact.
This can contribute to achieving SDG 2 by increasing food security and nutrition while
protecting natural resources. At the same time, responsible production aims at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, responsible use of resources, and waste prevention, all of
which have a significant impact on the environment (Nilsson et al. 2016).
Improving natural resource management is another important element of SDG 2
and SDG 12. This relates to the sustainable management of agricultural land, water,
and other natural resources, as well as reducing the waste of food and other resources.
Sustainable use of resources can support both food and nutrition security and
sustainable development by preventing deforestation, conserving biodiversity, and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
SDG 12 encourages the development of sustainable consumption and
production patterns, including reducing food waste. This can help meet SDG 2
by making more efficient use of available food resources (Balan et al. 2022b).
Promoting the circular economy is also important for both objectives. The circular
economy aims to reduce the consumption of natural resources by increasing recycling,
reuse, and regeneration. This can help reduce food waste and increase resource
efficiency, while supporting economic growth and job creation (Nilsson et al. 2016).
Access to clean and sustainable energy is another important element of SDG 2
and SDG 12. The use of clean and sustainable energy can help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, thus preventing climate change and its impact on agriculture and
food security (Box 11). In addition, clean and sustainable energy can support
economic development and poverty reduction through job creation and sustainable
infrastructure development (Nilsson et al. 2016).
35
Box 11. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and increase responsible consumption
and production.
– Brazil—Brazil implemented the Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (Food Acquisition Program),

which encourages local and sustainable food production while ensuring access to fresh and nutritious
food for low-income people (De Souza et al. 2023).
– Kenya—The Kenyan government has launched the Nutrition in Agriculture Program, which aims to
improve agricultural productivity using sustainable methods, as well as promoting nutrition and food
security for the rural population (Nutrition in Agriculture Program, Kenya—Nutrition Portal n.d.).
– Netherlands—The Netherlands has developed a national circular economy strategy, which aims
to reduce food waste and use resources more efficiently, including water and soil. This involves,
among other things, the recycling of food waste and the use of renewable energy (Government of the
Netherlands. Circular Dutch Economy by 2050 n.d.).
– Australia—In Australia, the National Food Waste Reduction and Food Waste Phobia Mitigation
Program promotes food waste reduction through education and public awareness, as well as engaging
companies and organizations in developing more sustainable practices in terms of food production
and distribution (Australian Government. National Food Waste Strategy 2017).

SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 13: Climate Action are two important goals in
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and are directly related to each other
(Jain and Mishra 2019).
The nexus between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 13: Climate Action
encompasses multifaceted challenges rooted in their shared commitment to
sustainable development. The imperative of sustainable agriculture stands as a
crucial convergence, as it not only addresses food security but also combats climate
change by curbing greenhouse gas emissions through responsible soil management
and efficient farming practices. This interlinkage underscores their collective
endeavor to propel sustainable agricultural methods and optimal soil stewardship
(Nilsson et al. 2016).
Moreover, climate change wields a direct impact on food security by diminishing
crop yields and triggering agricultural losses. Consequently, SDG 2 and SDG 13
jointly advocate for adaptive measures that guarantee food security amidst climate
fluctuations. This harmonized pursuit underscores the common goal of preserving
access to sustenance amid a changing climate landscape (Dörgő et al. 2018a).
The detrimental ecological implications of food loss and waste further tie
these goals together, as their production and transportation processes contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions. In this vein, both SDG 2 and SDG 13 spotlight the necessity
36
of curbing food waste while advocating for a more sustainable food ecosystem (Fuso
Nerini et al. 2019).
Renewable energy utilization surfaces as a linchpin in SDG 2 and SDG 13’s
shared vision. By adopting renewable energy sources, greenhouse gas emissions
can be mitigated, underscoring these goals’ concerted drive towards sustainable
agriculture and climate resilience.
Sustainable agriculture, responsible soil management, climate adaptation,
curbing food waste, and embracing renewable energy crystallize the binding threads
uniting these goals. Through the prism of these concerted efforts, both SDGs navigate
the trajectory towards a harmonious coexistence with nature, fostering food security
and environmental preservation in tandem (Figure 12).
• Sustainable agriculture and

sustainable soil management
• Adapting to climate change
• Reducing food loss and waste
• Use of renewable energy
Sustainable agriculture can help combat climate change by helping to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable soil management and the use of
more efficient farming methods. Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 13 focus on promoting
sustainable agricultural practices and effective soil management.
Climate change can affect food security, reducing food production and leading
to crop losses. Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 13 have common goals to help communities
adapt to and ensure food security in the face of climate change (Dörgő et al. 2018b).
Food loss and food waste contribute to negative impacts on the environment
through greenhouse gas emissions generated by production and transport processes.
Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 13 focus on reducing food loss and waste and promoting
a more sustainable food system.
Use of renewable energy can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat
climate change (Guang-Wen et al. 2023; UN Climate Change 2022). SDG 2 and
SDG 13 have common goals to promote the use of renewable energy in agriculture
and other sectors.
Thus, it can be concluded that there is a strong and direct link between
SDG 2 and SDG 13, which focus on common elements. Sustainable agriculture
37
and sustainable soil management, adapting to climate change, reducing food loss
and waste, and using renewable energy are key elements that illustrate this link
(Box 12). By promoting sustainable agricultural practices, effective soil management,
adapting to climate change, reducing food loss and waste, and using renewable
energy, we can contribute to achieving the common goals of the two SDGs and
creating a more sustainable food system that ensures food security, reducing the
negative impact on the environment (The Lancet 2019).
Box 12. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and increase climate action.
– India—Climate change can have a significant impact on India’s food security, as the country
is heavily dependent on agriculture and vulnerable to extreme changes in temperature and
rainfall. At the same time, agriculture in India is responsible for a significant proportion of
greenhouse gas emissions. India has, therefore, adopted a number of measures to address these
issues, including encouraging organic farming and water-efficient irrigation, promoting healthier
and more sustainable diets and developing renewable energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from greenhouse gases (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2021).
– Brazil—Brazil is the largest producer of soybeans in the world, and the expansion of soybean crops
and beef cattle has contributed to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. This deforestation
has a negative impact on the environment and can lead to lower crop yields and long-term food
security issues. At the same time, Brazil is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the
world, and beef production is responsible for a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.
Brazil has, therefore, taken steps to address these issues, including imposing stricter restrictions on
deforestation and adopting sustainable agricultural practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(Stabile et al. 2020).
– United States of America—The United States has been affected by extreme weather conditions,
such as droughts and violent storms, which can negatively impact food security. At the same time,
US agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions, and meat
production and consumption have been criticized for their environmental impact. To address these
issues, the US has begun to promote sustainable agricultural practices as well as the production of
healthier and more sustainable foods, such as vegetables and fruits. The US has also begun to adopt
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including switching to renewable energy sources and
promoting green transportation (Blackwell and Fellow 2016; United States Department of State
and the United States Executive Office of the President, Washington DC 2021).

SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 14: Life Below Water are two directly
interconnected goals that focus on developing a sustainable food system, reducing
food insecurity and, for these, protecting marine ecosystems.
The interrelation between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 14: Life Below
Water presents a matrix of challenges intertwined with their shared emphasis on
38
cultivating sustainable food systems, eradicating food insecurity, and safeguarding
marine ecosystems. This symbiotic link underscores the paramount importance
of shielding and preserving marine food resources, which are vital for the
sustenance of coastal communities and the preservation of marine biodiversity.
Herein, SDG 2 and SDG 14 harmoniously champion the safeguarding of marine
resources through the adoption of sustainable fishing practices and the mitigation of
marine pollution, thereby augmenting global food security (Guang-Wen et al. 2023;
Maxim and van der Sluijs 2011).
Aquaculture emerges as a pivotal conduit in the journey towards sustainable
food production and resource conservation, as it alleviates the strain on marine
resources while bolstering food output. In tandem, SDG 2 and SDG 14
champion sustainable aquaculture practices that uphold the tenets of environmental
preservation and marine ecosystem protection (Vilalta et al. 2018).
The perilous implications of marine pollution reverberate across food quality
and marine habitat integrity, thereby imperiling food security and biodiversity. By
targeting reductions in marine pollution through judicious waste and pollution
management practices, SDG 2 and SDG 14 jointly advocate for a healthier marine
environment (Ward 2006).
Education and heightened public awareness constitute linchpins in fostering
transformative shifts in consumer and producer behaviors, thus fostering a
sustainable food system and environment (Sullivan et al. 2018; Stephens et al.
2008; Vilalta et al. 2018). This shared ambition to elevate public understanding
and consciousness about food security and marine conservation underscores the
conjoined objectives of SDG 2 and SDG 14.
Responsible fishing, sustainable aquaculture, pollution reduction, and public
education stand as the bedrocks upon which these goals stand united, envisaging a
future of sustenance and prosperity firmly rooted in balanced ecological and human
stewardship (Figure 13).
•Protecting marine food resources

•Sustainable aquaculture
•Combating marine pollution
•Education and public awareness
to promote a more sustainable
food system
39
Protecting and conserving marine food resources are crucial to ensuring food
security for coastal communities and maintaining marine biodiversity. Therefore,
SDG 2 and SDG 14 focus on protecting and conserving marine resources by adopting
sustainable fishing practices and reducing marine pollution, thereby increasing
food security.
Aquaculture is a method of food production that can be used to reduce pressure
on marine resources and increase food production (Box 13). Therefore, SDG 2
and SDG 14 have common goals to provide nutritious food, promote sustainable
aquaculture practices that respect the principles of environmental conservation, and
protect marine ecosystems (Sullivan et al. 2018).
Box 13. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and increase actions on life below water.
– Ghana: Ghana is an African country facing food security and marine resource conservation
issues. To address these issues, the Ghanaian government has implemented programs to develop
sustainable agriculture and aquaculture, promoting ecological agricultural practices and responsible
management of marine and coastal resources (FAO 2012; Ministry of Food and Agriculture Republic
of Ghana 2018).
– Japan: Japan is an island country that depends on marine resources for its food security. The Japanese
government has developed policies and programs to conserve marine resources and improve fisheries
management, promoting sustainable fishing and implementing measures to protect vulnerable
marine areas (Duarte et al. 2020).
– Iceland: Iceland is another country that depends on fishing for its food security. At the same
time, the Icelandic government has adopted a conservative approach to protect marine resources
and conserve fragile marine ecosystems. Iceland has developed and implemented marine resource
management policies and programs that promote sustainable fishing and protect vulnerable marine
ecosystems (Bryndum-Buchholz et al. 2021).
– Brazil: Brazil is a vast country, rich in natural resources, including marine resources. At the
same time, Brazil is facing food security problems in some regions of the country. The Brazilian
government has developed policies and programs to promote sustainable agriculture and the
sustainable management of marine and coastal resources to ensure the sustainable development of
the country (Government of Brazil 2022a).
Marine pollution can affect food quality and lead to the destruction of marine
habitats, thereby affecting food security and biodiversity. SDG 2 and SDG 14,
therefore, focus on reducing marine pollution and protecting the marine environment
by adopting safer waste and pollution management practices.
Education and public awareness are key to promoting a change in behavior
among consumers and producers to promote a more sustainable food system and
environment. Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 14 have common objectives to increase the
40
level of education and public awareness in relation to issues of food security and the
protection of the marine environment (Stephens et al. 2008).

SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 15: Life on Land are two directly interconnected
Sustainable Development Goals that focus on developing a sustainable food system
and protecting terrestrial biodiversity.
The interrelation between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 15: Life on Land
unveils a tapestry of challenges interwoven with their shared commitment to
forging a sustainable food system and safeguarding terrestrial biodiversity. Soil,
a cornerstone of the food system and terrestrial life, stands central within this matrix.
SDG 2 and SDG 15 are intrinsically aligned in their pursuit to shield and conserve soil
through sustainable agricultural practices while curbing deforestation and activities
that foment soil degradation (Maxim and van der Sluijs 2011).
Biodiversity’s pivotal role in upholding terrestrial ecosystems and food security
underscores the shared purpose of SDG 2 and SDG 15 to preserve biodiversity via
sustainable agricultural methods and the safeguarding of natural habitats.
Sustainable agriculture’s pivotal importance in realizing SDG 2 and SDG 15 is
twofold: alleviating the burden on natural resources and bolstering food production.
Hence, SDG 2 and SDG 15 underscore the imperative of sustainable agricultural
practices, including the judicious use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers (Maxim
and van der Sluijs 2011).
Equally pivotal is the prudent management of natural resources for achieving
both SDG 2 and SDG 15. Protection and conservation of resources, such as water,
soil, and forests, feature prominently, propelling SDG 2 and SDG 15 to champion
improved natural resource management practices that buttress environmental
preservation and underpin a sustainable food system.
So, SDG 2 and SDG 15 coalesce to frame a symbiotic interdependence predicated
on fashioning a sustainable food system and safeguarding terrestrial biodiversity.
The adoptions of sustainable agricultural methodologies, biodiversity protection,
astute natural resource stewardship, and soil preservation coalesce as the bedrock
of these goals, envisaging a future where the trajectory of humanity is harmonized
with the sustenance of both ecosystems and prosperity for all. Consequently,
a harmonious collaboration between governments and civil society becomes
imperative to concretize these aspirations and usher in an integrated, sustainable era
for food security and terrestrial biodiversity (Figure 14).
41
• Soil Conservation
• Biodiversity
• Sustainable agriculture
• Natural resource management
Soil is one of the most important elements in the food system and terrestrial
biodiversity. Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 15 focus on protecting and conserving
soil through sustainable agricultural practices and avoiding deforestation and other
activities that can lead to soil degradation.
Biodiversity is essential for maintaining terrestrial ecosystems and food security.
Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 15 aim to protect biodiversity by adopting sustainable
agricultural practices and promoting the conservation of natural habitats (FAO, IFAD,
UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2022).
Sustainable agriculture is essential to achieving SDG 2 and SDG 15 by reducing
pressure on natural resources and increasing food production. Therefore, SDG 2 and
SDG 15 focus on promoting sustainable and sustainable agricultural practices, such
as reducing the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
Natural resource management is essential to achieving both SDG 2 and SDG 15,
by protecting and conserving natural resources, such as water, soil, and forests.
Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 15 aim to adopt better natural resource management
practices to protect the environment and support a sustainable food system (Box ??).
Box 14. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and increase actions on life on land.
– Brazil—Sustainable agriculture and fisheries are important to the Brazilian economy and to the
food security of its population. The Brazilian government launched the “ABC Plan” program for
agriculture based on sustainable practices and soil and water protection. Brazil has also developed a
biodiversity conservation program that aims to protect rainforests and other ecosystems (Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Brasília 2021).
– Indonesia—Indonesia has some of the greatest biodiversity in the world and an important
agricultural economy. The Indonesian government has launched a national food security strategy
that promotes sustainable agriculture and the protection of natural resources. In addition, Indonesia
launched the “Green Economy” program to promote sustainable economic development and a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (UN Partnership for Action on Green Economy 2022).
42
– Kenya—Agriculture is an important industry in Kenya, and the Kenyan government has launched
the “Agricultural Sector Development Strategy” program to promote sustainable agriculture and
food security. In addition, Kenya launched the “Green Economy Strategy and Implementation Plan”
program to promote sustainable economic development and biodiversity conservation (African
Union Development Agency AUDA-NEPAD 2015).
– Norway—Norway is a country with a strong economy based on fishing and aquaculture. The
Norwegian government has implemented several measures to protect marine resources and promote
sustainable fishing. Norway also has one of the most advanced biodiversity protection policies in the
world, including through the creation of protected areas and the promotion of a sustainable way of
life (Norway Government 2021; Bjørkhaug and Richards 2008).

SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions are
two SDGs that are indirectly interconnected but linked in terms of developing a
sustainable food system and ensuring accountable and transparent governance.
The nexus between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong
Institutions unfolds as a nuanced interplay of challenges and shared aspirations.
While indirectly connected, these two goals converge in their dedication to cultivating
a sustainable food system and fostering accountable, transparent governance.
SDG 2 strives to alleviate food insecurity and ensure universal access to nutritious
sustenance, irrespective of social or geographical boundaries. Concurrently,
SDG 16 endeavors to nurture social equity, curbing disparities encompassing food
accessibility and distribution. Consequently, these goals are interlaced as they
collectively pursue the universal provision of wholesome nourishment, irrespective
of socioeconomic standing (Dörgő et al. 2018b; Otto-Zimmermann 2012).
SDG 16 pivots on fostering effective governance, transparency, and
accountability in public resource management and policy formulation. These
tenets are pivotal in shaping sustainable, equitable food policies and practices, thus
propelling SDG 2 and SDG 16 in tandem towards a food system underpinned by
social justice and upheld by the tenets of transparent governance (Cucurachi and
Suh 2017).
Concurrently, conflict and instability can sow seeds of food insecurity by
disrupting agricultural endeavors, resource access, and mobility (Ben Hassen and
El Bilali 2022). SDG 16’s emphasis on peace promotion, conflict prevention, and
community stabilization dovetails with SDG 2’s mission to alleviate food insecurity.
These symbiotic efforts, rooted in addressing underlying inequities and social
injustices, stand poised to thwart conflict and instability from germinating.
43
The linchpin of equitable food resource distribution and a holistic approach to
food security is responsible, transparent governance. SDG 2 and SDG 16, thus,
rally around bolstering institutional and governmental capabilities to facilitate
effective food policy formulation and uphold transparent, accountable governance
(Otto-Zimmermann 2012).
In synthesis, SDG 2 and SDG 16, though indirectly intertwined, embolden
one another in their quest for sustainable development. Shared aspirations of
equitable food access, social justice, effective food governance, conflict prevention,
and transparent governance stand as the pillars of their confluence. Crafting a
sustainable food system and upholding the tenets of transparent governance emerge
as pivotal endeavors in achieving these goals. Thus, the union between SDG 2 and
SDG 16 marks a pivotal stride towards constructing a more equitable, sustainable
global paradigm (Figure 15).
• Equitable access to food

and social justice
• Food governance and policy
• Promoting peace, preventing conflict
and stabilizing communities
• Responsible governance
SDG 2 aims to reduce food insecurity and increase access to food for all,
regardless of social or geographical condition. At the same time, SDG 16 aims
to promote social justice and reduce inequalities, including in access to food and
its distribution. Thus, the two goals are interconnected in their effort to ensure that
everyone has access to sufficient and nutritious food, regardless of their social or
economic situation.
SDG 16 focuses on promoting effective governance, transparency, and
accountability in the management of public resources and public policies. These
efforts are essential to develop sustainable and equitable food policies and practices
(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2022). Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 16
complement each other in terms of developing a sustainable food system that
promotes social justice and respects the principles of good governance.
Conflict and instability can be causes of food insecurity by affecting food
production, access to resources, and mobility (Dörgő et al. 2018b; Otto-Zimmermann
2012). Therefore, SDG 16 focuses on promoting peace, preventing conflict, and
44
stabilizing communities, while SDG 2 aims to reduce food insecurity. These efforts
complement each other, as conflict and instability can be prevented by addressing
underlying inequality and social injustice.
Responsible and transparent governance is essential to ensure the equitable
distribution of food resources and an integrated approach to food security (FAO,
IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2022). SDG 2 and SDG 16, therefore, focus on
strengthening institutional and governmental capacities to support the development
of effective food policies and ensure accountable and transparent governance.
Therefore, SDG 2 and SDG 16 are two indirectly interconnected sustainable
development goals and are complementary. They share a common goal of ensuring
a more just, equitable, and sustainable world by promoting access to sufficient and
nutritious food for all and by strengthening effective and accountable governance.
Equitable access to food and social justice, food governance and policy, peace
promotion and conflict prevention, and responsible governance are key elements
that illustrate the connection between the two SDGs. Developing a sustainable
food system and ensuring transparent and accountable governance are essential
to achieving these goals (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2022). Promoting
access to food and strengthening institutional and government capacities are essential
efforts in achieving these goals (Box 15).
Box 15. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and increase levels of peace, justice,
and strong institutions.
– Ghana: In Ghana, the government has implemented agricultural and rural development
programs to improve food security and enhance economic growth in rural areas. At the same
time, the government has invested in strong institutions and an effective justice system to
promote good governance and protect citizens’ rights, including the rights to food and water
(Asare-Nuamah et al. 2021).
– Canada: In Canada, the government has developed programs to support local farmers and promote
sustainable food production. These programs helped create a sustainable business environment and
protected natural resources, including soil and water. At the same time, Canada has promoted a
peaceful and inclusive society through investments in education, health, and other public services,
which have helped reduce inequalities and increase social cohesion (Government of Canada 2022).
– Rwanda: In Rwanda, the government has implemented policies to improve food production and
promote rural development. These policies included investments in rural infrastructure and a
better irrigation system, which improved food security and increased agricultural productivity. At
the same time, Rwanda invested in strong institutions and promoted good governance to enhance
stability and security in the country (Kim et al. 2022).
45
SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 17: Partnerships to achieve the Goal are two
indirectly linked goals, but they represent one of the most important relations and
aim to promote food security and build strong partnerships to achieve the goals.
The interrelation between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 17: Partnerships
to achieve the Goal unveils a paramount association aimed at fostering food
security and orchestrating robust collaborations for goal achievement. SDG 17
takes the mantle of mobilizing resources and nurturing alliances to invigorate
investments and sustenance for sustainable development, encompassing the fight
against food insecurity and malnutrition (Guang-Wen et al. 2023). It also champions
innovation in technology and business models to usher in more effective, sustainable
food production and distribution. In contrast, SDG 2 is single-minded in its
pursuit of curbing food insecurity and heightening access to nourishing sustenance.
SDG 17 galvanizes partnerships and cooperation across diverse sectors—the public,
private, and civil society—to collectively combat the specters of food insecurity and
malnutrition.
Concurrently, SDG 17 underscores the importance of knowledge exchange and
propagation of best practices among diverse stakeholders to cultivate sustainable
development and an efficacious strategy to address agricultural, food, and nutritional
concerns. Thus, SDG 17 and SDG 2, although tangentially linked, synthesize a
symbiotic relationship where collaborative endeavors emerge as the bedrock for
curtailing food insecurity and malnutrition and propelling the creation of a just,
sustainable food system. Mobilizing resources, fostering innovation, intersectoral
collaboration, and disseminating knowledge and optimal practices stand as linchpins
in this connection, steering the collective journey towards accomplishing sustainable
development objectives (Figure 16).
• Resource mobilization
• Promoting innovation
• Partnerships across sectors
• Exchange of knowledge and
good practices
46
SDG 17 aims to mobilize resources and develop strong partnerships to ensure
increased investment and support for sustainable development, including to combat
food insecurity and malnutrition. Also, it aims to promote innovation in the
development of technologies and business models to ensure more efficient and
sustainable food production and distribution, while SDG 2 focuses on reducing food
insecurity and increasing access to nutritious food. SDG 17 encourages partnerships
and collaboration across sectors, including the public sector, the private sector, and
civil society, to combat food insecurity and malnutrition (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP
and WHO 2022).
In the meantime, SDG 17 encourages the exchange of knowledge and good
practices between different actors to ensure sustainable development and an effective
approach to problems related to agricultural production, food, and nutrition (Box 16).
Box 16. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and enhance partnerships to achieve
the goal.
– Ghana: The Government of Ghana launched the “Planting for Food and Jobs” program in 2017,
which aims to increase agricultural production and create jobs for youth and women in rural areas.
The program aims to improve productivity, access to markets, and promote a sustainable food system
(Asante and Bawakyillenuo 2021).
– Brazil: In 2019, Brazil launched the “Casa Verde e Amarela” program, which aims to reduce poverty
and inequality in rural areas by investing in infrastructure and increasing access to basic services,
such as education, health, and nutrition (Government of Brazil 2022b).
– United States: In the United States, the “Feed the Future” program was launched in 2010 to support
partner countries in developing sustainable food systems and combating hunger and malnutrition.
The program focuses on improving agricultural productivity, access to markets, and capacity to
adapt to climate change (The U.S. Government’s Global Hunger & Food Security Initiative. Feed
the Future n.d.).
– India: The Government of India launched the National Food Security Mission in 2007 to improve
food security by increasing agricultural production and access to nutritious food for the most
vulnerable members of society (Government of India n.d.).
4. One Goal, Many Results: Discussions on the Role of SDG 2: Zero Hunger in
Global Sustainable Development
Since their adoption in 2015, the SDGs have become a unique and ambitious
global framework aimed at addressing the complex and interconnected challenges of
the modern world. This set of 17 goals and 169 targets represents a global consensus
on where the international community should be heading to build a more sustainable
47
and prosperous future for all Earth’s inhabitants (UN Transforming Our World: The
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development n.d.).
The SDGs represent a deep commitment by world leaders to overcome
geographic, social, and economic divides and address the common challenges of
humanity. These goals reflect the desire to create an environment in which all nations
and communities can develop their potential, ensure their well-being, and protect
natural resources for future generations (Bell and Morse 2019; Hajer et al. 2015;
Malešević Perović and Mihaljević Kosor 2020). Thus, the SDGs represent a global
vision of a fairer and more inclusive future, where every individual has access to a
dignified life and equal opportunities.
In a world characterized by complex and interconnected challenges, such as
climate change, social and economic inequalities, political instability, and global
health issues, the SDGs have become the anchor to which the efforts of nations
and international organizations to address these challenges are reported. They
provide a platform for collaboration, innovation, and joint action, with the goal
of creating sustainable and scalable solutions (Bell and Morse 2019; Swain 2018;
Hajer et al. 2015).
A key aspect of the SDGs is their holistic approach and the interconnectedness
of the goals. Each objective does not act in isolation but influences and is influenced
by the others (Fonseca et al. 2020; Nilsson et al. 2016). This approach recognizes
that global challenges are often interrelated and that effective solutions require
an integrated perspective. For example, goals such as health and education are
closely related to food security and the sustainable management of natural resources
(Malešević Perović and Mihaljević Kosor 2020). This interconnectedness requires
cooperation and coordination between different sectors and levels of government to
achieve meaningful results.
One of the great lessons learned from the adoption of the SDGs is that the
world’s challenges cannot be tackled in isolation. They intersect and intertwine, and
solutions for one can influence the achievement of the others. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
is a perfect illustration of this interconnectedness, impacting and, in turn, being
influenced by all the other SDGs (Cheo and Kugedera 2021).
For example, the link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 1: Eradication of
Poverty is evident in the fight against food poverty. Poverty is a determinant of food
insecurity and achieving SDG 2: Zero Hunger is essential to improving the health
and well-being of populations affected by poverty.
In the same way, the connection between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 3:
Health and Well-being is profound. Access to healthy and nutritious food has a
48
significant impact on population health. Conversely, poor health can affect a person’s
ability to provide adequate nutrition, creating a vicious cycle of vulnerability.
Education and training are key elements in achieving the SDGs, and SDG 2: Zero
Hunger and SDG 4: Quality Education are interconnected by promoting awareness
of nutrition and sustainable agriculture. Education improves knowledge of efficient
agricultural practices, stimulating innovation and more sustainable approaches.
SDG 2: Zero Hunger also influences SDG 5: Sanitation and Clean Water. Access
to potable water and proper hygiene are essential to ensuring food security. Improper
sanitation can lead to food contamination and health problems, which underscores
the need for an integrated approach to these goals.
On the other hand, SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 13: Combating Climate
Change influence each other. Climate change can affect food production and the
availability of agricultural resources, putting food security at risk. At the same
time, sustainable agricultural practices can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and adapting to climate change (The Lancet 2019).
Achieving the SDGs is a complex challenge, and SDG 2: Zero Hunger plays
a crucial role in this equation. The interconnections between SDG 2: Zero Hunger
and the other goals illustrate that addressing global challenges requires a holistic
and collaborative approach. The transformation targeted by the SDGs is deeply
interdependent, where each goal influences and is influenced by the others. By
understanding these complex connections, the global community can move towards
a more sustainable and equitable future for all.
The SDGs represent an important milestone in humanity’s efforts to embark on
a sustainable and responsible path. They reflect a shared vision for a better future
and a commitment to act in a coherent and concerted way to achieve these goals.
The link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and the other goals illustrates that every step
forward in achieving a goal brings significant benefits for the entire planet and for
future generations (Griggs et al. 2013). The implementation of the SDGs requires
political will, global collaboration, and individual commitment to turn the vision
into reality (Bakshi et al. 2018; Bell and Morse 2019).
We are currently at a pivotal moment in global efforts to achieve the SDGs as a
firm commitment to build a fairer and more sustainable future for everyone. While
significant progress has been made in many regions and areas, it is clear that action
to achieve the SDGs is not yet advancing at the speed or scale needed to address the
complex and interconnected challenges facing humanity.
One of the central objectives of the SDGs is ending hunger and food insecurity
(SDG 2: Zero Hunger). This challenge is critical in a world where approximately
49
9% of the population suffers from chronic undernourishment, and risks associated
with climate change, conflict, and economic inequality threaten global food security.
Although there have been improvements in access to food and undernutrition,
progress is still insufficient to achieve the goal of ending hunger by 2030 (UN Progress
towards the Sustainable Development Goals n.d.; The Lancet 2019).
In many regions of the world, government programs and innovations in
agriculture have helped increase food production and improve food security. However,
persistent inequalities and poverty remain major obstacles to achieving SDG 2:
Zero Hunger. Also, climate change and the risks associated with extreme events
disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, putting food security at risk.
The SDGs are a global effort to address the complex and interconnected
challenges of the modern world. While progress is being made in many areas, there
is still an urgent need to accelerate action and address inequalities and vulnerabilities
(UN Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals n.d.). SDG 2: Zero
Hunger is emblematic of the challenges and opportunities that the SDGs bring
as a whole. Understanding the links between these goals and promoting coordinated
and coherent action are essential to building a better and more sustainable future
for all.
The importance of the holistic link between SDG 2 Zero Hunger and all
other SDGs lies in the recognition that sustainable development cannot be
achieved in isolation but requires an integrated and coordinated approach to the
complex and interconnected issues facing contemporary society (Bakshi et al. 2018).
Understanding the synergies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs is essential to
maximizing the impact of our actions and creating a fairer and more prosperous
future for everyone (Figure 17).
By interlinking SDG 2: Zero Hunger with the other SDGs, it is recognized
that hunger and food insecurity cannot be eliminated in isolation from other
global challenges, such as climate change, poverty, inequalities, and environmental
degradation (Guang-Wen et al. 2023; Dörgő et al. 2018a). Approaching SDG 2: Zero
Hunger within the broader context of sustainable development allows us to explore
the ways in which reducing hunger can contribute to solving complex problems, and
vice versa (The Lancet 2019).
This link is also crucial to avoid the unwanted negative effects of measures
taken within one objective on other areas. For example, increasing food production
to achieve the goal of SDG 2: Zero Hunger must be balanced with the need to
conserve natural resources and the environment, according to SDG 15: Life on Land
and SDG 14: Life Below Water (Salasan and Balan 2022).
50
Legend
Direct links
Indirect links
Figure 17. Links between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and all other SDGs. Source: Figure
by authors.
The link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and the other goals is a recognition
that food security and equity are crucial to promoting human well-being, and
these issues are closely connected to health (SDG 3), education (SDG 4), and
economic growth (SDG 8). Promoting a sustainable and equitable food system
has significant implications on poverty, inequalities, and the general well-being of
the population, according to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)
(Bastianoni et al. 2018).
Therefore, the importance of the holistic link between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and
the other SDGs is essential for genuine and effective sustainable development. This
approach allows us to see the subtle and complex connections between different
global challenges and identify solutions that have a positive impact in multiple areas
(Guang-Wen et al. 2023).
Despite progress in some areas, actions to achieve the SDGs are not progressing
uniformly or in sync across all sectors and regions. This can lead to imbalances and
undermine global efforts (Bastianoni et al. 2018). For example, progress in education
(SDG 4) can have a positive impact on health (SDG 3), and sustainable economic
growth (SDG 8) can help reduce inequalities (SDG 10) (UN Progress towards the
Sustainable Development Goals n.d.; Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable
Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) n.d.).
51
The reasons for the slow pace of progress are varied and complex. One aspect
is the lack of adequate funding and resources to implement specific measures
(Spangenberg 2017; Maxim and van der Sluijs 2011). Also, the need for global
and national coordination to ensure synergies between different agencies and sectors
is essential (Guang-Wen et al. 2023). In addition, political instability, conflicts, and
crisis situations can make it difficult to implement the SDGs in certain regions (Ben
Hassen and El Bilali 2022).
However, it is important to emphasize that we are not at an impasse. Despite the
challenges, there have been significant successes in areas, such as health, education,
and poverty reduction (World Health Organization 2016).
Drawing insights from experiences and adapting strategies, the acceleration of
the SDG achievement becomes attainable. The promotion of innovation, community
engagement, and international collaboration holds the potential to expedite progress
and facilitate the establishment of a sustainable future (Fuso Nerini et al. 2018).
Through these means, the groundwork is laid for the cultivation of a future
characterized by equity, prosperity, and sustainability across global communities
and ecosystems.
5. Holistic Solutions: Concluding Reflections on SDG 2: Zero Hunger and Its

Links with the SDGs
The challenges linked to SDG 2: Zero Hunger resonate across the entire spectrum
of SDGs, either through direct connections or more nuanced and indirect correlations,
necessitating a comprehensive and intricate approach for their comprehension. The
centrality of SDG 2: Zero Hunger to the accomplishment of other objectives is evident
in its pivotal role in safeguarding people’s health and well-being, inherently tied
to the availability of adequate and nourishing sustenance. Effectively tackling the
problem of hunger and malnutrition demands a comprehensive strategy addressing
underlying concerns, such as poverty, inequality, climate change, and sustainable
economic growth, all of which hold intricate ties with each of the remaining SDGs
(UN Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals n.d.).
Addressing poverty and inequality can lead to a decrease in hunger by
expanding access to nourishing food sources. Concurrently, countering climate
change supports sustainable agricultural and ecosystem development, thus assuring
the stability of food supplies and water resources (WHO/UNICEF 2008). Similarly,
educational initiatives and sustainable economic growth foster employment
opportunities, particularly in sectors like agriculture and food production, bolstering
food security. The fight against food wastage and losses contributes not only
52
to SDG 12’s aim of sustainable consumption and production but also to curbing
environmental impacts through reduced greenhouse gas emissions and judicious
resource utilization (Francis and McDonagh 2016).
Consequently, attaining the aspirations of SDG 2: Zero Hunger requires an
integrated and multifaceted approach, encompassing the complexities of poverty
alleviation, inequality reduction, climate change mitigation, sustainable economic
development, and waste reduction in tandem with fostering sustainable consumption
and production (Le Blanc 2015).
To achieve the aims of SDG 2: Zero Hunger, a widespread and synergistic
engagement of global, regional, and local authorities becomes paramount. The
objective cannot be fulfilled through isolated endeavors but necessitates synchronized
cooperation between governmental bodies, international organizations, civil society,
private enterprises, and other stakeholders (Le Blanc 2015; Griggs et al. 2013).
At the global stage, governments and international organizations must
formulate policies and programs addressing the root causes of hunger while
advocating for sustainable agriculture and balanced diets. These initiatives should
be seamlessly integrated into national developmental agendas, subjected to regular
monitoring and evaluation to gauge their effectiveness (Swain 2018). Regionally
and nationally, comprehensive strategies should be devised to curtail poverty,
bolster educational and healthcare accessibility, and endorse sustainable agricultural
practices and healthy nutrition. In this context, public–private partnerships should
be established to ensure effective strategy implementation. Locally, authorities must
frame policies aligning with the specific needs of communities, endorsing sustainable
agriculture and nutritional practices. Collaborations between governing bodies, local
communities, and private entities are essential to yield context-specific solutions
(Griggs et al. 2013; Reyers et al. 2017).
The staggering fact that all the food produced but left uneaten could feasibly
feed around two billion people, and this exceeds double the count of undernourished
people worldwide, acutely underscores not just a systemic failure but a disconcerting
lack of prioritization when it comes to combating hunger (World Food Programme
2020). While SDG 2: Zero Hunger ambitiously aims to achieve zero hunger, the stark
reality remains that despite these aspirations, the measures put in place to mitigate
food waste often fall far short of their intended impact. The inefficiency of food
waste reduction strategies not only speaks to a lack of resourcefulness and effective
implementation but also exposes a disquieting apathy towards the prevailing global
issue of food insecurity (Ivanova et al. 2016; Balan et al. 2022b; Feher et al. 2021).
Indeed, food waste can be perceived as a manifestation of indifference and, in some
53
aspects, even a form of selfishness. It is a stark reminder of how excess and disregard
can coexist within the same geographical boundaries. Contrary to a common
assumption, geographical distance is not the sole culprit; food waste and hunger are
present simultaneously, even within the confines of the same country, city, or even
neighborhood. This poignant reality highlights a disheartening paradox where food
waste occurs side by side with food insecurity, illustrating a stark disparity between
those who are wasteful and those who suffer from hunger. In such instances, food
wastage is not just an act of negligence; it is a poignant demonstration of disregard
for the plight of those in need, an inadvertent endorsement of an alarming culture
of neglect and indifference to the global food crisis. People-to-people collaborations
in local communities are essential to achieve context-specific solutions. Therefore,
the education of the population in communities of all sizes, regarding food waste,
is deficient, as long as everyone has neighbors or knows people who suffer from
hunger while food is wasted in their own homes.
The realization of SDG 2: Zero Hunger hinges on involving stakeholders at every
level and harmonizing efforts globally, regionally, nationally, and locally (FAO, IFAD,
UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2023). A holistic approach is imperative to address hunger’s
root causes and propagate sustainable agriculture and nutritious dietary habits.
Simultaneously, the continuous assessment of advancements is essential to
gauge the extent of SDG 2: Zero Hunger’s accomplishments. Monitoring aids in
identifying vulnerabilities and shortcomings, contributing to the development of
effective policies and interventions against hunger and malnutrition (World Food
Programme. Hunger Map 2022). Assessment should span topics, such as food
accessibility, equal food distribution, nutritional standards, health, and education.
Up-to-date relevant data are pivotal for informed decision making and tracking
progress over time. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation must be conducted across
local, national, and international tiers for a comprehensive grasp of the situation.
Communication and cooperation among stakeholders at various levels remain
crucial for sharing information and refining decision-making processes (FAO, IFAD,
UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2023).
Conversely, the shortcomings and limitations of SDG 2: Zero Hunger come to
light in its failure to encapsulate the intricacies of food systems and the food industry,
both instrumental in either exacerbating or mitigating hunger and malnutrition.
Additionally, the SDG does not explicitly address environmental concerns or the
implications of climate change on food security. Some of its objectives and metrics
lack specificity or fall short of offering comprehensive measurement tools (Halkos
and Gkampoura 2021; Sachs et al. 2019).
54
Given these circumstances, it is undeniable that monitoring and assessing
the progress of SDG 2: Zero Hunger, its interlinkages with other SDGs, and their
reciprocating impact are pivotal in refining the current scenario and formulating
effective policies and programs in the battle against hunger and malnutrition.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.L. and I.M.B.; Methodology, M.O.; Software,

M.O.; Validation, R.L., I.M.B. and M.O.; Formal Analysis, M.O.; Investigation, I.M.B.;
Resources, R.L.; Data Curation, M.O.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, R.L.;
Writing—Review and Editing, I.M.B.; Visualization, M.O; Supervision, R.L.; Project
Administration, R.L.; Funding Acquisition, M.O.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
African Union Development Agency AUDA-NEPAD. 2015. Kenya Signs Continental
Agricultural Improvement Scheme. Available online: https://nepad.org/news/kenya-signs-
continental-agricultural-improvement-scheme#:~:text=Kenya%2520has%2520officially%
2520launched%2520its,domesticating%2520the%2520continental%2520agricultural%
2520program (accessed on 20 March 2023).
Ali, Umar Mohammed. 2022. Demerits side of open defecation on school education in nigeria.
Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal 2: 28–33. [CrossRef]
Anser, Muhammad Khalid, Muhammad Azhar Khan, Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, Abdullah
Mohammed Aldakhil, Xuan Hinh Voo, and Khalid Zaman. 2021. Relationship of
environment with technological innovation, carbon pricing, renewable energy, and global
food production. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 30: 807–42. [CrossRef]
Arshad, Ashraf, and Jamil Khalid. 2022. Solar-powered irrigation system as a nature-based
solution for sustaining agricultural water management in the Upper Indus Basin.
Nature-Based Solutions 2: 100026. [CrossRef]
Asante, Felix Ankomah, and Simon Bawakyillenuo. 2021. Farm-Level Effects of the 2019
Ghana Planting for Food and Jobs Program: An Analysis of Household Survey Data. GSSP
Working Paper 57. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
[CrossRef]
Asare-Nuamah, Peter, Anthony Amoah, and Simplice Asongu. 2021. Achieving Food Security
in Ghana: Does Governance Matter? Politics & Policy 51: 614–35. [CrossRef]
Australian Government. National Food Waste Strategy. 2017. Halving Australia’s Food
Waste by 2030. Available online: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/
documents/national-food-waste-strategy.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2023).
55
Bakshi, Bhavik R., Timothy G. Gutowski, and Dusan P. Sekulic. 2018. Claiming
Sustainability: Requirements and Challenges. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
6: 3632–39. Available online: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acssuschemeng.
7b03953 (accessed on 13 February 2023).
Balan, Ioana Mihaela, Emanuela Diana Gherman, Ioan Brad, Remus Gherman, Adina
Horablaga, and Teodor Ioan Trasca. 2022a. Metabolic Food Waste as Food Insecurity
Factor—Causes and Preventions. Foods 11: 2179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Balan, Ioana Mihaela, Emanuela Diana Gherman, Remus Gherman, Ioan Brad, Raul Pascalau,
Gabriela Popescu, and Teodor Ioan Trasca. 2022b. Sustainable Nutrition for Increased
Food Security Related to Romanian Consumers’ Behavior. Nutrients 14: 4892. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Bastianoni, Simone, Luca Coscieme, Dario Caro, Nadia Marchettini, and Federico M. Pulselli.
2018. The needs of sustainability: The overarching contribution of systems approach.
Ecological Indicators. in press. [CrossRef]
Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. 2019. Sustainability Indicators Past and Present: What Next?
Sustainability 10: 1688. [CrossRef]
[CrossRef]
Bielski, Stanisław, Anna Zielińska-Chmielewska, and Renata Marks-Bielska. 2021. Use of
Environmental Management Systems and Renewable Energy Sources in Selected Food
Processing Enterprises in Poland. Energies 14: 3212. [CrossRef]
Bjørkhaug, Hilde, and Carol Ann Richards. 2008. Multifunctional agriculture in policy and
practice? A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 24:
98–111. [CrossRef]
Blackwell, Ashley, and Emerson Fellow. 2016. Center for American Progress. Best
Practices for Creating a Sustainable and Equitable Food System in the United
States. Available online: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/best-practices-
for-creating-a-sustainable-and-equitable-food-system-in-the-united-states/ (accessed
on 10 March 2023).
Bryndum-Buchholz, Andrea, Derek P. Tittensor, and Heike K. Lotze. 2021. The status of climate
change adaptation in fisheries management: Policy, legislation and implementation. Fish
and Fisheries 22: 1248–73. [CrossRef]
Chen, Chia-Yang, Sheng-Wei Wang, Hyunook Kim, Shu-Yuan Pan, Chihhao Fan, and Yupo J.
Lin. 2021. Non-conventional water reuse in agriculture: A circular water economy. Water
Research 199: 117193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56
Cheo, Ambe Emmanuel, and Andrew Tapiwa Kugedera. 2021. Understanding the
Interlinkages between SDG-2 and the Other SDGs. In SDG 2—Zero Hunger: Food
Security, Improved Nutrition and Sustainable Agriculture (Concise Guides to the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 43–48.
[CrossRef]
Cohen, Matthew. 2017. A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature.
Cucurachi, Stefano, and Sangwon Suh. 2017. Cause-effect analysis for sustainable development
policy. Environmental Reviews 25: 358–79. [CrossRef]
Da Silva, José Graziano, Mauro Eduardo Del Grossi, and Caio Galvão de França. 2011. The
Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) Program: The Brazilian Experience. Brasília: Ministry of Agrarian
Development. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3023e/i3023e.pdf (accessed
on 10 March 2023).
De Souza, Sthephany Rayanne Gomes, Diôgo Vale, Hortência Ingreddys Fernandes do
Nascimento, Juliano Capelo Nagy, Antônio Hermes Marques da Silva Junior, Priscilla
Moura Rolim, and Larissa Mont’Alverne Jucá Seabra. 2023. Food Purchase from Family
Farming in Public Institutions in the Northeast of Brazil: A Tool to Reach Sustainable
Development Goals. Sustainability 15: 2220. [CrossRef]
Di Fabio, Annamaria, and Marc A. Rosen. 2020. An Exploratory Study of a New
Psychological Instrument for Evaluating Sustainability: The Sustainable Development
Goals Psychological Inventory. Sustainability 12: 7617. [CrossRef]
DigiFarm: A Digital Platform for Farmers. n.d. Available online: https://mercycorpsagrifin.
org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/DigiFarm-Platform-Case_Final_pdf (accessed on 15
March 2023).
Dora, Carlos, Andy Haines, John Balbus, Elaine Fletcher, Heather Adair-Rohani, Graham
Alabaster, Rifat Hossain, Mercedes De Onis, Francesco Branca, and Maria Neira. 2015.
Indicators linking health and sustainability in the post-2015 development agenda. The
Lancet 385: 380–91. [CrossRef]
Dörgő, Gyula, Gergely Honti, and János Abonyi. 2018a. Automated analysis of the interactions
between sustainable development goals extracted from models and texts of sustainability
science. Chemical Engineering Transactions 70: 781–86. [CrossRef]
Dörgő, Gyula, Viktor Sebestyén, and János Abonyi. 2018b. Evaluating the Interconnectedness
of the Sustainable Development Goals Based on the Causality Analysis of Sustainability
Indicators. Sustainability 10: 3766. [CrossRef]
Duarte, Carlos M., Susana Agusti, Edward Barbier, Gregory L. Britten, Juan Carlos Castilla,
Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Robinson W. Fulweiler, Terry P. Hughes, Nancy Knowlton, Catherine E.
Lovelock, and et al. 2020. Rebuilding marine life. Nature 580: 39–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57
Egbuikwem, Precious N., Jose C. Mierzwa, and Devendra P. Saroj. 2020. Assessment of
suspended growth biological process for treatment and reuse of mixed wastewater for
irrigation of edible crops under hydroponic conditions. Agricultural Water Management
231: 106034. [CrossRef]
FAO. 2012. Ghana National Aquaculture Development Plan (GNADP). Available online:
https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/gha149443.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
FAO. 2015. Scaling Up The Brazilian School Feeding Model. Available online: https://www.
fao.org/3/i4287e/i4287e.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2020. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. Rome: FAO. Available online:
https://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/ca9692en.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2021. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
2021: Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy
Diets for All. Rome: FAO. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cb4474en/cb4474en.
pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2022. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the
World 2022: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable.
Rome: FAO. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cc0639en/cc0639en.pdf (accessed
on 15 March 2023).
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2023. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the
World 2023: Urbanization, Agrifood Systems Transformation and Healthy Diets across the
Rural–Urban Continuum. Rome: FAO, ISSN 2663-807X. Available online: https://www.
fao.org/3/cc3017en/cc3017en.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2023).
Farm-to-School USA. n.d. Delaware State. Available online: https://agriculture.delaware.
gov/communications-marketing/farm-to-school/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Feher, Andrea, Tiberiu Iancu, Mroslav Raicov, and Adrian Banes. 2021. Food Consumption
and Ways to Ensure Food Security in Romania. In Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Trade.
Singapore: Springer. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-
981-16-3260-0_13 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
Fonseca, Luis Miguel, José Pedro Domingues, and Alina Mihaela Dima. 2020. Mapping the
Sustainable Development Goals Relationships. Sustainability 12: 3359. [CrossRef]
Fosu, Augustin Kwasi. 2015. Growth, inequality and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: Recent
progress in a global context. Oxford Development Studies 43: 44–59. [CrossRef]
Francis, Pope, and Sean McDonagh. 2016. On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’—The
Encyclical of Pope Francis on the Environment. New York: Publisher Orbis Books (Ecology
and Justice), ISBN-10: 1626981736, ISBN-13:978-1626981737.
58
Fuso Nerini, Francesco, Benjamin Sovacool, Nick Hughes, Laura Cozzi, Ellie Cosgrave,
Mark Howells, Massimo Tavoni, Julia Tomei, Hisham Zerriffi, and Ben Milligan.
2019. Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals. Nature
Sustainability 2: 674–680. [CrossRef]
Fuso Nerini, Francesco, Julia Tomei, Long Seng To, Iwona Bisaga, Priti Parikh, Mairi Black,
Aiduan Borrion, Catalina Spataru, Vanesa Castán Broto, Gabrial Anandarajah, and
et al. 2018. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable
Development Goals. Nature Energy 3: 10–15. [CrossRef]
George, Neetu Abey, and Fiona H. McKay. 2019. The public distribution system and food
security in India. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 3221.
[CrossRef]
Ghana School Feeding Programme (GSFP). n.d. Available online: https://www.mogcsp.gov.
gh/ghana-school-feeding-programme-gsfp/ (accessed on 15 April 2023).
Good Food Purchasing Program USA. n.d. Available online: https://goodfoodpurchasing.org
(accessed on 15 April 2023).
Government of Brazil. 2022a. Agenda for a More Sustainable Brazil. ISBN
978-65-86360-52-3. Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=
j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CDgQw7AJahcKEwig_
fn2_fyAAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAw&url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.gov.br%
252Fpt-br%252Fcampanhas%252Fbrasil-na-cop%252Fcopy2_of_absengwebv2.pdf%252F%
2540%2540download%252Ffile&psig=AOvVaw31vEG3jGHV52GFMn0vV80N&
ust=1693230670697287&opi=89978449 (accessed on 15 April 2023).
Government of Brazil. 2022b. Housing for Vulnerable Communities: Casa Verde e Amarela.
Available online: https://www.gov.br/en/government-of-brazil/latest-news/2022/
casa-verde-e-amarela (accessed on 1 April 2023).
Government of Canada. 2022. The Government of Canada Invests in Clean
Technology to Support Sustainable Farming Practices. Available online: https:
//www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2022/02/the-government-of-
canada-invests-in-clean-technology-to-support-sustainable-farming-practices0.html
(accessed on 13 March 2023).
Government of India. n.d. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. National Food Security
Mission. Available online: https://www.nfsm.gov.in (accessed on 15 April 2023).
Government of the Netherlands. Circular Dutch Economy by 2050. n.d. Available online:
https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-economy/circular-dutch-economy-by-
2050#:~:text=The%2520Netherlands%2520aims%2520to%2520have,and%2520raw%
2520materials%2520are%2520reused (accessed on 1 April 2023).
Griggs, David, Mark Stafford-Smith, O. Gaffney, Johan Rockström, Marcus C. Öhman, Pryia
Shyamsundar, Will Steffen, Gisbert Glaser, Norichika Kanie, and Ian Noble. 2013. Policy:
Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495: 305–7. [CrossRef]
59
Guachalla, Francisco J. A. 2023. Embracing the SDG 2030 and Resilience for Monitoring and
Learning in Emergency and Developing Projects. Medical Sciences Forum 19: 6. [CrossRef]
Guang-Wen, Zheng, Muntasir Murshed, Abu Bakkar Siddik, Md Shabbir Alam, Daniel
Balsalobre-Lorente, and Haider Mahmood. 2023. Achieving the objectives of the
2030 sustainable development goals agenda: Causalities between economic growth,
environmental sustainability, financial development, and renewable energy consumption.
Sustainable Development 31: 680–97. [CrossRef]
Hajer, Maarten, Måns Nilsson, Kate Raworth, Peter Bakker, Frans Berkhout, Yvo De Boer,
Johan Rockström, Kathrin Ludwig, and Marcel Kok. 2015. Beyond Cockpit-ism: Four
Insights to Enhance the Transformative Potential of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Halkos, George, and Eleni-Christina Gkampoura. 2021. Where do we stand on the 17
Sustainable Development Goals? An overview on progress. Economic Analysis and
Policy 70: 94–122. [CrossRef]
Hoddinott, John, and Lawrence Haddad. 1995. Does female income share influence household
expenditures? Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 57:
77–96. [CrossRef]
Hutton, Guy, and Laurence Haller. 2004. Sanitation Water, and World Health Organization.
Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level.
No. WHO/SDE/WSH/04.04. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available online:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%252C5&q=Hutton%
252C+Guy%252C+Laurence+Haller.+2004.+Sanitation+Water%252C+and+World+
Health+Organization.+Evaluation+of+the+costs+and+benefits+of+water+and+
sanitation+improvements+at+the+global+level.+No.+WHO%252FSDE%252FWSH%
252F04.04.+World+Health+Organization&btnG= (accessed on 15 April 2023).
Index of Sustainable Development of Cities—Brazil. n.d. Brasil IDSC—BR. Available online:
https://idsc.cidadessustentaveis.org.br/# (accessed on 15 April 2023).
Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs).
n.d. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and
Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%2520Indicator%2520Framework%
2520after%25202023%2520refinement_Eng.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
International Fund for Agricultural Development—Bangladesh. n.d. Available online: https:
//www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/w/country/bangladesh (accessed on 10 March 2023).
Ivanova, Diana, Konstantin Stadler, Kjartan Steen-Olsen, Richard Wood, Gibran Vita, Arnold
Tukker, and Edgar G. Hertwich. 2016. Environmental impact assessment of household
consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology 20: 526–36. [CrossRef]
60
Jain, Ashok Kumar, and Sundar Narayan Mishra. 2019. Role of NITI Aayog in the
Implementation of the 2030 Agenda. In 2030 Agenda and India: Moving from Quantity to
Quality. Singapore: Springer. [CrossRef]
Janoušková, Svatava, Tomáš Hák, and Bedřich Moldan. 2018. Global SDGs Assessments:
Helping or Confusing Indicators? Sustainability 10: 1540. [CrossRef]
Jouzdani, Javid, and Kannan Govindan. 2021. On the sustainable perishable food supply
chain network design: A dairy products case to achieve sustainable development goals.
Journal of Cleaner Production 278: 123060. [CrossRef]
Kayser, Georgia L., Namratha Rao, Rupa Jose, and Anita Raj. 2019. Water, sanitation and
hygiene: Measuring gender equality and empowerment. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization 97: 438. [CrossRef]
Kilimo Biashara Program, Kenya. n.d. Available online: https://kilimotrust.org (accessed on
15 April 2023).
Kim, Sung Kyu, Fiona Marshall, and Neil M. Dawson. 2022. Revisiting Rwanda’s agricultural
intensification policy: Benefits of embracing farmer heterogeneity and crop-livestock
integration strategies. Food Security 14: 637–56. [CrossRef]
Le Blanc, David. 2015. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a
network of targets. Sustainable Development 23: 176–87. [CrossRef]
Lucato, Wagner Cezar, José Carlos da Silva Santos, and Athos Paulo Tadeu Pacchini. 2018.
Measuring the Sustainability of a Manufacturing Process: A Conceptual Framework.
Maternal, Child Health and Nutrition Project, Nepal. n.d. Available online: https://adranepal.org/
impact/health/maternal-health-and-child-nutrition-project/ (accessed on 13 March 2023).
Maxim, Laura, and Jeroen P. van der Sluijs. 2011. Quality in environmental science for policy:
Assessing uncertainty as a component of policy analysis. Environmental Science & Policy
14: 482–92. [CrossRef]
Mbatha, Mfaniseni Wiseman, Hlanganani Mnguni, and Mandla A. Mubecua. 2021. Subsistence
farming as a sustainable livelihood approach for rural communities in South Africa.
African Journal of Development Studies 11: 55. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/
10520/ejc-aa_affrika1_v11_n3_a3 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Secretariat for Innovation, Rural
Development and Irrigation Brasília. 2021. ABC + Plan for Adaptation and
Low Carbon Emission in Agriculture Strategic Vision for a New Cycle. Available
online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/agricultura-
de-baixa-emissao-de-carbono/publicacoes/abc-english.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2023).
Ministry of Food and Agriculture Republic of Ghana. 2018. Available online: https://mofa.
gov.gh/site/images/pdf/AGRIC%2520IN%2520GHANA%2520F&F_2018.pdf
(accessed on 15 April 2023).
61
Mishra, Aanchal. 2023. What to Know about India’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The Borgen
Project. Available online: https://borgenproject.org/indias-mid-day-meal-scheme/#:
~:text=India%2520aimed%2520to%2520address%2520hunger,Poshan%2520Shakti%
2520Nirman%2520Yojna%2520(PM (accessed on 16 April 2023).
Mueller, Bernd. 2019. Rural Youth Employment in Sub-Saharan Africa: Moving Away from
Urban Myths and Towards Structural Policy Solutions. International Labor Organization.
Available online: https://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/WCMS_
790112/lang--en/index.htm (accessed on 15 April 2023).
Mukhopadhyay, Raj, Binoy Sarkar, Hanuman Sahay Jat, Parbodh Chander Sharma, and Nanthi
S. Bolan. 2021. Soil salinity under climate change: Challenges for sustainable agriculture
and food security. Journal of Environmental Management 280: 111736. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
National Nutrition Mission, India. n.d. Available online: https://www.india.gov.in/national-
nutrition-mission?page=2 (accessed on 20 April 2023).
National Rural Livelihoods Mission—NRLM, India. n.d. Available online: https://aajeevika.
gov.in/about/introduction (accessed on 25 March 2023).
Nilsson, Mans, Dave Griggs, and Martin Visbeck. 2016. Map the interactions between
sustainable development goals. Nature 534: 320–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nilsson, Pia, Mikaela Backman, Lina Bjerke, and Aristide Maniriho. 2019. One cow per poor
family: Effects on the growth of consumption and crop production. World Development
114: 1–12. [CrossRef]
Norway Government. 2021. The Government’s Commitment to the Ocean and Ocean
Industries. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-
governments-commitment-to-the-ocean-and-ocean-industries/id2857445/?ch=3%
20https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X18303565 (accessed on
13 February 2023).
Nutrition in Agriculture Program, Kenya—Nutrition Portal. n.d. Available online: https:
//www.nutritionhealth.or.ke/programmes/agri-food-and-nutrition-unit/ (accessed on
21 April 2023).
Organization of Women Honey Producers (WIHPA), India. n.d. Available online: https:
//www.wihpa.org (accessed on 11 March 2023).
Otto-Zimmermann, Konrad. 2012. From Rio to Rio+ 20: The changing role of local
governments in the context of current global governance. Local Environment 17: 511–16.
[CrossRef]
Pakkan, Sheeba, Christopher Sudhakar, Shubham Tripathi, and Mahabaleshwara Rao. 2023. A
correlation study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Quality & Quantity
57: 1937–56. [CrossRef]
62
Pandiselvam, Ravi, Subhashini Sundaramoorthy, E. P. Banuu Priya, Anjineyulu Kothakota, S.
V. Ramesh, and Shahir Sultan. 2019. Ozone based food preservation: A promising green
technology for enhanced food safety. Ozone: Science & Engineering 41: 17–34. [CrossRef]
Parry, Bianca Rochelle, and Errolyn Gordon. 2021. The shadow pandemic: Inequitable
gendered impacts of COVID-19 in South Africa. Gender, Work & Organization 28: 795–806.
[CrossRef]
Malešević Perović, Lena, and Maja Mihaljević Kosor. 2020. The efficiency of universities in
achieving sustainable development goals. Amfiteatru Economic 22: 516–32. [CrossRef]
Planting for Food & Jobs, Ghana. n.d. Available online: https://mofa.gov.gh/site/
programmes/pfj#:~:text=Planting%2520for%2520Food%2520and%2520Jobs,market%
2520and%2520also%2520provide%2520jobs (accessed on 1 April 2023).
Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), India. n.d. Available online: https:
//www.ibef.org/government-schemes/pradhan-mantri-garib-kalyan-yojana (accessed
on 1 April 2023).
Pradhan, Prajal, Luís Costa, Diego Rybski, Wolfgang Lucht, and Jürgen P. Kropp. 2017. A
systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5:
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), Ethiopia. n.d. Available online: https://essp.ifpri.
info/productive-safety-net-program-psnp/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Reyers, Belinda, Mark Stafford-Smith, Karl-Heinz Erb, Robert J. Scholes, and Odirilwe
Selomane. 2017. Essential variables help to focus sustainable development goals
monitoring. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26: 97–105. [CrossRef]
Sachs, Jeffrey D., Guido Schmidt-Traub, Mariana Mazzucato, Dirk Messner, Nebojsa
Nakicenovic, and Johan Rockström. 2019. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable
development goals. Nature Sustainability 2: 805–14. [CrossRef]
Salasan, Cosmin, and Ioana Mihaela Balan. 2022. The environmentally acceptable damage
and the future of the EU’s rural development policy. In Economics and Engineering
of Unpredictable Events. Edited by Taylor & Francis. London: CRC Grup Publisher
Routledge, eBook ISBN 9781003123385. [CrossRef]
Schnetzer, Julian, and Lucie Pluschke. 2018. Solar-Powered Irrigation. Systems: A Clean-Energy,
Low-Emission Option for Irrigation Development and Modernization. Available online:
https://www.fao.org/3/bt437e/bt437e.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2023).
Sharma, Gagan Deep, Muhammad Ibrahim Shah, Umer Shahzad, Mansi Jain, and Ritika
Chopra. 2021. Exploring the nexus between agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions
in BIMSTEC region: The role of renewable energy and human capital as moderators.
Journal of Environmental Management 297: 113316. [CrossRef]
Simonovic, Slobodan P. 2002. World water dynamics: Global modeling of water resources.
Journal of Environmental Management 66: 249–67. [CrossRef]
63
Singh, Gerald G., Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor, Wilf Swartz, William Cheung, J. Adam
Guy, Tiff-Annie Kenny, Chris J. McOwen, Rebecca Asch, Jan Laurens Geffert, Colette
C. C. Wabnitz, and et al. 2018. A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among
Sustainable Development Goals. Marine Policy 93: 223–31. [CrossRef]
Smart Cities Mission India. n.d. Available online: https://smartcities.gov.in (accessed on 15
April 2023).
Spangenberg, Joachim H. 2017. Hot air or comprehensive progress? A critical assessment of
the SDGs. Sustainable Development 25: 311–21. [CrossRef]
Stabile, Marcelo C. C., André L. Guimarães, Daniel S. Silva, Vivian Ribeiro, Marcia N. Macedo,
Michael T. Coe, Erika Pinto, Paulo Moutinho, and Ane Alencar. 2020. Solving Brazil’s
land use puzzle: Increasing production and slowing Amazon deforestation. Land Use
Policy 91: 104362. [CrossRef]
Stephens, Jennie C., Maria E. Hernandez, Mikael Román, Amanda C. Graham, and Roland
W. Scholz. 2008. Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different
cultures and contexts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9: 317–38.
[CrossRef]
Sullivan, Kieran, Sebastian Thomas, and Michele Rosano. 2018. Using industrial ecology and
strategic management concepts to pursue the sustainable development goals. Journal of
Cleaner Production 174: 237–46. [CrossRef]
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) USA. n.d. Available online: https://
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program (accessed on 30
April 2023).
Swain, Ranjula Bali. 2018. A Critical Analysis of the Sustainable Development Goals.
In Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. Edited by W. Leal Filho. World
Sustainability Series; Cham: Springer, pp. 341–55. [CrossRef]
The Lancet. 2019. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The
Lancet Commission Report. Available online: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/
lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32822-8/fulltext (accessed on 13 April 2023).
The U.S. Government’s Global Hunger & Food Security Initiative. Feed the Future. n.d.
Available online: https://www.feedthefuture.gov (accessed on 23 April 2023).
Tremblay, David, François Fortier, Jean-François Boucher, Olivier Riffon, and Claude
Villeneuve. 2020. Sustainable development goal interactions: An analysis based on
the five pillars of the 2030 agenda. Sustainable Development 28: 1584–96. [CrossRef]
UN Climate Change. 2022. What Is the Triple Planetary Crisis? Available online: https:
//unfccc.int/blog/what-is-the-triple-planetary-crisis (accessed on 15 April 2023).
UN Global SDG Indicators Database. n.d. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
indicators/database/ (accessed on 20 June 2023).
UN Goal 2: Zero Hunger. n.d. Available online: https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ (accessed on 17 April 2023).
64
UN Partnership for Action on Green Economy. 2022. Indonesia Launches Its Green Economy
Index at G20. Available online: https://www.un-page.org/news/indonesia-launches-
its-green-economy-index/ (accessed on 15 April 2023).
UN Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. n.d. Available online:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/secretary-general-sdg-report-2017-
-Statistical-Annex.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2023).
UN Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017 (A/RES/71/313). n.d.
Available online: https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 (accessed on 1 June 2023).
UN The 17 Goals. n.d. Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
(accessed on 1 June 2023).
UN Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. n.d. Available
online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 18 April 2023).
United States Department of State and the United States Executive Office of the President,
Washington DC. 2021. The Long-Term Strategy of The United States. Pathways
to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050. Available online: https://www.
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf (accessed
on 15 April 2023).
Vilalta, Josep M., Betts Alícia, and Gomez Victoria. 2018. Higher Education’s role in the
2030 agenda: The why and how of GUNi’s commitment to the SDGs. In Sustainable
Development Goals: Actors and Implementation. A Report from the International Conference
(10–14). Barcelona: GUNi. Available online: https://www.acup.cat/sites/default/files/
2018-06/Higher%2520Education%2527s%2520Role.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2023).
Vohra, K., and P. K. Saxena. 2022. Irrigation Growth in India—Prospects, Initiatives and
Challenges. Available online: https://pmksy-mowr.nic.in/aibp-mis/Manual/Paper%
2520on%2520IRRIGATION%2520GROWTH%2520IN%2520INDIA.pdf (accessed on 15
March 2023).
Ward, Hugh. 2006. International linkages and environmental sustainability: The effectiveness
of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research 43: 149–66. [CrossRef]
WHO/UNICEF. 2008. Progress on Drinking-Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation.
Geneva: WHO/UNICEF. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/
9789280643138 (accessed on 1 April 2023).
Wong, Anson. 2021. The Interconnectedness of Sustainable Development Goals: Boom
or Gloom. Earth Org. Available online: https://earth.org/the-interconnectedness-of-
sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 2 April 2023).
World Bank. 2020. Promoting Sustainable Agriculture in Rio de Janeiro. Available
online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2020/10/23/promoting-sustainable-
agriculture-in-rio-de-janeiro (accessed on 2 April 2023).
World Bank Open Data. n.d. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.
AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=ZG (accessed on 15 March 2023).
65
World Food Programme. 2020. 5 Facts about Food Waste and Hunger. Available online:
https://www.wfp.org/stories/5-facts-about-food-waste-and-hunger (accessed on 15
March 2023).
World Food Programme. Hunger Map. 2022. Available online: https://www.fao.org/
interactive/state-of-food-security-nutrition/2-1-1/en/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
World Health Organization. 2016. World Health Statistics 2016 [OP]: Monitoring Health for
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); Geneva: World Health Organization.
Available online: https://books.google.ro/books?hl=en&lr=&id=
-A4LDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=dcqfZPdlwy&sig=wkq_
oFjW7fVG9txp6DQGTDKAXys&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
66
The Power of Social Capital to Address
Structural Factors of Hunger
Gian L. Nicolay
1. Introduction to the Problem of Hunger as a Problem of Lack of Theory

Hunger has not yet been defeated, despite the considerable progress made in
science, technology, and business development in the last 70 years (IAASTD 2009).
In this essay, I argue that the local social capital, particularly in the Global South, is
a neglected factor by science, economy, and politics, explaining the slow progress
made by humanity towards achieving food security, resilient food systems, and the
transition towards “Zero Hunger”. Hunger creates social unrest and revolution.
From a human rights perspective, it remains a scandal in this world of plenty and
food production exceeding the needs of the world population, at least when caused
by structural factors that political measures could correct it (Orr and Lubbock 1953;
de Castro 1952; Ziegler 2010). Looking from the risk perspective (Centeno et al. 2015),
the globalized food system will create, in the future, new threats of massive hunger
due to uninspected breakdowns of trade, transport, social order, and high-impact
plant or animal diseases. The distance between vulnerability and catastrophe is
decreasing with the growth of interdependencies and the ongoing reduction in
family farms worldwide (Erenstein et al. 2021), or at least the reduction in farm size
in low-income countries (Lowder et al. 2016).
The debates related to hunger and food system transformation reflect the
complexities of the task more and more. Science is not only seen as an objective
observer, but is called upon to participate in public debates (Caron et al. 2021).
However, science, apart from being considered embedded in society as a functioning
system (Luhmann 1995), is not simply providing voices and forces or speaking with
one voice. Politicians can pick out the research data and messages which are the
most convenient to them. Nevertheless, the political arena remains the most relevant
one in addressing the hunger problem, as issues of inequality of rights and income,
poverty, conflicts and wars, climate change, and the often-inefficient food supply
chains remain the critical drivers of hunger and are under the responsibility of politics
dealing with public affairs and freedom. The latest Food Security and Nutrition
report by the FAO et al. (2021) states, amongst other things, that:
67
- New projections confirm that hunger will not be eradicated by 2030 unless bold
actions are taken to accelerate progress, especially actions to address inequality
in access to food.
- Close to 12 percent of the global population was severely food insecure in 2020,
representing 928 million people—148 million more than in 2019.
- The high cost of healthy diets coupled with persistent high levels of income
inequality puts healthy diets out of reach for around 3 billion people, especially
the poor, in every region of the world in 2019. This number is slightly less
than in 2017 and will likely increase in most regions in 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
- Most children with malnutrition live in Africa and Asia. These regions account
for more than nine out of ten of all children with stunting, more than nine out
of ten children with wasting and more than seven out of ten children who are
affected by overweight worldwide.
- Conflict, climate variability and extremes, and economic slowdowns and
downturns (now exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic) are major drivers
of food insecurity and malnutrition that continue to increase in both frequency
and intensity, and are occurring more frequently in combination.
- Drivers that are external (e.g., conflicts or climate shocks) and internal (e.g., low
productivity and inefficient food supply chains) to food systems are pushing up
the cost of nutritious foods which, combined with low incomes, are increasing
the unaffordability of healthy diets. (FAO et al. 2021).
Let us read these statements by the FAO through the lens focused on local social
capital. We have a more concrete view of why more weight should be put on the local
level and to better understand why humanity is not progressing on this question of
ending hunger, but rather has been turning in circles for over 40 years at least. We
will take a closer look at the critical keywords “bold actions”, “inequality in access
to food”, “the poor”, “economic slowdowns and downturns”, “low productivity”,
and finally, “inefficient food supplies”. In the following chapters, we will try to
focus not only on relating these factors in a systemic way to social capital, but also
to substantiate them with experiences made in concrete territories, communities,
and local food systems in various regions of Africa over the last 15 years since the
2007/08 food crises (Sommerville et al. 2014).
My 40 years of experience in the field of food and agriculture and rural
development worldwide taught me that the hunger issue in contemporary society is
too complex to be dealt with meaningfully by science and as a knowledge issue alone,
as it is a foremost practical and political reality, with its weakest links being the local
level of social capital in poor countries. Solutions always require simultaneous action
68
and agency on all four levels, i.e., local, national, regional and global, in order to
address the hunger problem in a systematic, inclusive and effective way. Knowledge
has to be complemented by appropriate action and agency (as the capacity to act).
To underestimate the complexity of the task by leaving out a factor such as social
capital would lead to failure. Additionally, over-rating the complexity would be
fatal. We must manage this paradox, that the hunger question is complex and
simple. It is simple in the sense that we find the ways out when becoming concrete,
knowing the local conditions, accepting power (or control) relations, and progressing
step-by-step using our pragmatic and ethic-based attitudes in given social networks
and through dialogue and openness, adding to the required social capital of the given
local or national food system. Human thinking is a proven way to manage paradoxes,
difficulties, and crises. From Aristoteles to Ernst Bloch (Zimmermann 2016), we have
plenty of wisdom, methods, and principles at our disposal. Ernst Blochs’ famous
Principle of Hope books should always remind scientists and practitioners to make
the best use of thinking, arguing, debating, and acting as a continuous flow. This,
briefly, means that we have to better understand the concept and reality behind
“social capital”. However, first, let us look at hunger’s generally agreed upon or at
least mentioned structural drivers.
2. Generally Mentioned Structural Drivers of Hunger

Hunger is, fortunately, the exception to the rule in contemporary times, thanks
to outstanding achievements in agriculture, agronomy, technology, and in building
fine-tuned institutional systems over the “civilized” planet, linking all or most
countries and regions and providing food assistance in case of large emergencies.
However, the exception has still touched, over the last 20 to 50 years, about 10% of
humans. A scientific consensus is that meeting the food demand by 2050 by applying
sustainable food production would be one of humanity’s most significant challenges
(Cassman and Grassini 2020). It is therefore vital to understand the commonly
agreed upon critical drivers of hunger, capable of interrupting the target of solving
the hunger problem in the coming 30 years, assuming that no major technological
breakthrough nor change on the demand side will happen during this time. We will
briefly present poverty, wars and pandemics, climate extremes, gender, age and race,
societal divisions, and capitalist economies as commonly mentioned drivers. This
list is of course not complete. However, I intend to open the view of the large specter
of hunger, a phenomenon that involves many aspects of society, history, and natural
phenomena of our planet.
69
2.1. Poverty
Poverty is the most significant risk factor for hunger in all cases, whether the
affected people are producers or consumers (Cooper et al. 2021). Poverty often means
not having a voice and not always being represented in important events. The former
FAO DG stated that very clearly:
What makes hunger a very complex political problem is that the hungry
are not represented. I never saw a union association that represents the
malnourished . . . Most people who face hunger nowadays are not in this
situation due to a lack of food produced but because they don’t have money
to buy it. So, give them money or the resources to gain access to food. It
is a simple formula. The best would be to increase employment and the
minimum wage paid to a level that could allow workers access to a healthy
diet. And for those who can’t be employed for different reasons, provide
them a minimum subsidy through cash transfer programs, as we did in
Brazil’s Zero Hunger program. It is that simple: there is no miracle! (Jose
Graziano da Silva, IPS Interview 23 September 2021 (Wise 2021))
The poor consumers and the working class in rich countries are in a different
position compared to food-insecure people and households in poor or low-income
countries; they can, in most cases, count on food stamps, programs, and various
institutions amid plenty.
2.2. Wars and Pandemics

Wars, including civil wars, are ideal for interrupting food production and
increasing the probability of hunger. In 2020, almost all low- and middle-income
countries were affected by pandemic-induced economic downturns. The number of
undernourished people was more than five times greater than the highest increase
in undernourishment in the last two decades. When other drivers also affected
those countries, particularly climate-related disasters, conflict, or a combination, the
most significant increase in undernourishment was seen in Africa, followed by Asia
(FAO et al. 2021).
2.3. Climate Variability and Extremes

Climate variability and extremes affect land degradation, yields, animal health,
and food security (IPCC 2020). However, they simultaneously affect communities
and institutions and hence the food systems. Areas receiving less rain, less
appropriate rain patterns, and higher temperatures may reduce their cropping and
70
herding areas and will be affected with less production and decreased food security.
Dependency on food aid thus increases. The WFP (2021) states:
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the world was not on track to
end hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030. In 2020, hunger
and malnutrition shot up in absolute and proportional terms, largely
perpetuated by the socio-economic effects of COVID-19. However,
unlike COVID-19, there is no vaccine to protect vulnerable communities
worldwide from the worsening climate crisis. By 2050, the risk of hunger
and malnutrition could rise by 20 percent if the global community fails
to act now to mitigate and prevent the adverse effects of climate change.
(WFP 2021, p. 1)
We will not go into further detail here, assuming that this issue is well-known
or broadly accepted by most readers.
2.4. Gender, Age, and Race

A recent report summarizes the situation for women involved in food systems
as follows:
After 12 years, global food security governance is highly fragmented, with

the power of a small number of actors increasing dramatically. Those actors
include major multinational corporations, the World Bank and the IMF
and the G7 governments. The voices of the people who have been left
food-insecure are seldom heard in policy discussions. Funding targeted at
women in agriculture is insignificant compared with other official funding,
and this public disinvestment opens the door to other actors, such as
multinational companies, which have taken a “business as usual” approach
and make gender equality in agriculture a low priority at best. Especially
in light of climate change and increased conflicts, failing to address the
structural causes of the food price crisis has put women even more at risk
on all dimensions of food security. (Botreau and Cohen 2020, p. 104)
It is globally recognized that achieving gender equality and empowering women

is an absolute precondition to breaking the cycle of poverty and hunger and achieving
the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (FAO 2021a). The FAO advises ensuring that
gender equality issues are included in all spheres and that there is monitoring and
reporting progress at the country level.
71
Does race matter? In 1964, Boyd Orr1 and Lubbock wrote in “The White man’s
Dilemma” in codified style about the prevailing importance of racist prejudices:
However, if all the people in the world had had environmental conditions
which would enable them to attain their full inherited capacity for physical
and mental ability, there would be little, if any, the difference between the
ability of men of different races. (Op. cit, p. 73)
2.5. Societal Contradictions and Divisions and Poor Education

The Agenda 21 organized by UNCED in 1992 already tried to effectively address
poverty and hunger with a global and non-binding international initiative. This
ambitious program was soon attacked by an anti-Agenda 21 movement and was
replaced 24 years later by the more ambitious SDGs. The governments failed in
most cases to implement their commitments (DESA 2012). Bureaucracies and loss of
national sovereignty were common reasons for collectively attacking and boycotting
international plans to address poverty and hunger. The contradictions of the capitalist
development divide the most relevant actors of society, from the poor farmers and
laborers to the shareholders of multinational companies. A lack of debates and
poor education contribute to undermining institutions and rules such as ignoring
international biodiversity and climate change protocols, particularly those on food
(Fakhri 2021). Other consequences of such societal divides and poor education are
fast-growing meat consumption and cereals produced for agro-fuel, both increasing
hunger conditions for the poor.
2.6. Capitalist Economies Including Land Acquisitions by Non-Farmers

The literature on the risks related to globalized food systems is still growing, but
already reveals important general features (Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2012). More
specific criticism is related to local biophysical and social sub-systems (de Raymond
et al. 2021) and their complexities (Liu et al. 2007). Financial markets, operating in an
unregulated space with futures and other instruments, and the often-missing relation
between local and subnational markets (e.g., grain in the Sahel) from international
prices are topics emerging in the research of risks related to food systems. Clashes
between global investors and local communities are happening and programmed,
when divergent interests (shareholder profit/private investments replacing sound
1 He was the first DG of the FAO (1945–1948) and winner of the Nobel Peace prize for his research on
nutrition in 1949.
72
national policies of rural development vs. community-driven and food sovereignty)
collide (McMichael 2012), fail to communicate (Luhmann 1995) and increase the
vulnerability of food-insecure countries (de Raymond et al. 2021). Smallholders,
the laborers, rural communities in low- and mid-income countries (LMIC) on one
side, and the poor consumers depending on cheap (but unhealthy) food leading to
obesity and health problems on the other side, pay the price. Risks related to system
breakdowns are increasing, as previously resilient and rather autonomous food
networks at the local level have rapidly disappeared worldwide. Often discussed
under the names of “rural exodus” or “migration”, but well-explained with the
concepts of exploitation and suppression, this phenomenon is highly related with the
concept of local social capital—or alternatively related to the more general concept
of a social sub-system. For Luhmann (1997), exploitation, suppression and any other
moral reasons do not explain the destiny of the poor and the hungry today, as they
are “just outdated mythologies”. The question is rather one of inclusion or exclusion
into the world’s society and its highly differentiated and complex functional systems
(such as economy, law, media, politics).
3. Social Capital as an Underestimated Parameter for Reducing Hunger

We may consider social capital featuring social organization such as networks,
norms, and social trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual
benefit (Putnam 1995, p. 67). Social capital is rarely used as a factor or parameter in
explaining food insecurity and hunger.
The notion of capital emerged in economics with Adam Smith and evolved
over time by differentiating into natural, financial, human, social and institutional
capital (Piazza-Georgi 2002). In the 1960sm it was also commonly agreed within
agricultural economics, that human capital—however, not yet the related social
capital—is a prerequisite for economic growth, particularly in low-income countries
(Melton 1965). Since then, independently from economics, sociology took up the
concepts of human and social capital (Portes 1998), but corrected the focus from
the mainly individual human capital concept towards social structures (such as
networks) and inter-personal agency, emphasizing the social dimension. What is
social capital from the sociology perspective? The answer depends on the applied
concepts, theories and narratives. I use the tradition and knowledge emanating
mainly from contemporary sociology, particularly based on Pierce, Weber, Elias,
Luhmann, Bourdieu, and notably, Harrison White (2008). They all try to understand
issues of social organization and chaos, identities and actors, power and control,
73
institutions and styles2 , mores and ideas/ideologies, culture and history, from the
local or micro level up to a global society level. Most of the sociologists mentioned
are adhering somehow to a relational perspective, which emphasizes networks with
processes such as interactions, social ties, cooperation and conversations as the
central material of the social. In the last 60 years, a huge collection of literature
in both economics and sociology has emerged, providing evidence on the critical
impact of social capital—or the quality of the population as it is also called by Schultz
(1981)—on poverty alleviation and addressing hunger in LMIC.
If we refer to the famous definition of social capital provided by Bourdieu (1980,
1986), which according to some scholars (Julien 2014; Portes 1998) is still one of the
most appropriate and precise descriptions of this concept emanating from sociology,
then we can define it, as follows, as a working concept:
Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are
linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition—or in other words,
to membership in a group. Each group or community has a certain amount
of social wealth in various forms- participation and bonds to larger public
goods through social relations in networks; access to information and
knowledge; trust amongst its members; inclusiveness-, which can be used
to different degrees by its members and so further accumulate or consume
its resources. (slightly modified by the author from Bourdieu 1986)
This concept has therefore a double importance in the hunger debate. For the
individual actor, this “aggregate of resources” or networks (of social relationships)
constitute a determining point of the departure for agency, which yields reproductive
benefits such as access to new connections and networks, markets, information,
and credit through gained confidence, influence, status and trust (Nicolay 2017).
The individual farmer receives agency in order to better organize in collective
action, take up opportunities and invest (Schultz 1981) and build social structures
or institutions in solving his or her problems (Nicolay 2016). From the collective (or
social) side, and here comes the second importance of social capital, it provides a pool
of relations which helps in maintaining and reproducing its agency as a collective
or corporate agent or identity. Social capital understood as a complex of networks
intermingled with self-reproducing context and providing nested structures (such as
2 In the sense of White (2008), i.e., the rhythm of life, whereas identities are like melodies.
74
communities) within a social system reduces its vulnerability against “attacks” of
control by competing collective or individual agents (White 2008). Examples of social
capital phenomena are: (a) A local group of smallholders that increases its chances
to fight against intentions of foreign corporate organizations to take control of their
land use by new formats of internal organization, or; (b) Organic cotton unions who
defend their price interests and selling conditions within the national cotton network
often dominated by traditional and corporate interests (Nicolay 2019). Social capital
is therefore always embedded and intermingled with social networks (or social
systems). It enhances the probability of creating effective forms of organizations, such
as committees or innovation platforms, which are instrumental in both innovation
adaptation and collective local problem solving (Nicolay 2016).
The Negligence of (Local) Social Capital as a Parameter of Hunger

The specification “local” shall mean that I focus the discussion of the social
capital on territorial or geographic levels, where food and fiber are produced
through labor. Neglecting local social capital can have fatal consequences for society
(Helbing 2013), including its food systems. We have seen that social components
matter in the food and hunger nexus, but that both science and practice struggle to
make them visible and understand the reality of social relations. Social order/chaos
are undervalued, and the importance of atomistic/individual actors overstated. This
may be primarily explained by the lack of philosophical and sociological thinking3
and the dominance of “common sense” or non-reflective language. Examples of
social capital having a key role in succeeding in sustainable intensification (as an
important element of food system in LMIC) and improved economic performance
are extension systems, agencies linking farmers to markets and external agencies,
innovation platforms (Adekunle and Fatunbi 2012), farmer field schools, cooperatives
(Biresaw 2019; Muriqi et al. 2021) and business groups (Pretty et al. 2011). However,
what if such projects building on enhancing social capital (or social infrastructure
according to Pretty) remain exceptions and are not taken up by policy measures at
national level?
3 Luhmann remarked: People see humans, science (sociology) sees systems”.
75
4. A Critique of Agroecology and Its Ideological Fight against Agribusiness
The concept and approach of agroecology has gained a strong momentum and
even support from the FAO since the last food crises in 2009 as a way to contribute to
food security. The main features according to the FAO (2021b) are:
- Agroecology is a holistic and integrated approach that simultaneously applies

ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of
sustainable agriculture and food systems. It seeks to optimize the interactions
between plants, animals, humans and the environment while also addressing
the need for socially equitable food systems within which people can exercise
choice over what they eat and how and where it is produced.
- It now represents a transdisciplinary field that includes food systems’
ecological, socio-cultural, technological, economic and political dimensions,
from production to consumption.
- It is no longer possible to look at food, livelihoods, health and the management
of natural resources separately. Embracing systems thinking through holistic
approaches is needed to address these complex and interdependent challenges.
The fundamental connection between people and the planet, with sustainable
agriculture and food systems, is at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, which stresses the urgent need to take concerted action and
pursue policies directed at transformational change.
- Ending poverty, achieving zero hunger while ensuring inclusive growth, and
sustainably managing the planet’s natural resources, all in the context of
climate change and biodiversity loss, will only be possible through holistic
and integrated approaches that respect human rights.
- Agroecology is based on bottom-up and territorial processes, helping to deliver
contextualized solutions to local problems with people at the center. There is no
single way to apply agroecological approaches—it depends on local contexts,
constraints and opportunities but there are common principles that have been
articulated in the framework of the 10 Elements4 of Agroecology.
Agroecology is therefore mainly determined by territorial, local and

human-nature-related networks and links, including the concept of social capital at
various levels such as the household, village/neighborhood and local markets):
4 The ten elements of agroecology are: diversity, co-creation and sharing of knowledge, synergies,
efficiency, recycling, resilience, human and social values, culture and food tradition, responsible
governance and circular and solidarity economy (see Figure 1)
76
Agroecology places a strong emphasis on human and social values,
such as dignity, equity, inclusion and justice all contributing to the
improved livelihoods dimension of the SDGs. It puts the aspirations
and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the
heart of food systems. By building autonomy and adaptive capacities to
manage their agro-ecosystems, agroecological approaches empower people
and communities to overcome poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, while
promoting human rights, such as the right to food, and stewardship of the
environment so that future generations can also live in prosperity (Human
and social values). (FAO 2021b; Knowledge hub, p. 1)
Interestingly, the economic dimension is not emphasized, nor are ecology or

the social dimension. Should large-scale farms and agribusiness not consider and
apply agroecology principles as well? However, more severe is the rather moral
claim (aspirations, needs) of the here abstract workers and farmers (emphasis on
human and social values) instead of the real and concrete requirements in the form
of people’s needs and social capital.
The local networks at the farm and landscape levels are often poorly linked
to the higher-level institutions dealing with governance and control, and in most
cases, are even conflictual. The intended or proclaimed support for the transition
to sustainable food and agricultural systems towards food security following
agroecological concepts and practices is not happening (IPES-Food 2020). This
structural feature—the critical relation between the two levels—often fails exactly
due to precisely the social capital at the local level. By visualizing the position of the
ten agroecology elements (see below) and differentiating on the axes of natural/social
and local/high-level, the neglect of “social capital” (a part of the negligence of the
economic dimension) in the current design of agroecology becomes apparent (see
Figure 1).
Even if agroecology, compared with its counter concept of industrial agriculture,
is relatively strongly emphasizing the social aspects within agriculture and food
systems, the conceptualization of social capital and the real needs of the farmers and
laborers remains weak.
77
The system of Agroecology based on 10 elements (adapted from FAO)
Circular and solidarity

Co-creation and economy
Synergies Efficiency Resilience sharing of knowledge
Culture and food

traditions
A. Local networks
Human and
Recycling Diversity social value
Ecology and natural capital Responsible governance
B. Higher level institutions

Natural capital linked with local knowledge and local values
Integrated natural and social capitals linked with governance, economy and culture (up-to national level)
Figure 1. The positioning of social capital in the agroecology system as promoted

by the FAO. Source: Figure adapted by the author.
Ideology Disputes between Agroecology Movements and Agribusiness

Power relations between producers (labor) and buyers (financial capital) at
local to global levels require more attention again. This is about controlling the
direction, benefits cashed in by individuals, groups and social classes, as well about
the outcomes and impacts of food systems on nature, society and economics. The
complex of intermingling networks of buyers–producers—networks constituting
markets (White 2008)—forge the multiple food systems worldwide. Gliessman
and Montenegro (2021) complain, for example, that the organizers of the UNFSS5
relegate agroecology to further promoting competing technologies such as genetic
engineering, digital frameworks, and big data, undermining the interests of (family)
farms in favor of corporate interests. However, researchers have tried to mediate
here by stating, that “socio-economic researchers need to suggest inclusive ways
to transform the more than 400 million smallholder farms worldwide. They must
identify pathways out of inequitable and unfair arrangements over land, credit and
labor, and empower the rights of women and youth” (von Braun et al. 2021).
5 UN Food Security Summit organized by UN in September 2021.
78
A concerned voice from research regarding the current role of the private sector
and investors in the global food summit governance comes from Covic et al. (2021):
Further, the agenda and discussions at the UNFSS (UN Food Security
Summit) need to be driven by LMICs and other voices that are often
given a back seat, including citizens, consumers, and other civil society
actors. While many experts have been called upon or have simply stepped
up to organize and be present at the UNFSS, others may purposely
stay away due to legitimacy concerns. For some constituencies, the
involvement of trans-and multinational food businesses in the UNFSS is
problematic, given their dominance over global and national food systems
and a history of multiple instances of bad practice. On the other hand,
driven by consumer demands and more sustainability-focused investors,
there are significant changes in some parts of the private sector towards
environmental sustainability. (p. 3)
From the institutional side, various UN rapporteurs have been struggling for
over 15 years to have the “Rights to food” respected and to convince public and
private actors to better respect this right in the plans and policies at national level.
They lament that issues of power, participation, and basic rights to food remain
unresolved. Interestingly, the rapporteurs clearly take a position for agroecology6
as a way to address the problems of food insecurity and hunger (Fakhri 2021) and
consider it as an alternative to industrial agriculture. This is interesting, as I see no
reason why industrial farming practices should not be forced to apply the principles,
assuring a path towards ecology and social fairness for all operators. Another strong
voice from the producers’ side is Via Campesina7 . They have advocated for over 20
years for the concept of food sovereignty, implicitly emphasizing social capital and
agency at national and local levels as critical requirements for abolishing hunger.
5. The Morphological Look to Overcome Ideological Barriers

Ideological disruptions and fights at the global to local level have of course
important implications on networks in food systems, but they are inevitable. Can we
mediate to a certain degree such ideological impasses? I propose here a way to apply
the morphological analyses. Ritchey (1998) argues that the morphological analysis,
6 It is “often more productive than intensive industrial techniques” (Fakhri 2021, p. 7)

7 See its Manifesto for the future of the planet on https://viacampesina.org/en/food-sovereignty-a-m
anifesto-for-the-future-of-our-planet-la-via-campesina/ (accessed on 16 October 2021).
79
as invented by Zwicky8 in around 1950, is an appropriate and ingenious method
to deal with complex policy issues. I would add that it could also address blocked
dialogues due to strong ideological differences, as we observe between two forms
of commonly perceived food regimes: (i) agribusiness (or “industrial agriculture”),
which overemphasizes the economic dimension, and (ii) the agroecology movement9 ,
which considers itself a reaction to agribusiness. The method is based on building all
possible combinations or figurations within a fictitious (but plausible) solution space:
An alternative to formal (mathematical) methods and causal modelling

is a form of non- quantified modelling relying on judgmental processes
and internal consistency, rather than causality. Causal modelling, when
applicable, can- and should- be used as an aid to judgement. However,
at a certain level of complexity (e.g., at the social, political and cognitive
level), judgement must often be used, and worked with, more or less
directly. The question is: How can judgmental processes be put on a sound
scientific basis? Sets of non-quantified conditions can be synthesized into
well-defined relationships or configurations representing solution spaces.
In this context, there is no fundamental difference between quantified and
non-quantified modelling. (Ritchey 1998, p. 2)
In Table 1, I try such a modelling with defined relationships of configurations

representing a solution space. I propose ten parameters and allow three options
for each (A, B, C), also representing “ideotypical” food regimes. By allowing three
options, a new space appears against the dual perspective. The column “B” represents
the new option. Agroecology cannot be the new option, as we see no solution outside
the restricted (only smallholders, only local circles, only movements) agroecological
production regime (see Figure 1) in order to be sustainable. Agroecology positions are
mostly captured with option A (and partially B), whereby agribusiness (or industrial
agriculture) is mainly covered under option C. Under B fall the middle options, such
as middle-sized family-based agribusiness or well-off modern farms and households
with sufficient labor and land capital. All main forms of food systems worldwide
can be captured in this way and can subsequently be discussed. Critical solutions
are marked in Table 1 with the dark background in grey.
8 Swiss astrophysicist and engineer.

9 However, international organisations such as the FAO and EU are also supporting agroecology, but
not in the same way as various social movements.
80
Table 1. Morphological box for food and agriculture systems, based on 10
parameters providing 30 combinations (shaded combinations considered critical).
Parameter Regime A Regime B Regime C

Family and/or
Corporate or
1 Production unit Family farm (poor) cooperative farm
state farm
(supported)
Production method
Monocultures
(bottom-line for A Local inputs
2 Mixed (high-tech,
and B: dominating
capital-intensive)
agroecology*)
3 Type of markets Nested/local** Mixed Global
Social distance
between producers
4 Small Medium Big
and
end-consumers
Producer–consumer Downstream
5 Price fixation Mixed
agreements VC actors
6 Policy space National all levels International
Justice/human
rights- and
7 Yes Partial No
community-based
(of food system)
Private sector
Role of lead Natural,
Natural and research (mostly
8 scientific socio-economics,
economics natural and
disciplines ethics
economics)
Value-addition
Subnational and Global (rich
9 location (mainly Local
larger areas countries)
processing of food)
Multifunctionality No (only
Partial (2–3
10 of agriculture Yes (>4 functions) economic
functions)
systems functions)
Critical options (in
2 0 5
grey fields)
Source: Table by author. *See definition by the FAO. **See a definition in Fakhri 2021 on
“territorial markets” (p. 20).
The production unit is a key and first parameter to distinguish “agroecology as a

movement” from “industrial agriculture”. In Table 1, “Agroecology as a movement”
81
is in the solution space 1AB and ”Industrial agriculture” in 1BC, as industrial farming
is also possible on non-capitalist-owned farms of middle size (1B). The solution space
1B (supported family farms) can be both agroecological and industrial. These two
polarizing concepts are revealed here as concepts rather than realities10 . In reality, it
has to be seen case-by-case.
The morphological view further provides 7 critical constellations out of 30:
- The poor family farms (1A) have economic and often environmental deficiencies
and are hardly socio-economically viable (often not attractive enough to young
farmers to take over from their parents).
- The capital and high-tech production method (2C) fostering monoculture (on
tropical soils) has either social or environmental deficiencies (or both).
- The dominance of price fixation by downstream value chain actors (5C) leads to
the unjust distribution of created wealth and socio-economic disruptions.
- The lack of respect and institutionalization of human rights (7C) impedes
the emergence of autopoietic local structures able to cope with context and
required investments.
- Social and societal dimensions including social capital and politics are not
sufficiently considered in option A, where the link between local food
production and world consumption needs are neglected (8A).
- The lack of local and subnational value addition in favor of urban elites at
the national level in the Global South and the rich countries (9C) prevents
the emergence of required wealth accumulation in rural LMIC and ultimately
perpetuates the conditions for “structural” hunger.
- Agriculture systems only designed and used as an economic function (10C) will
run into conflicts with society and nature (see FAO et al. 2021).
We can maintain the two dominant regimes of food systems in the Global South
(observation of literature and of public debates; see also the cited Gliessman, Covic
and Fakhri): (i) the (small-scale) farmer-based and (ii) agribusiness-based systems
dominated by the corporate and capitalist-motivated11 networks. Agroecology is
often attributed to the small-scale-based regime (see Figure 1 with the element of
circular and solidary economy). However, from the agronomic side, there is no reason
that large-scale corporate and state farms could not fulfil most of the agroecology
10 This is not surprising for practitioners and researchers working on organic agriculture, which can
work on all three types of production units (A, B, C).
11 Increasing numbers are urban-based families and groups involved in agribusiness, operating through
employees and tenants. In Africa since the 1990s.
82
criteria. The morphological box (Table 1) informs us about five critical features
emanating from agribusiness regimes and only two from the (poor, small-scale)
farmer regime. Policies should therefore mainly concentrate on adjusting the five
critical features of agribusiness and ensure that the agroecological principles are
applied here. Secondly, we believe that policies should better address the destiny
of poor farming households—or better prevent their farms from going bankrupt or
just being given away. The policy should ensure their inclusion and further existence
and role in the food system or in any other economic sector.
The bottom line for assessing food regimes is sustainability. We can now describe
the solution space in tabular form as self-perceived by the two food regimes AEM
(agroecology movement) or Option A, BUZ (agribusiness) or Option C, or finally of
SDG or option B (Table 2). Both mainly discussed food regimes (A, B) show weak
elements in the chain as compared to the ideal of the SDG (Sustainable Development
Goals) and the Option B regime. The following pattern of farmer-based or mixed
forms are considered sustainable options and compatible with SDG 1 (poverty) and
2 (hunger), thus providing a solution space.
Table 2. Solution space for three food regimes.
Solution Pattern
Regime Type or Case
Regime Type Based on the Ten N (critical )
Description
Parameters
AEM/regime A 1AB-2A-3AB-
(agroecology Farmer, ideal from within 4AB-5AB-6ABC- 2
movement) 7A-8B-9A-10A
Agribusiness, ideal from 1C-2C-3C-
BUZ/regime C
within (corporate 4BC-5C-6A- 5
(agribusiness)
food regime) 7C-8C-9C-10C
1BC-2B-3BC-
SDG/regime B Sustainable according to SDG 4AB-5B-6ABC- 0
7AB-8B-9ABC-10AB
Shaded/yellow combinations are considered critical from the outside/author observer’s
perspective (Perceptions depend on interests and background. Therefore, there is a need for
debates to find agreements). Source: Table by author.
The conclusion from the morphological analyses and the solution space
is simple:
- Agro-industry (or agro-business) and agroecology (or family farming), seen

as either a movement or network, can be clearly differentiated. However, the
83
respective concepts or ideal figurations behind them are not clearly separable
and should be seen as the two poles between a continuum
- A more significant part of the concrete agribusiness-driven food systems is not
(yet) based on agroecological principles, is not inclusive, reduces the chances
for local social capital formation and does not contribute to poverty alleviation
(no multi-functionality)
- The farmer-based regime has its weakness in its large fraction of very
resource-poor farms (or households) and efficiency problems (constraining
investment options)
- Price fixation agency and local value addition are two key features in which
the two regimes A and C differentiate in the political–economic dimension. As
agribusiness is in most cases also present downstream the value chain, they can
fetch better profit than farms that rarely have negotiation power, i.e., only in
specific markets and if well-organized (e.g., in federations of cooperatives) at
the national level. These two features require social capital from the involved
primary producers.
6. Ways and Tactics to Strengthen Local Social Networks in Food Systems

Innovation platforms, going beyond the scope of a single value chain, are
institutions with the potential to increase local value addition and contribute to
creating wealth and increasing food security. They provide ideal starting points to
strengthen local capacities and networks and thus provide concrete and practical
ways to create social capital. A practical application requires theoretical and practical
skills, leadership, and proactive engagement of various stakeholders going beyond
the involved value chains. In addition, it requires financial partners. Fostering agency,
empowerment, and the growth of social capital as an impact target would increase
the chances of strengthening the agency of farmer figurations. Innovation platforms
can be organized by combining 1–3 value chains plus additional core themes such as
soil fertility improvement and maintaining the social coherence within a given area
(commune, district, etc.).
6.1. A Better Link between Local and National Actors and Programs
One example to show the need for a better connection between local and national
scales is the very dynamic land market in SSA. Land prices have skyrocketed recently
(Jayne et al. 2021). What will be the implications on food security, the accessibility of
land for young farmers, and social equity and economic growth?
84
Another example is the need to better harness the current and coming opportunities
to use weather forecast data to inform farmers and herders on time (Nakalembe et al.
2021). This is only possible if the links between national and local actors are assured.
A third example is a need for a balanced and efficient food supply-chain growth
at the local level (Reardon et al. 2021), assuring a healthy supply of processed food
ideally produced locally and in the country. For such systems to be built, a fine-tuning
of activities and interactions between cooperatives, policymakers, local entrepreneurs,
and food suppliers and processors is called for.
Farmer organizations must strengthen alliances with strategic partners and
emancipate themselves from the narrow national corset.
I consider the following actor groups as crucial allies to boost social capital
within food systems: technology providers and financial partners, the judiciary,
social scientists, consumers, and the international community.
Technology providers and entrepreneurs are prime allies and are often in
short supply, as the markets are not attractive enough and rarely promoted during
the critical stages by the public sector (Mazzucato 2021). Financial partners and
investors are part of the required ecology of partners and networks to promote social
capital-based networks with viable but fair business plans.
The example I would like to present for the importance of financial partners
and investors relates again to West Africa, particularly the organic cotton sector.
I have been personally involved in its promotion since 1998 through the work of
the Swiss NGO Helvetas, where we, as a group of practitioners, organic farming
promoters, entrepreneurs, and scientists, created the West Africa Organic Cotton
Coalition (CCBE) in 2017. The CCBE aims to address eight critical challenges for the
2.5 million cotton producers of West Africa with an innovative approach based on the
concept of social capital: (1) low productivity of cotton production; (2) poverty and
food insecurity of producers; (3) soil degradation and declining yields; (4) uncertainty
about how programs are coping with climate change; (5) unemployment and low
labor wages; (6) health problems due to pesticide application in the cotton fields;
(7) global textile companies having difficulties in finding organic cotton lint in the
world market, and; (8) social unrest (Nicolay 2019). It took us over three years to win
a financial partner (GIZ) to set the coalition in motion and start reaching a tangible
impact, covering four producing countries (Burkina Faso, Benin, Mali, and Senegal).
This example shows that in complex systems such as those of cotton and textile,
which are highly differentiated and globalized, social capital and networks require
assistance from the financial side if they cannot wait to generate their financial capital.
85
6.2. Politics, the Legal Framework, and the Judiciary
Sustainable intensification often depends on public support to address market
limitations such as low farm prices and to adhere to environmentally sound practices
(Silva et al. 2021). One example from Mali exemplifies the importance of politics
and the legal and judiciary framework when aiming to upscale successful local
initiatives related to food security and climate change adaptation (Bautze et al. 2018).
Upscaling often requires substantial financial and human resources and a proper
institutional framework. In the case of Mali, evolving between 2012 and 2018, the
more the difficulties in implementing projects grew, the more hierarchies of the
state from regions to national or central levels were involved. One explanation
for this is that the drivers’ social capital was insufficient and unable to mobilize
new influential members from the top level, based on the national figuration and
networks controlling more considerable funds, influences, and decision-makers. The
collaborative efforts stopped abruptly between the regional (Sikasso) and national
levels. Nevertheless, the step from grassroots/commune to the regional level succeed
within a few months, involving local administrative, legal, and judiciary actors.
6.3. Social Scientists Applying Holistic and Inclusive Concepts

We can define a holistic concept if it addresses a perceived societal problem
such as poverty and hunger or soil fertility degradation and biodiversity loss in a
given area in all three dimensions of the SDG. Social scientists are skilled in selecting
and using the required tools and approaches and mobilizing and uniting the various
specialists and stakeholders to design solutions and viable pathways. By including
representatives from farmer communities and groups with generally weak (unheard)
voices and low social capital, new constellations can be created between researchers,
farmers, and local and national decision-makers. Such innovative processes can
lead to further research findings, encouraged farmer networks, and stimulated
local economies and communities. The state can bring in its agency by mobilizing
resources and facilitating processes enhancing food security. Research findings such
as a better knowledge of the dynamics of farm class behavior—moving towards
professionalizing or resilience or instead towards decapitalizing and withdrawing
from the sector—allow the local stakeholders to better target their advice and
investments. Thanks to the recognition and better understanding of markets, social
networks and social dynamics on the ground can emerge (Frossard et al. 2017; Nicolay
et al. 2020). Hence, the critical social capital is built and can trigger the envisaged
socio-economic and ecologic development.
86
6.4. Consumers, Citizens and the International Community
Consumers and citizens, mediated by honest media and political activists, are
more relevant, as large amounts of food are distributed, processed and traded in
globalized networks. Consumer choice can make huge differences in which value
chains to consider and what to buy. Such options finally decide which producers
or production units will benefit. Consumers’ choices often depend on how they
are informed (and educated) by the media. More solidarity is required between the
working class (hoping for relatively low food prices) and the farmers (aiming for
higher food prices). This alliance is highly complex and challenging, as it must go
beyond national borders.
The International community constituted by the UN system, state interventions,
civil society, and fairness-based responsible businesses, does not directly impact
the local level. Nevertheless, its policies, measures, actions, and investments
play a critical role in shaping the socio-ecological landscape at the local level.
Depending on the context, there are six pathways to follow toward food systems’
transformation: (1) integrating humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding
policies in conflict-affected areas; (2) scaling up climate resilience across food
systems; (3) strengthening the resilience of the most vulnerable to economic adversity;
(4) intervening along the food supply chains to lower the cost of nutritious foods;
(5) tackling poverty and structural inequalities, ensuring interventions are pro-poor
and inclusive, and; (6) strengthening food environments and changing consumer
behavior to promote dietary patterns with positive impacts on human health and the
environment (FAO et al. 2021). These pathways must be dealt with through coherent
progressive politics; if not, they fall apart and remain ineffective.
7. Conclusions
Structural hunger can be defeated. Taking note of all the factors, using our
current knowledge, and fixing the aim with agency, hunger can be beaten within 20
to 30 years. However, systems approaches based on comprehensive philosophies
and narratives are needed to build coherent portfolios of policies, investments, and
legislation and enable win–win solutions while managing trade-offs. These include
various approaches: territorial, ecosystems, indigenous peoples’ food systems
approaches, and interventions that systemically address protracted crisis conditions
(FAO et al. 2021). Additionally, the conscious and professional use of social capital
theories and practices are required to assure that the policies, investments, legislation,
and approaches reach the people where the critical actions happen—at the local
87
level (village, neighborhood, commune, district). Innovation platforms have been
presented as a possible starting point for creating social capital.
More policy support (Cooper et al. 2021), better links with health and nutrition
(Welch and Graham 2000), and prolonged standing advice are also required.
More diverse and bottom-up-based food security and governance approaches
(Sommerville et al. 2014), and at the same time a reduction in the fragility of the
trade-based global food system (Puma et al. 2015), should be discussed more intensely
after the experiences with COVID-19. When improving social capital, the critical
items mentioned by the FAO et al. (2021) can be addressed: bold actions, ecological
crises, inequality in access to food, the needs of the poor, low productivity, inadequate
food supplies, and finally, hunger.
The good news is that the pathway toward ending hunger is not different from
the pathway towards achieving SDGs, including the creation of more inclusive
societies (or, with Luhmann, to create an inclusive world society) or the pathway
to mitigating the disastrous impacts of the climate chaos. These three enormous
challenges—the fight against hunger and for inclusiveness, sustainability, and climate
change—will probably occupy the public discourse in the next 10 to 20 years.
Understanding that they have similar root causes enhances the chances of finding
collective solutions at the world level.
This essay is the result of over 40 years of thought and work with rural
communities, the UN system (FAO), INGO work in Africa, the private sector, the
working class, and a research institution. Its messages and reflections may be heard
or not. It is based on the tradition of philosophical thought aiming to make this
world a better place for all humans by reducing hunger. It is all in our hands, hearts,
and brains. Finally, as Ernst Bloch reminds us, in learning again together and in
tolerance but determination, hope.
Funding: This research is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) as a
follow-up of the ORM4Soil and Yamsys projects under the r4d programme (Swiss Programme
for Research on Global Issues for Development).
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
Adekunle, A. A., and Abiodun Oluwole Fatunbi. 2012. Approaches for Setting-up Multi-
Stakeholder Platforms for Agricultural Research and Development. World Applied Sciences
Journal 16: 981–88.
88
Bautze, Lin, Gian L. Nicolay, Matthias Meier, Andreas Gattinger, and Adrian Muller. 2018.
Climate Change Adaptation Through Science-Farmer-Policy Dialogue in Mali. In
Handbook of Climate Change Resilience. Edited by W. Leal Filho. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, pp. 1–15.
Botreau, Hélène, and Marc J. Cohen. 2020. Chapter Two—Gender inequality and food
insecurity: A dozen years after the food price crisis, rural women still bear the brunt
of poverty and hunger. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability. Edited by Marc
J. Cohen. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 53–117.
Biresaw, Amelework. 2019. Role of Social Capital in Agricultural Producers’ Cooperatives for
Commercialization: In the Case of Ethiopia. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstrac
t=3393202 (accessed on 17 August 2021).
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1980. Le capital social. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 2–3. [CrossRef]
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology
of Education. Edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood, pp. 241–58.
Caron, Patrick, Martin Van Ittersum, Tessa Avermaete, Gianluca Brunori, Jessica Fanzo,
Ken Giller, Etienne Hainzelin, John Ingramg, Lise Korstenh, Yves Martin-Préveli, and
et al. 2021. Statement based on the 4 TH international conference on global food
security—December 2020: Challenges for a disruptive research Agenda. Global Food
Security 30: 100554. [CrossRef]
Cassman, Kenneth G., and Patricio Grassini. 2020. A global perspective on sustainable
intensification research. Nature Sustainability 3: 262–68. [CrossRef]
Centeno, Miguel A., Manish Nag, Thayer S. Patterson, Andrew Shaver, and A. Jason Windawi.
2015. The Emergence of Global Systemic Risk. Annual Review of Sociology 41: 65–85.
[CrossRef]
Cooper, Matthew, Benjamin Müller, Carlo Cafiero, Juan Carlos Laso Bayas, Jesús
Crespo Cuaresma, and Homi Kharas. 2021. Monitoring and projecting global hunger:
Are we on track? Global Food Security 30: 100568. [CrossRef]
Covic, Namukolo, Achim Dobermann, Jessica Fanzo, Spencer Henson, Mario Herrero,
Prabhu Pingali, and Steve Staal. 2021. All hat and no cattle: Accountability following the
UN food systems summit. Global Food Security 30: 100569. [CrossRef]
de Castro, Josué. 1952. The Geography of Hunger. Little: Brown.
de Raymond, Antoine Bernard, Arlène Alpha, Tamara Ben-Ari, Benoît Daviron,
Thomas Nesme, and Gilles Tétart. 2021. Systemic risk and food security. Emerging
trends and future avenues for research. Global Food Security 29: 100547. [CrossRef]
DESA. 2012. Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles. Study
prepared by the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. Synthesis. Available
online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/641Synthesis_r
eport_Web.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2021).
89
Erenstein, Olaf, Jordan Chamberlin, and Kai Sonder. 2021. Farms worldwide: 2020 and 2030
outlook. Outlook on Agriculture 50: 003072702110255. [CrossRef]
Fakhri, Michael. 2021. Report on the Right to Food. Transmitted to the General Assembly in
Accordance with Assembly Resoulution 75/179. Available online: https://digitallibrary
.un.org/record/3936776?ln=en (accessed on 23 September 2021).
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2021. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in
the World. Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and
Affordable Healthy Diets for All. Available online: http://www.fao.org/documents/ca
rd/en/c/cb4474en (accessed on 29 June 2021).
FAO. 2021a. Achieving Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture and Food
Systems—A Handbook for Gender Focal Points. Rome: FAO.
FAO. 2021b. Agroecology Knowledge Hub. Rome: FAO. Available online: http://www.fao.org/
agroecology/overview/en/ (accessed on 17 August 2021).
Frossard, Emmanuel, Beatrice A. Aighewi, Sévérin Aké, Dominique Barjolle, Philipp Baumann,
Thomas Bernet, Daouda Dao, Lucien N. Diby, Anne Floquet, Valerie K. Hgaza, and et al.
2017. The Challenge of Improving Soil Fertility in Yam Cropping Systems of West Africa.
Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1953. [CrossRef]
Gliessman, Steve, and Maywa de Wit Montenegro. 2021. Agroecology at the UN food systems
summit. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45: 1417–21. [CrossRef]
Helbing, Dirk. 2013. Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497: 51–59.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Holt-Giménez, Eric, and Miguel A. Altieri. 2012. Agroecology, Food Sovereignty, and the New
Green Revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37: 90–102. [CrossRef]
IAASTD. 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD): Global Report. Colombo: International
Water Management Institute.
IPCC. 2020. Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification,
Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes
in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Summary for Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.
IPES-Food. 2020. Money Flows: What Is Holding Back Investment in Agroecological Research
for Africa? Biovision Foundation for Ecological Development & International Panel of
Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. Available online: www.agroecology-pool.org/M
oneyFlowsReport (accessed on 27 September 2021).
Jayne, T. S., Jordan Chamberlin, Stein Holden, Hosaena Ghebru, Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, and
Frank Place. 2021. Rising land commodification in sub-Saharan Africa: Reconciling the
diverse narratives. Global Food Security 30: 100565. [CrossRef]
Julien, Chris. 2014. Bourdieu, Social Capital and Online Interaction. Sociology 49: 356–73.
[CrossRef]
90
Liu, Jianguo, Thomas Dietz, Stephen R. Carpenter, Marina Alberti, Carl Folke, Emilio Moran,
Alice N. Pell, Peter Deadman, Timothy Kratz, Jane Lubchenco, and et al. 2007.
Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science 317: 1513–16. [CrossRef]
Lowder, Sarah K., Jakob Skoet, and Terri Raney. 2016. The Number, Size, and Distribution of
Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World Development 87: 16–29.
[CrossRef]
Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1997. Globalization or World society: How to conceive of modern society?
International Review of Sociology 7: 67–79. [CrossRef]
Mazzucato, Mariana. 2021. Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. London:
Penguin Books Limited.
McMichael, Philip. 2012. The Land Grab and Corporate Food Regime Restructuring. Journal of
Peasant Studies 39: 681–701. [CrossRef]
Melton, R. B. 1965. Schultz’s Theory of “Human Capital”. The Southwestern Social Science
Quarterly 46: 264–72.
Muriqi, Shyhrete, Zsolt Baranyai, and Maria Fekete-Farkas. 2021. Comparative analysis of
cooperative & non-cooperative farmers in Kosovo. Economics and Sociology 14: 242–63.
[CrossRef]
Nakalembe, Catherine, Inbal Becker-Reshef, Rogerio Bonifacio, Guangxiao Hu, Michael
Laurence Humber, Christina Jade Justice, John Keniston, Kenneth Mwagi, Felix Rembold,
Shraddhanand Shukla, and et al. 2021. A review of satellite-based global agricultural
monitoring systems available for Africa. Global Food Security 29: 100543. [CrossRef]
Nicolay, Gian L. 2016. Theory-Based Innovation Platform Management. A Contribution
of Sociology to Agriculture Research and Development. Paper presented at the 12th
European IFSA Symposium, Newport, UK, July 12–15; Available online: http://www.ha
rper-adams.ac.uk/events/ifsa-conference/papers/2/2.5%20nicolay.pdf (accessed on 27
June 2021).
Nicolay, Gian Linard, Louis Chikopela, Boubacar Diarra, and Andreas Fliessbach. 2020.
Modelling farm behaviour on soil fertility with the policy variable: A case from Africa.
Organic Agriculture 10: 43–56. [CrossRef]
Nicolay, Gian Linard. 2017. Why is Africa struggling with organic farming? A methodological
contribution from sociology. Paper presented at the Organic World Congress 2017, Delhi,
India, November 9–11.
Nicolay, Gian Linard. 2019. Understanding and Changing Farming, Food & Fiber Systems.
The Organic Cotton Case in Mali and West Africa. Open Agriculture 4: 86–97.
Orr, Lord Boyd, and David Lubbock. 1953. The White Man’s Dilemma. London: George Allen
and Unwin, Ltd.
Piazza-Georgi, Barbara. 2002. The role of human and social capital in growth: Extending our
understanding. Cambridge Journal of Economics 26: 461–79. [CrossRef]
91
Portes, Alejandro. 1998. Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology 24: 43–67. [CrossRef]
Pretty, Jules, Camilla Toulmin, and Stella Williams. 2011. Sustainable intensification in African
agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9: 5–24. [CrossRef]
Puma, Michael J., Satyajit Bose, So Young Chon, and Benjamin I. Cook. 2015. Assessing the
evolving fragility of the global food system. Environmental Research Letters 10: 024007.
[CrossRef]
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy 6: 65–78. [CrossRef]
Reardon, Thomas, David Tschirley, Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, Titus Awokuse,
Jessica Fanzo, Bart Minten, Rob Vos, Michael Dolislager, Christine Sauer, Rahul Dhar,
and et al. 2021. The processed food revolution in African food systems and the double
burden of malnutrition. Global Food Security 28: 100466. [CrossRef]
Ritchey, Tom. 1998. Fritz Zwicky, Morphologie and Policy Analysis. Available online: https://cite
seerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.9454&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed
on 24 September 2021).
Schultz, Theodore W., ed. 1981. Investing in People. Economics of Population Quality. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Silva, Joao Vasco, Pytrik Reidsma, Frédéric Baudron, Alice G. Laborte, Ken E. Giller, and
Martin K. van Ittersum. 2021. How sustainable is sustainable intensification? Assessing
yield gaps at field and farm level across the globe. Global Food Security 30: 100552.
[CrossRef]
Sommerville, Melanie, Jamey Essex, and Philippe Le Billon. 2014. The ‘Global Food Crisis’
and the Geopolitics of Food Security. Geopolitics 19: 239–65. [CrossRef]
von Braun, Joachim, Kaosar Afsana, Louise O. Fresco, and Mohamed Hassan. 2021. Food
systems: Seven priorities to end hunger and protect the planet. Nature 597: 28–30.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Welch, Ross M., and Robin D. Graham. 2000. A new Paradigm for World Agriculture:
Productive, Sustainable, Nutritious, Healthful Food Systems. Food and Nutrition Bulletin
21: 361–66. [CrossRef]
WFP. 2021. Climate Crisis and Malnutrition A Case for Acting Now. Rome: World Food Programme.
Wise, Timothy A. 2021. Transforming Global Food Systems. Jose Graziano da Silva on the Path to
Zero Hunger. IPS News, April 6. Available online: https://www.ipsnews.net/2021/04/tr
ansforming-global-food-systemsjose-graziano-da-silva-path-zero-hunger/ (accessed on 27
September 2022).
White, Harrison C. 2008. Identity and Control: How Social Formations Emerge. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Ziegler, Jean. 2010. Betting on Famine: Why the World Still Goes Hungry. New York: New Press.
Zimmermann, Rainer E. 2016. Ernst Bloch: Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Berlin: De Gruyter.
92
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
93
The Implications of Agroecology and
Conventional Agriculture for Food Security
and the Environment in Africa
Terence Epule Epule and Abdelghani Chehbouni
1. Introduction
Agroecology is a form of agriculture that is dependent on natural systems of
cultivation and minimum external inputs. Some of its properties include aspects of
agriculture that are reliant on natural systems and very minimal external inputs, such
as green manure, compost, crop rotation, and biological pest control. Agroecology
also includes the use of pesticides and fertilizers generated from natural avenues,
such as pyrethrin from flowers and bone meal from animals (Badgley et al. 2007).
On the other hand, conventional agriculture is any form of agriculture that is based
essentially on external inputs, such as inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides,
inter alia (Badgley et al. 2007; Seufert et al. 2012). Therefore, the key differences
between agroecology and conventional agriculture are anchored on the fact that
conventional farming is based on inorganic or synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and
plant growth catalysts, such as antibiotics and hormones, while agroecology is
based on natural inputs (Badgley et al. 2007; Lindell et al. 2010a). In a nutshell, the
major differences between agroecology and conventional agriculture are based on
decentralization, independence, community, harmony with nature, diversity, and
restraint (Lindell et al. 2010a, 2010b) (Figure 1).
Agroecology Agriculture Conventional Agriculture

• Natural • Artificial
• Independent of external inputs • Dependent on external inputs
• Harmony with nature • Domination of nature
• Restraint • Exploitation
• Decentralized • Centralized
• Diversified • Specialized
• Community • Competition
Figure 1. The differences between agroecology and conventional agriculture.

Source: Figure by authors.
95
The global carrying capacity of the Earth is being affected by rapid population
growth throughout the world. The ability of the Earth to feed a projected population
of about 9 to 10 billion people by 2050 is being compromised by the galloping
world population (Badgley et al. 2007). Thus, there is a pressing need to enhance
global production and at the same time ensure that the environmental footprints
of current and emerging production systems do not perturbate the promises of
intergenerational sustainability (Seufert et al. 2012). Agroecology responds to the
twin challenges aimed at producing food while at the same time reducing the
environmental footprints of production activities. Despite the benefits of agroecology,
the system has been criticized for being unbale to feed the global population
when compared to conventional agriculture (Seufert et al. 2012). To ensure better
yields and for farming systems under agroecology to level up and be parallel with
current global conventional systems of production, it is necessary to bring more
land into cultivation. The idea of expanding agricultural land through extensive
farming heralds evidence-based repercussions on the environment through effects
such as the loss of forests, biodiversity degradation, and inadequate organically
acceptable farming procedures that can produce enough food without compromising
the environmental strengths of agroecology (Trewavas 2001; Seufert et al. 2012;
Epule 2019).
The prospects of brining more land into production in Africa is diminishing,
as land expansion is becoming a limitation (Morris et al. 2007). A study
by Badgley et al. (2007, p. 86) observes that agroecology has the potential of
contributing quite substantially to the global food supply, while at the same
time protecting the environment. The latter observation has been criticized by
Seufert et al. (2012) on the grounds that 1. they included agroecology yields from
farms with inputs of large amounts of nitrogen from manure; 2. they included
less representative low conventional yields in their comparison; 3. they failed to
consider yield reductions over time due to rotations with non-food crops; 4. the
double counting of high agroecology yields; and 5. the extensive use of unverifiable
data from the grey literature.
With all these criticisms in mind, it is a complex process to predict if agroecology
will maintain its promise of producing more food and protecting the environment.
Unfortunately, the Seufert et al. (2012) paper cannot be used to conclude this
regarding Africa, as it fails to use data from the latter. Its conclusions cannot be
generalized because it is more germane to say there are insufficient studies dwelling
on this topic on an African scale except for (Epule 2019).
96
2. Methodology
The data used in this chapter are based on a review of the peer-reviewed and
grey literature. A search for suitable publications was performed in the following
search engines: Google Scholar, Scopus, Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), and
Scientific Citation Index (SCI) Web of Science. It is believed that the data culled from
these search engines are representative, as ground truthing did not result in any new
studies. This work considers suitable literature in both French and English, and a
total of 49 peer-reviewed and grey literature studies were included in this review. Of
these 49 publications, only 6 were published by authors with affiliations in African
universities or organizations. From these publications, 30 focused on agroecology
while 19 focused on conventional agriculture. The time span of the papers selected
was open, but all the studies included in the review had a focus on Africa or some
African country. The search was conducted using keywords such as agroecology
and conventional agriculture in Africa, benefits and challenges of agroecology and
conventional agriculture in Africa, and food security implications of agroecology and
conventional agriculture in Africa. From the resulting database, key themes were
identified based on the objectives of this chapter.
3. Theoretical Foundations of Agroecology and Conventional Agriculture

Agricultural systems can be balkanized into two broad categories, which include
agroecology and conventional agriculture. These farming systems represent two
broad agricultural systems. For a long time, unless an agricultural system is being
productive in terms of yields, using more inorganic fertilizers and pesticides in
addition to resulting in cutting up more forest in favor of farmland expansion, it
is said to be facing a decline. This emphasis on yields is often at the detriment
of the environment, and a society is said to face a decline if it cannot keep up
with yield demands at all costs and at the expense of environmental degradation,
deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions, inter alia. For a very long time,
agricultural systems around the world have been based on conventional agriculture.
This dominant or traditional system of farming places emphasis on the following
aspects: 1. Inputs of inorganic fertilizers and hybrid sowing materials or seeds
(Morris et al. 2007; Matson et al. 1997; Epule et al. 2012). 2. Mechanization or
dependence on agricultural machinery. 3. Monoculture or the cultivation of single
crops. 4. The commercialization of production through a huge market orientation as
well as development and integration into a global economy (Figure 2a). Conventional
agriculture has been associated with environmental degradation, with the Global
South being more vulnerable due to poverty, accessibility, and general low adaptive
97
capacities (Lindell et al. 2010a, 2010b; Matson et al. 1997; Rosegrant and Cline 2003;
Snapp et al. 2010; Hossain and Singh 2000; Reid et al. 2003; Valenzuela 2016).
On the other hand, agroecology has been proposed as an alternative to
conventional agriculture for the following benefits: 1. It enhances crop production.
2. It protects the environment by reducing environmental footprints due to its
minimal dependence on external inputs. 3. It is easily accessible by poor farmers
in the Global South since it is less dependent on synthetic external inputs. The
key components of agroecology include the following: 1. It is based on the use of
natural nutrient cycling with little or no synthetic substances (Badgley et al. 2007;
Snapp et al. 2010; Kerr et al. 2007). 2. It ensures improvements in yield through
the following options: 1. Nutrient cycling through natural processes and the
accumulation of organic matter. 2. Natural control of pests and diseases using
relationships such as predator–prey strategies rather than the use of pesticides, as
well as the use of animal wastes as pesticides. 3. The conservation of environmental
resources such as energy, soil, biodiversity, and water. 4. The enhancement of
biodiversity, synergies, and interactions (Figure 2b). The fundamental principle
behind this paradigm is anchored on resolving the debates around the dilemma
related to feeding mankind while at the same time ensuring that the environment
is protected.
(a) (b)
Resource
Commercialization Automation & PestControl via
Conservation (Soil,
of Agriculture Monoculture Prey-Predator
Water, Energy,
Links
Biodiversity)
CONVENTIONAL AGROECOLOGY
Global integration Natural Organic Matter and

Conventional
& Development of Interactions Manure (Natural
Fertilizers
Markets (Synergy) Processes)
Figure 2. The paradigms of (a) the conventional paradigm and (b) agroecology.
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Epule et al. (2015).
98
4. Benefits and Challenges of Agroecology and Conventional Agriculture
in Africa
4.1. Agroecology
One of the key benefits of agroecology is that most of its options are freely
available. This aspect is of great importance in the African context because most
agricultural production is in the hands of smallholder peasant farmers who often
do not have enough money to invest in costly conventional agricultural inputs
(Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Rosegrant and Svendsen 1993;
Bado et al. 1997; Altieri 2009). With agroecology, manure and compost can easily be
obtained from household waste, while animal droppings and urine can be used
as fertilizers and pesticides (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and Svendsen 1993).
Additionally, predator–prey relationships can be used to combat pests through the
entomology technique of breeding insects that prey on other harmful pests on farms.
All these options are freely available at little or no cost (Epule et al. 2012, 2015).
Furthermore, agroecology options are always environmentally friendly or
compatible with natural environmental systems (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant
and Svendsen 1993). This is evident as composts, manure, and other natural
inputs that make up agroecology do not pollute the soil, nearby streams,
and other water resources (Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991;
Bado et al. 1997, 2007). Instead, they help to enhance soil aeration and social organic
carbon (Epule et al. 2012, 2015).
Again, as seen in the literature review, when agroecology is properly valorized
it leads to improved yields. In fact, the low-level capabilities of agroecology in
Africa are currently tied to the lack of valorization (Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and
Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). This can be achieved through sensitization
and the creation of pilot demonstration farms (Epule et al. 2012, 2015).
Finally, agroecology is open to the diversification of agriculture through either
mixed cropping or mixed farming (Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye
1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). In addition to the fact that this diversifies farmers’
income when some crops are not successful, it also provides an opportunity for the
introduction of livestock (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and Cline 2003). In fact, with
livestock, agroecology can be enhanced because the waste from the animals can be
used as manure and to control pests at the farm level, while some of the thrash from
the crops can be decomposed to provide manure as well as be used as food for the
animals (Epule et al. 2012, 2015).
99
One of the main disadvantages of agroecology is that it is often dependent on
the incorporation of more land into agricultural systems (Epule et al. 2012, 2015).
This is disadvantageous, because when more land is cultivated, it is likely that more
trees will be cut down (Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al.
1997, 2007). In fact, the prospects of agroecology are highly limited in the context
of farmland expansion, as there is currently evidence that there is less land for the
continuous expansion of farms. Continuous deforestation exposes the land to various
types of erosion and long-term soil degradation (Epule et al. 2012, 2015). This is the
case in West, Central, and East Africa, as farmers in these regions depend mostly on
farmland expansion to increase yields.
In addition, agroecology is currently not well-developed in Africa due
to problems with the valorization of the systems (Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo
and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). Most farmers cannot afford
inorganics and end up farming under peasant conditions without exploring the
elements of agroecology. This low level of valorization accounts for the often-low
commercialization orientation of this type of agriculture (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant
and Cline 2003). If most countries in Africa valorize this system, as is the case in
Malawi, it is likely that it might be able to provide yields that are parallel to those of
conventional farms (Epule et al. 2012, 2015).
4.2. Conventional Agriculture

One of the benefits of conventional agriculture in Africa is that it is less
dependent on land expansion (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and Cline 2003).
In contrast to agroecology, which is often extensive and land-dependent, conventional
agriculture is usually intensive, focusing on intensive inputs of fertilizers, machines,
and pesticides, inter alia (Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado
et al. 1997, 2007). The advantage of this is that there is less deforestation and soil
degradation caused by different types of soil erosion (Epule et al. 2012, 2015).
Secondly, another advantage of conventional agriculture is that it is highly
market-dependent and pro-commercialization (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and
Cline 2003). In other words, most production in highly intensive farms and its
associated investments are often aimed at a huge market orientation (Pichot et al.
1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). The benefits of commercial
agriculture are that it provides an income for famers and makes agriculture a primary
industry that operates beyond subsistence (Epule et al. 2012).
In addition, conventional agriculture is often intensive and mechanized. This
means that farmers under this system more often use machines, which go a long
100
way to enhance production (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and Cline 2003). This
is in contrast to most agroecology-related approaches, which often depend on
natural systems and human labor (Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991;
Bado et al. 1997, 2007). The incorporation of machines into conventional agriculture
is an illustration of the valorization of conventional agriculture and, evidently, the
occurrence of higher crop yields under this system of cultivation (Epule et al. 2012).
In terms of the challenges, it is important to note that the inputs into
conventional farming systems are often not compatible with natural environmental
systems (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and Cline 2003). This is seen in the case
of inorganic fertilizers, which may enhance yields but, on the other hand, pollute
streams and other underground water resources if they are not properly managed
(Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). Recent
research has even shown that inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, in addition to other
hormones found in the latter, have been described as partly responsible for several
illnesses, such as cancer (Epule et al. 2012).
Furthermore, conventional agriculture is often monocultural, meaning that often
only a single crop is cultivated (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and Cline 2003). The
limitation of this is that, when there are crop failures, farmers might have many
difficulties in recovering from the loss as they might not have suitable alternatives
(Pichot et al. 1981; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). Additionally,
monocultural farms are often more susceptible to changes in climate and are therefore
more easily affected when bad climatic conditions occur (Epule et al. 2012). This is
evident as the farmers involved might not have suitable alternatives, as they depend
on a single crop.
Finally, conventional agriculture is often characterized by inorganic fertilizers,
pesticides, and fungicides, and is hugely machine-intensive (Pichot et al. 1981;
Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). These key components of
agroecology are expensive and not readily accessible in most African countries, as
most farmers are poor and unable to afford them (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and
Cline 2003). In cases where governments have invested to enhance access, rife rates
of corruption have resulted in having these resources end up in the wrong hands
(Epule et al. 2012).
5. Agroecology and Conventional Agriculture: Food Security Implications

in Africa
According to the Malthusian population perspective, global food production
was going to be unable to sustain the galloping world population. As a
101
result of this, the debate is now around the potential of agroecology- and
conventional-farming-related approaches to meet global food needs in general
and especially food needs in the Global South. The initial hypothesis is that
conventional agriculture can produce higher yields, in contrast to agroecology
(Badgley et al. 2007; Epule et al. 2015). Indeed, conventional agriculture has
witnessed major technological advancements in the last six decades. These changes
were necessitated by the pressure imposed by the doubling of the human population
in the past 40 years and have resulted in the production of more food. However, the
problem now is one associated with the distribution of the food gains as well as the
toll that these practices exert on the environment (Badgley et al. 2007; Abedi et al.
2010). Within this distribution chain, it can be observed that the Global South is still
faced with problems of rife food insecurity and associated increased vulnerability to
climate stressors. With an increase in the global consumption of meat and a decline
in grain production, it is more important than ever to tilt production towards more
sustainable methods. This is because conventional systems do not only degrade the
environment through a strong dependence on external inputs but have also not been
able to solve the problems of food insecurity in many parts of the world, including
Africa (Altieri 1995, 2002; Uphoff 2003).
However, it has been argued that the alternative of conventional agriculture,
which is agroecology, is still not capable of ensuring production to attain levels that
equate to those of conventional production. In addition, agroecology requires more
land and renders this approach unsustainable, as it often results in deforestation and
consequent land degradation through different forms of erosion (Stoop et al. 2002;
Tilman et al. 2002; Bumb and Groot 2004). Badgley et al. (2007) verified the criticisms
against agroecology through two models of food production under agroecology
conditions. The first model used agroecology: non-agroecology yield ratios based
on developed world studies. It is argued that when converted into agroecology,
low-intensity agriculture, which is a phenomenon of most of the developing world,
will produce similar or slightly lower yields as obtained in the developed world. The
subsequent model used other yield ratios derived from the developed world as well
as yield ratios culled from studies on the developing world and applied them to
food production in the developing world. The latter study found that agroecology
can indeed contribute to feed the current and future world populations with little
or no environmental concerns. These results are said to under-represent the real
yields in agroecology, as several farms were reported for individual crops because
many agroecology systems use multiple cropping approaches, within which the
total output is often higher when compared to single crops (Badgley et al. 2007).
102
Since more research has focused on conventional agriculture, there are more
opportunities to increase agroecology, as much remains unknown. Therefore, if
the same emphasis that has been placed on conventional agriculture is placed on
agroecology, agroecology is likely to result in additional yields. Furthermore, the
yield per unit seems to be higher for agroecology-based systems of production for
smaller than bigger farms in both the developed and developing world. This means
that an increase in the number of small farms will further enhance global food
production (Seufert et al. 2012; Bado et al. 2007). These results do not imply that
yields under agroecology exceed yields under conventional yields but suggest rather
that under certain conditions agroecology has the potential to enhance crop yields
(Badgley et al. 2007).
The results that show that agroecology can feed the world’s population have
been debunked and criticized by Seufert et al. (2012). These criticisms are anchored
on the justification that the authors of those findings used data from crops that were
not purely under agroecology, and therefore were erroneous in their comparison of
yields. In their study, Seufert et al. (2012) performed a comprehensive meta-analysis
of the literature on agroecology and conventional agriculture. The principal findings
showed that conventional agriculture is more capable of feeding the world’s
population when compared to agroecology (Seufert et al. 2012).
There is a variation in agroecology yields according to different crop types.
For example, yields under agroecology for oil seeds and fruits show a very small
but significant difference when compared to conventional yields. Additionally,
vegetables and cereals witnessed significantly lower yields than conventional crops
(Seufert et al. 2012; Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 2007; Tilman et al.
2002; Bumb and Groot 2004). From a time, perspective, agroecology-related yields
are usually low during the first year and gradually increase with time due to
enhancements in soil fertility. Under rain-fed conditions, agroecology yields are
higher than those under irrigation. Considering a global perspective, agroecology
yields are said to be higher in the developed world than in the developing
world. However, the general conclusion of the Seufert et al. (2012) paper is
that agroecology-based systems of agriculture generally have lower yields when
compared to conventional yields.
In Africa, there are several studies that have assessed the performance of
agroecology and conventional agriculture in the context of their impacts on crop
yields (Altieri 1995, 2002; Pretty 1995; Gliessman et al. 1998; Kerr et al. 2007;
Dorward et al. 2008; Snapp et al. 2010; Ayuke et al. 2011). There is evidence
from Gambia, Madagascar, and Sierra Leone that the mean yields of rice under
103
conventional farming are much lower than those under agroecology (Uphoff 2003,
2013). In Gambia, for example, conventional rice yields were reported at 2.3 t/ha,
while those under agroecology recorded 7.1 t/ha (Uphoff 2003, 2013). Madagascar,
on its part, recorded conventional rice yields of 2.6 t/ha, while agroecology recorded
7.2 t/ha; in Sierra Leone, conventional rice yields recorded 2.3 t/ha, and agroecology
recorded 5.3 t/ha (Figure 3) (Uphoff 2003, 2013). Between 1994 and 1999 in
Madagascar, the mean yields were higher for conventional farms, which recorded
8.55 t/ha, while peasant or agroecology farms recorded 2.36 t/ha (Uphoff 2003).
Based on these initial examples, it can be said that the yields under agroecology
are generally higher in the context of the countries under consideration, except
for Madagascar.
8
7
6
Rice Yields (t/ha)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Gambia Madagascar Sierra Leone
Conventional yields SRI or agro-ecology yields
Figure 3. Mean rice yields under agroecology and conventional farming. Source:
Authors’ compilation based on data from Uphoff (2003, 2013).
These days, agriculture in Africa is being modernized, as seen in the increased

use of improved varieties of planting materials, machines, pesticides, and inorganic
fertilizers, among other aspects. It has been stated that the full capabilities of
improved varieties are often much more effective when other external inputs, such
as inorganic fertilizers, are employed (IFAD 1986). Therefore, most food security
campaigns in Africa have emphasized the modernization of agriculture through
inorganic inputs, and therefore conventional agriculture. It has been argued that, in
Cameroon, agroecology nutrients are often not available for crops when compared
to inorganic nutrients under conventional farming. Additionally, it has been argued
that organic sources are unable to trigger an agricultural revolution in Africa because
of the lack of valorization (IFAD 1986; Epule et al. 2012). It has been added that
104
all attempts at increasing productivity in Cameroon without external inputs are
likely to fail, because the optimal scenario for yield enhancement includes a scenario
that combines both agroecology farming and conventional farming (FAO 1987).
In most African countries, yield improvements are often based on increasing farm
sizes. Agroecology will further reinforce this equation by taking up more land,
while conventional agriculture drives intensive agriculture and therefore reduces
the yield–land dilemma (Lindell et al. 2010a, 2010b; Jayne et al. 2003). However,
conventional agricultural options, such as inorganic fertilizers, are more likely to
pollute water resources (Lindell et al. 2010a, 2010b; Epule 2019).
For agroecology to be successful in Africa, its components need to be adequately
valorized. For the twin challenges of improving yields and protecting the
environment to be achieved through agroecology, all of the processes involving
the enhancement of organic manure, compost, the use of prey–predator relationships
to control pests, and the dependence on natural cycles must be valorized to levels
parallel to those of conventional agriculture. With a few exceptions to the leading
role of agroecology-related yields in Africa presented above, most reports on the
success of agriculture in Africa are often linked to the role of the conventional options
of agriculture. Africans need to be educated on how to valorize agroecology, and
pilot agroecology projects need to be established in various countries. Countries such
as Malawi, with some of the well-known agroecology projects, still indulge in the
intensification of agriculture through external inputs in bids aimed at enhancing food
security (Borlaug 2000; Denning et al. 2009). This is seen as Malawi has addressed
food insecurity by enhancing investments in N fertilizers and high-yielding varieties,
as well as by enhancing access to these (Dorward et al. 2008; Mäder et al. 2002;
Gregory et al. 2005). It has been argued that the moderate application of fertilizer,
of about 35 kg N ha−1 , doubled the grain production of an initially unfertilized
farm: from 1.05 Mg ha−1 to about 2.17 Mg ha−1 (Snapp et al. 2010). Even in the
Songani and Ekwendeni research sites in Malawi, agroecology-based yields of maize
increased after the introduction of conventional inorganic fertilizers (Snapp et al.
2010). Much of this increase was attributed to external inputs. More evidence from
Malawi shows that agroecology can only meet the twin challenges of feeding an
increasing population and protecting the environment if aspects of access and scale
are adequately valorized (Gregory et al. 2005). While there is enough information on
conventional agricultural inputs, such as organic fertilizers, there is little information
on the use of agroecology-related organic fertilizers. On the other hand, the rate of
inorganic fertilizer use in Africa is generally lower when compared to the developed
world due to issues related to costs, the absence of sufficient credit facilities, and
105
unfavorable policies (Jayne et al. 2003). In Kabate, Central Kenya, reports hold
that agroecology-related inputs are unable to sustain crop yields as well as the
environment at their current level of valorization (Ayuke et al. 2011; Borlaug 2000;
Denning et al. 2009; Chivenge et al. 2009).
New research is showing that the most feasible scenario of improving the crop
yield in Africa now is through a combination of agroecology and conventional
agricultural options (Figure 4) (Ayuke et al. 2011; Hafidi et al. 2012). This is because
agroecology alone cannot enhance production to meet the food needs in Africa based
on the current population growth and increased vulnerability to climate change.
Agroecology, however, remains critical for small-scale farmers in the Global South
due to their inability to secure large quantities of inorganic fertilizers (Heisey and
Mwangi 1996; Demelash et al. 2014).
16
14
12
10
Yields (tons)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time
Yields under organic manure Yields under inorganic fertilizers
Figure 4. Evolution of yields under agroecology and conventional agriculture in

Africa. Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Epule et al. (2015).
Though the best combination for yield improvements in Africa now involves
a combination of agroecology and conventional agricultural practices, it is still
important to report here that the increase is often minimal. A study carried out in
Central Kenya shows that when agroecological inputs are added to maize farms, the
yields increase and flatten out at some point, even if more inputs are added, whereas
the introduction of conventional inputs, such as nitrogen fertilizers, was able to
trigger the maize yield curve to rise further, though marginally (Gregory et al. 2005;
106
Heisey and Mwangi 1996; Demelash et al. 2014; Pereira et al. 2018). In Africa,
most farming systems that do not employ the use of agroecology or conventional
farming options usually experience low yields. Invariably, the optimal scenario for
yield improvements is a combination of both agroecology and conventional inputs
(Bationo and Mokwunye 1991; Bado et al. 1997, 2007). In Burkina Faso, for example,
inputs of conventional fertilizers, such as nitrogen, calcium, and potassium (NKP),
combined with agroecology-based options, such as manure, triggered higher yields
during the years 2000, 2001, and 2003 (Figure 5). The alternatives show that in a
scenario with only the use of NKP, the resultant yields were intermediate during the
same period, while the “control” scenario with neither agroecology or conventional
inputs showed high grain yields in the beginning because the soils had been left to
fallow, and in later years showed a decline in yields (Figure 5). Similar results have
been reported in Ethiopia (Demelash et al. 2014).
Agroecology needs to be valorized in Africa because of its enormous potentials.
Compost, for example, has positive impacts on the physicochemical and biological
properties of soils, which in turn help in driving improved soil quality and
yields (Demelash et al. 2014). Unfortunately, as seen in the cases presented
here, agriculture in Africa will continue to be driven by conventional inputs if
agroecology is not valorized and issues of access to resources are not properly
handled (Snapp et al. 2010; Rosegrant and Cline 2003; Razanakoto et al. 2021).
Despite the prospects of agroecology in Africa, the system still has a lot of challenges.
Since agriculture in Africa is mostly in the hands of smallholders, production
is generally under natural conditions driven by limited access to conventional
production inputs (Razanakoto et al. 2021). The valorization of agroecology to levels
that are parallel to the status of conventional agriculture mandates a synergy between
all agricultural stakeholders. The question should no longer be “can agroecology
feed Africa’s population”, but instead be one focused on “how can agroecology be
valorized to increase crop yields and protect the environment?” Evidently, there
seems to be no easy way out of this agroecology–conventional agriculture dilemma.
Perhaps the fact that these systems are driven by several drivers working together in
the context of Africa makes this puzzle even more difficult (Mugwanya 2019). In the
final part of this chapter, an examination of the benefits, limits, and challenges of
these two broad paradigms is examined.
107
2002
Years
2001
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Grain Yield/Kg/ha’year
Control (no fertilizer, no manure) NKP Only NKP+ Manure
Figure 5. Evolution of grain yields under three scenarios in the Guinean zone of
Burkina Faso. Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Bado et al. (2007);
Demelash et al. (2014).
Therefore, as can be seen above, agroecology is good for the environment, but its
current level of valorization does not make it able to overcome the food security crises
that the continent is witnessing. For agroecology to fill the twin gaps of food security
and environmental resilience, it should be valorized, as seen in the successful case
studies presented above. On the other hand, conventional farming currently holds
more prospects of reducing food insecurity, because under this approach greater
yields are currently being obtained. However, the paradox is that despite the food
security benefits that this approach currently offers, it is flawed due to its daunting
effects on the environment. Consequently, the future of African agriculture rest in
the valorization of agroecology to levels at which it can sustain actual and future
food production needs, while at the same time reducing environmental degradation
to a minimum.
6. Conclusions
This chapter has shown that agroecology has the potential of being more
sustainable for the African environment when compared to conventional agriculture.
However, the status of agroecology in Africa is one that needs valorization to
ensure that its yields can be parallel to those of conventional agriculture. Even
though agroecology has minimal effects on the environment, its overdependence
on land expansion is likely to expose the environment to more deforestation and its
accompanying effects. In fact, there are results that show that, in Africa, smallholder
108
farmers in West, Central, and East Africa depend mostly on expanding their farm
sizes to improve yields (Epule et al. 2022). Conventional agriculture, on the
other hand, currently produces higher yields in the current African context, while
unfortunately being less suitable for the environment. Therefore, the goal at this
juncture will be to valorize agroecology to a level where it can sustain the twin
benefits of ensuring food security while also sustaining the environment. In Africa,
since most agricultural production is in the hands of smallholder farmers, the
current access to conventional agricultural options is highly limited, thus affecting
food security. Most of these smallholders cultivate without any major inputs
and without well-valorized knowledge of agroecology. The bigger agro-industrial
organizations are the main users of major conventional agricultural options, since
these organizations can afford such conventional inputs. Such organizations would
also benefit from the advantages of the valorization of agroecology. In the context
of future research, new ways must be researched and developed on how to make
conventional agriculture cleaner and more sustainable, while pilot farms that will
drive the valorization of the components of agroecology should also be accentuated.
This implies that all stakeholders, including smallholder farmers, should be included
in the design, elaboration, execution, evaluation, and monitoring of such efforts in
attempts at creating ownership, which is a key element of success and acceptance.
Therefore, a policy approach that is both top-down and, most importantly, bottom-up
will go a long way to ensure success. The main weakness of this work is that it
mainly uses a review approach that uses both peer-reviewed and grey literature.
Grey literature is non-standardized, and therefore less reliable and acceptable. As
a result, it is important for more field-based studies to be conducted to investigate
these initial literature-driven results at different scales across Africa.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.E.E.; Methodology, T.E.E.; Software, T.E.E.;

Formal Analysis, T.E.E. and A.C.; Investigation, T.E.E. and A.C.; Resources, AC.; Data Curation,
T.E.E. and A.C.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, T.E.E.; Writing—Review and Editing,
A.C.; Supervision, A.C. and T.E.E.; Project Administration, A.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by the Pan Moroccan Yield and Precipitation Gaps Project
(PAMCPP) awarded to T.E.E. in 2021 at Mohammed VI Polytechnic University.
Acknowledgments: This work was made possible thanks to An APRA Grant to the PAMOCPP
Project under grant number 149DPRA01.
109
References
Abedi, Tayebeh, Abass Alemzadeh, and Seyed Abdolreza Kazemeini. 2010. Effect of organic
and inorganic fertilizers on grain yield and protein banding pattern of wheat. Australian
Journal of Crop Science 4: 384–89.
Altieri, Miguel A. 1995. Agroecology, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.
Altieri, Miguel A. 2002. Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor
farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93: 1–24.
Altieri, Miguel A. 2009. Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review
61: 102–13. [CrossRef]
Ayuke, Frederick Ouma, Lijbert Brussaard, Benard Vanlauwe, Johan Six, David Kiprono Lelei,
Catherine Kibunja, and Mirjam Pulleman. 2011. Soil fertility management: Impacts on
soil macrofauna, soil aggregation and soil organic matter allocation. Applied Soil Ecology
48: 53–62. [CrossRef]
Badgley, Catherine, Jeremy Moghtader, Eileen Quintero, Emily Zakem, Jahi Chappell,
Katia Aviles-Vazquez, Andrea Samulon, and Ivette Perfecto. 2007. Organic agriculture
and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22: 86–108. [CrossRef]
Bado, Boubie Vincent, André Bationo, Francois Lompo, Michel Cescas, and Michael P. Sedogo.
2007. Mineral fertilizers, organic amendments, and crop rotation managements for soil
fertility maintenance in the Guinean zone of Burkina Faso (West Africa). In Advances
in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities.
Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 171–77.
Bado, Boubie Vincent, Michel Papdoba Sédogo, Michel Pierre Cescas, François Lompo, and
André Bationo. 1997. Effet à long terme des fumures sur le sol et les rendements du maïs
au Burkina Faso. Cahiers Agricultures 6: 571–75.
Bationo, André, and Uzo Mokwunye. 1991. Role of manures and crop residue in alleviating
soil fertility constraints to crop production: With special reference to the Sahelian and
Sudanian zones of West Africa. Fertilizer Research 29: 117–25. [CrossRef]
Borlaug, Norman E. 2000. Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat
of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology 124: 487–90. [CrossRef]
Bumb, Balu L., and Rob Groot. 2004. Improving fertilizer supply in sub-Saharan Africa. Paper
presented at US–Africa Agribusiness Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, 13–16 November;
pp. 7–10.
Chivenge, Pauline, Bernard Vanlauwe, Roberta Gentile, Hellen Kamiri Wangechi, Daniel
Njiru Mugendi, Van Kessel-Bakvis, and Johan Six. 2009. Organic and mineral
input management to enhance crop productivity in Central Kenya. Agronomy Journal
101: 1266–75. [CrossRef]
Demelash, Nigus, Wondimu Bayu, Sitot Tesfaye, Feras Ziadat, and Rolf Sommer. 2014. Current
and residual effects of compost and inorganic fertilizer on wheat and soil chemical
properties. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 100: 357–67. [CrossRef]
110
Denning, Glenn, Patrick Kabambe, Pedro Sanchez, Alia Malik, Rafael Flor, Rebbie Harawa,
Phelire Nkhoma, Colleen Zamba, Clement Banda, Chrispin Magombo, and et al. 2009.
Input subsidies to improve smallholder maize productivity in Malawi: Toward an
African green revolution. PLoS Biology 7: e1000023. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dorward, Andrew, Ephraim Chirwa, Valerie A. Kelly, Thomas S. Jayne, Rachel Slater, and
Duncan Boughton. 2008. Evaluation of the 2006 Agricultural Inputs Subsidy Programme,
Malawi: Final Report. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
Epule, Epule Terence, Changhui Peng, Laurent Lepage, Balgah Sounders Nguh, and Ndiva
Mongoh Mafany. 2012. Can the African food supply model learn from the Asian food
supply model? Quantification with statistical methods. Environment, Development and
Epule, Epule Terence, Christopher Robin Bryant, Cherine Akkari, and Oumarou Daouda. 2015.
Can organic fertilizers set the pace for a greener arable agricultural revolution in Africa?
Analysis, synthesis, and way forward. Land Use Policy 47: 179–87. [CrossRef]
Epule, Terence Epule. 2019. Contribution of Organic Farming Towards Global Food Security:
An Overview. Organic Farming 1: 1–16.
Epule, Terence Epule, Abdelghani Chehbouni, and Driss Dhiba. 2022. Recent Patterns in
Maize Yield and Harvest Area across Africa. Agronomy 12: 374. [CrossRef]
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. 1987. Agriculture:
Toward 2000. Economic and Social Development Series; Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
Gliessman, Stephen R., Eric Engles, and Robin Krieger. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes
in Sustainable Agriculture. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Gregory, Peter J., John S. I. Ingram, and Michael Brklacich. 2005. Climate change and food
security. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360: 2139–48.
[CrossRef]
Hafidi, Mohamed, Soumia Amir, Abdelilah Meddich, Abdelmajid Jouraiphy, Peter Winterton,
Mohamed El Gharous, and Robin Duponnois. 2012. Impact of applying composted
biosolids on wheat growth and yield parameters on a calcimagnesic soil in a semi-arid
region. African Journal of Biotechnology 11: 9805–815.
Heisey, Paul, and William Mwangi. 1996. Fertilizer Use and Maize Production in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Mexico City: CIMMYT.
Hossain, Singh, and Ved Prakash Singh. 2000. Fertilizer use in Asian agriculture: Implications
for sustaining food security and the environment. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
57: 155–69. [CrossRef]
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 1986. Cameroon Fertilizer Sector Study.
Muscle Shoals: International Fertilizer Development Center, May.
111
Jayne, Thomas S., Valerie A. Kelly, and Eric W. Crawford. 2003. Fertilizer Consumption Trends
in Sub-Saharan Africa. No. 1095-2016-88171. East Lansing: Department of Agricultural,
Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University.
Kerr, Rachel Bezner, Sieglinde Snapp, Marko Chirwa, Lizzie Shumba, and Rodgers Msachi.
2007. Participatory research on legume diversification with Malawian smallholder
farmers for improved human nutrition and soil fertility. Experimental Agriculture
43: 437–53. [CrossRef]
Lindell, Lina, Mats Åström, and Tomas Öberg. 2010a. Land-use change versus natural
controls on stream water chemistry in the Subandean Amazon, Peru. Applied Geochemistry
25: 485–95. [CrossRef]
Lindell, Lina, Mats E. Åström, and Sirkku Sarenbo. 2010b. Effects of forest slash and burn
on the distribution of trace elements in floodplain sediments and mountain soils of the
Subandean Amazon, Peru. Applied Geochemistry 25: 1097–106. [CrossRef]
Mäder, Paul, Andreas Fliessbach, David Dubois, Lucie Gunst, Padruot Fried, and Urs Niggli.
2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296: 1694–97. [CrossRef]
Matson, Pamela A., William J. Parton, Allison G. Power, and Mike J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural
intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504–9. [CrossRef]
Morris, Michael, Valerie A. Kelly, Ron J. Kopicki, and Derek Byerlee. 2007. Fertilizer
Use in African Agriculture: Lessons Learned and Good Practice Guidelines. Directions in
Development; Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6650 (accessed
on 12 August 2021).
Mugwanya, Nassib. 2019. Why agroecology is a dead end for Africa. Outlook on Agriculture
48: 113–16. [CrossRef]
Pereira, Laura, Rachel Wynberg, and Yuna Reis. 2018. Agroecology: The future of sustainable
farming? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 60: 4–17. [CrossRef]
Pichot, Jean-Pascal, Michel Papaoba Sedogo, Jean-François Poulain, and Jacques Arrivets.
1981. Evolution de la fertilité d’un sol ferrugineux tropical sous l’influence de fumures
minérales et organiques. L’agronomie Tropicale 36: 122–33.
Pretty, Jules. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture. London, Earthscan and Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Razanakoto, Onjaherilanto R., Sitrakiniaina Raharimalala, Eddy J. Randriamihary
Fetra Sarobidy, Jean-Chrysostome Rakotondravelo, Patrice Autfray, and Hanitriniaina
M. Razafimahatratra. 2021. Why smallholder farms’ practices are already agroecological
despite conventional agriculture applied on market-gardening. Outlook on Agriculture
50: 80–89. [CrossRef]
Reid, John F., John Schueller, and William R. Norris. 2003. Reducing the Manufacturing and
Management Costs of Tractors and Agricultural Equipment. Agricultural Engineering
International: CIGR Journal 5: 1–12.
112
Rosegrant, Mark W., and Mark Svendsen. 1993. Asian food production in the 1990s: Irrigation
investment and management policy. Food Policy 18: 13–32. [CrossRef]
Rosegrant, Mark W., and Sarah A. Cline. 2003. Global food security: Challenges and policies.
Science 302: 1917–19. [CrossRef]
Seufert, Verena, Navin Ramankutty, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2012. Comparing the yields of
organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485: 229–32. [CrossRef]
Snapp, Sieglinde S., Malcolm J. Blackie, Robert A. Gilbert, Rachel Bezner-Kerr, and George
Y. Kanyama-Phiri. 2010. Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 20840–45. [CrossRef]
Stoop, Willem A., Norman Uphoff, and Amir Kassam. 2002. A review of agricultural research
issues raised by the system of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: Opportunities
for improving farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems 71: 249–74.
[CrossRef]
Tilman, David, Kenneth G. Cassman, Pamela A. Matson, Rosamond Naylor, and
Stephen Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices.
Nature 418: 671–77. [CrossRef]
Trewavas, Anthony. 2001. Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 410: 409–10. [CrossRef]
Uphoff, Norman. 2003. Higher yields with fewer external inputs? The system of rice
intensification and potential contributions to agricultural sustainability. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 1: 38–50. [CrossRef]
Uphoff, Norman, ed. 2013. Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food Production with
Participatory Development. London: Routledge.
Valenzuela, Hector. 2016. Agroecology: A global paradigm to challenge mainstream industrial
agriculture. Horticulturae 2: 2. [CrossRef]
113
Agroforestry: An Avenue for Resilient and
Productive Farming through Integrated
Crops and Livestock Production
Nuwandhya S. Dissanayaka, Shashi S. Udumann, Tharindu D. Nuwarapaksha
1. Introduction
The global population is expected to reach approximately 9.7 billion by
2050, presenting a significant challenge in terms of ensuring food security and
eradicating hunger on a global scale (Lal 2016). Worldwide scientific research
engagement and highlighting the importance of providing sufficient, safe, and
nutritious food for the growing population are essential to addressing this challenge.
Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2) states that zero hunger and food security
are multidimensional concepts that encompass the availability, access, utilization,
and the stability of food supplies to meet the dietary requirements of individuals
(FAO 2022). Achieving zero hunger implies ensuring that every person has access to
an adequate quantity of safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food.
Resilience, in the context of agriculture, denotes the ability of farms, farmers,
and farming systems to foresee future challenges, withstand external pressures, and
adjust in response to various stresses, using unexpected climate changes as well
as trade, financial, and policy-related mechanisms (Mathijs and Wauters 2020). A
productive farming system refers to an agricultural approach or method designed and
managed to optimize the output of crops, livestock, or other agricultural products. It
focuses on maximizing the efficiency of resource utilization, including land, water,
nutrients, and labor, to ensure high yields and sustainable production. Resilient and
productive farming with agroforestry practices plays a vital role in accomplishing
this objective more versatilely (Dissanayaka et al. 2023). Agroforestry is a complex
and intricate land use system that combines different tree elements, seasonal crops,
and/or animal components (Sarvade and Singh 2014). It aims to achieve a range of
environmental, social, and economic advantages in every part of the world (Dhyani
et al. 2021; Octavia et al. 2022). The resilience of the agroforestry farming system
can be assessed by addressing the following points: (1) the resilience of what, by
characterizing the farming system; (2) resilience to what, by identifying economic,
environmental, social, and institutional challenges; (3) resilience for what purpose, by
115
identifying desired functions of the farming system; (4) what the resilience capacities
are, by assessing resilience capacities; and (5) what enhances resilience, by assessing
resilience-enhancing attributes (Meuwissen et al. 2019).
The objective of this review is to provide an overview and evaluate the role of
agroforestry in enhancing agricultural resilience and productivity. Specifically, the
review aims to carry out the following:
1. Examine the scientific basis and principles underlying agroforestry as a

sustainable farming practice;
2. Investigate the practical applications of agroforestry in diverse farming systems,
including agri-silvicultural, silvo-pastoral, and agro-silvi-pastoral systems;
3. Explore the impact of agroforestry on livelihood improvement;
4. Identify potential challenges and opportunities in scaling up agroforestry for
widespread adoption and its implications for achieving sustainable and resilient
farming systems.
2. Different Types of Agroforestry Systems

Considering the spatial and temporal arrangement of its components,
agroforestry systems can be categorized into three main systems: agri-silvicultural
systems, silvo-pastoral systems, and agro-silvi-pastoral systems (Nair et al. 2021).
Agri-silvi-cultural systems involve the intentional integration of crops and
trees within the same farming landscape (Figure 1a) (Nair et al. 2021). The trees
can be fruit trees, timber trees, or other commercially viable tree species. The
agricultural component may include food crops, cash crops, medicinal plants, and
mushrooms and is popular as a low-input production system (Atangana et al. 2014a).
The integration of agriculture and forestry components allows for complementary
interactions and synergies. Intercropping, alley cropping, shifting cultivation, chena,
taungya, home gardening, plantation crop combinations, trees for conservation,
shelter belts, windbreak, and live hedges can be identified as examples of this
cropping system (Ayyam et al. 2019).
The silvo-pastoral systems are an integrated form of land use that combines
trees, forage/pasture crops, and/or livestock grazing (Figure 1b) (Nair et al. 2021).
They involve the deliberate and simultaneous management of trees and pasture for
the production of food, timber, forage, and livestock. Fodder production is the main
productive function in this system and needs a comparatively higher involvement of
socio-economic and management than agri-silvicultural systems do (Atangana et al.
2014a). Silvo-pastoral systems can provide multiple benefits, including improved
animal welfare, increased productivity, enhanced environmental sustainability, and
116
economic advantages. Silvi-pastures, horti-pastoral patures, trees on rangelands,
plantation crops with pastures, protein banks, and seasonal forestry grazing can be
categorized under this system (Ayyam et al. 2019; Dhyani et al. 2021).
Agro-silvi-pastoral systems integrate crops, trees, and livestock within the same
farming landscape (Figure 1c) (Nair et al. 2021). The agricultural component may
include food crops, cash crops, or forage crops for livestock. The tree component
may include multipurpose trees. As a livestock component, cattle, buffaloes, swine,
goat, sheep, and poultry farming are incorporated into the system. The integration
of these components allows for complementary interactions and synergies between
agriculture, silviculture, and livestock production. This system requires high human
involvement for success.
Furthermore, apiculture with trees (integrating trees with bee-keeping)
(Figure 1d) and aqua forestry (integrating trees with fish) are also common in
some areas of the world, especially in highland sub-humid tropical areas (Ayyam et al.
2019). Agri-silvi-cultural systems are primarily suited for lowland humid tropical
environments, while silvo-pastoral and agro-silvi-pastoral systems are more apt for
highland humid tropics above 1200 m from sea level and lowland sub-humid tropical
climates, respectively (Atangana et al. 2014a). Agri-silvi-pastoral, agro-pastoral,
and silvo-pastoral systems are mostly prevalent in parts of Africa, Asia, and the
Americas, whereas some gardens are widely practiced in South and Southeast Asia
(Mahmud et al. 2021). In temperate zones, silvo-pastoral systems with coniferous
trees and livestock are the most prevalent type of agroforestry system (Den Herder
et al. 2017). Other than that, native agroforestry systems such as forests and woodlots
and mesquite-based systems in North america, nomadic systems in South America,
silvi-arable systems in temperate zones in China, and Dehesa systems in europe are
some of the common agroforestry systems which can be seen in temperate zones in
the world except shelter belts, windbreaks, riparian forest systems, intercropping,
and allycropping systems (Bhardwaj et al. 2017).
117
Trees
Trees
Animals
Crops and birds
Livestock
(a) (b)
Trees
Livestock Trees
Animals Bee keeping

and birds
Crops
(c) (d)
Figure 1. Different agroforestry systems: (a) agri-silvicultural systems; (b) silvo-pastoral

system; (c) agro-silvi-pastoral systems; (d) apiculture. Source: Figure by authors.
3. Potential Benefits from Agroforestry Farming
3.1. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Agroforestry systems play a vital role in promoting biodiversity within
agricultural landscapes, leading to enhanced resilience and productivity (Octavia
et al. 2022; Udawatta et al. 2019). High biodiversity with the presence of diverse plant
species, including trees, crops, and understory vegetation, creates a complex habitat
that supports a wide range of plant and animal species (Rahman et al. 2023). The
presence of diverse plant species in agroforestry systems attracts a greater variety
of beneficial insects, birds, and other predators that act as natural enemies of pests
(Rahman et al. 2023; Suroso et al. 2023). These beneficial organisms contribute to pest
control by preying on or parasitizing pests, reducing the need for synthetic pesticides
(Fahad et al. 2022; Jose 2009). For example, trees in agroforestry systems can provide
shelter and food sources for predatory insects, such as ladybugs, lacewings, and
118
parasitic wasps, which help control crop pests. Agroforestry systems, with their
various plant communities, support a broader range of pollinators, including bees,
butterflies, birds, and bats (Udawatta et al. 2019). These pollinators play a crucial
role in the reproductive success of both crops and wild plant species, contributing to
higher yields and improved fruit sets (Bentrup et al. 2019; Centeno-Alvarado et al.
2023; Klein et al. 2003). The presence of flowering trees and shrubs in agroforestry
systems provides additional nectar and pollen sources for pollinators, increasing
their abundance and diversity (Lee-Mader et al. 2020). Trees in agroforestry systems
contribute to an excellent biodiversity corridor by providing interconnected and
ecologically diverse habitats that facilitate wildlife movement between fragmented
landscapes (Haggar et al. 2019). As an overall effect, this system increases food
security and food diversification.
3.2. Nutrient Cycling and Soil Health

Agroforestry systems improve nutrient cycling and soil health through various
mechanisms (Atapattu et al. 2017; Dissanayaka et al. 2023). The leaf litter from
trees, along with the decomposition of organic matter from different plant species,
contributes to increased soil organic matter content. This organic matter enhances
soil structure, water holding capacity, nutrient availability, and microbial activity
(Mohammadi et al. 2011). The diverse root systems of trees and crops in agroforestry
systems facilitate nutrient uptake from different soil depths, reducing nutrient
leaching and enhancing nutrient cycling within the ecosystem (Hugenschmidt
and Kay 2023). Furthermore, the diverse root systems of trees, along with the
associated mycorrhizal networks, where tree roots form symbiotic relationships with
beneficial fungi, increase nutrient availability for surrounding crops and improve
crop productivity. They interact with the soil biological and chemical properties to
extract and redistribute water in ways that remove pollutants from the contaminated
soils over time through methods like decontamination, hyperaccumulation, and
hydraulic lift (Table 1) (Atangana et al. 2014b; François et al. 2023). Root exudates from
trees contain organic compounds that fuel microbial populations in the rhizosphere,
promoting nutrient transformations and facilitating nutrient availability to plants
(Beule et al. 2022).
119
Table 1. The ability of various agroforestry systems to reduce soil pollution levels.
Category of Agroforestry Pollution Abatement-Related

Reference
System Main Observation
Intercropping systems with Reduction in Pb contamination in
Acacia ampliceps or municipal wastewater and Hussain et al. (2020)
Azadiracta indica industrial wastewater
Pesticides showed disappearance
rates of more than 61.5% and up
Tree alley cropping systems Pavlidis et al. (2020)
to 100% in the points closest to
the tree row
Reduction in nitrate pollution in
Tree alley cropping systems Gikas et al. (2016)
groundwater
Reduction in nitrogen and
Tree-based agroforestry phosphorus residues in soil by Pavlidis and Vassilios
systems 20% and up to 100%, and (2017)
pesticide transport up to 100%
Purifying the atmosphere by
reducing net emissions of nitrous
oxide (by drying the soil,
Tree-based agroforestry increasing soil aeration, and
Lawson et al. (2020)
systems removing excess nitrate
concentrations) and ammonia
gases (by reducing emissions and
recapturing through tree foliage)
Source: Table by authors.
The presence of trees and diverse vegetation in agroforestry systems improves

water infiltration rates and helps control soil erosion (Fahad et al. 2022). The tree
canopy intercepts rainfall, reducing the impact of raindrops on the soil surface and
minimizing erosion. The deep roots of trees contribute to improved soil structure
and porosity, enhancing water infiltration and reducing surface runoff (Jinger et al.
2022). Agroforestry systems thus mitigate the risk of soil erosion, especially during
heavy rainfall events, helping to maintain soil fertility and prevent nutrient loss.
Nitrogen-fixing plants play a significant role in agroforestry systems by enriching
the soil with nitrogen, a vital nutrient for plant growth (Sarvade and Singh 2014;
Thomas et al. 2018). These plants have the unique ability to convert atmospheric
nitrogen gas into a usable form through a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing
bacteria and are genetically determined (Table 2) (Suzaki et al. 2015). These bacteria
possess the enzyme nitrogenase, which enables them to convert atmospheric nitrogen
(N2 ) into ammonia (NH3 ) through a process known as nitrogen fixation (Hoffman
120
et al. 2014). The ammonia is then converted into forms such as ammonium (NH4 + )
that can be utilized by plants. As a result, the presence of nitrogen-fixing plants
improves the overall nitrogen availability in the soil, supporting the growth and
productivity of neighboring plants.
Table 2. Nitrogen-fixing plant species and its nitrogen-fixing potential.
Nitrogen Fixed
Scientific Name The Woodiness of the Plant
(kg N/ha/year)
Acacia albida Woody 20
Acacia mearnsii Woody 60–110
Calliandra calothyrsus Woody 24–93
Erythrina poeppigiana (Walp.) Woody 60
Erytriana fusca Woody 80
Gliricidia sepium Woody 13
Leucaena leucocephala Woody 100–500
Sesbania sesban Woody 18–8
Sesbania rostrata Woody 70–458
Glycine max L. Merr Herbaceous 60–168
Medicago sativa L. Herbaceous 229–290
Trifolium spp. Herbaceous 128–207
Vigna sinensis L. (Walp.) Herbaceous 73–354
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Adams et al. (2010); Muoni et al. (2020);
Nuwarapaksha et al. (2023); Sarvade et al. (2014); Sharma et al. (2022).
3.3. Livelihoods and Economic Benefits

Agroforestry systems provide a wide range of products that can be harvested
and sold, diversifying income streams for farmers. These products include timber
from trees, fruits and nuts from fruit trees, fodder for livestock, livestock products
(ex: meat, milk, and wool), and various non-timber forest products such as medicinal
plants, honey, and bamboo (Kuyah et al. 2020; Tsegaye 2023). The diversity of
products allows farmers to access multiple markets and income sources, reducing
their dependence on a single crop or commodity. Agroforestry has demonstrated
its potential for poverty reduction and creating sustainable economic opportunities,
particularly in rural areas. By diversifying income sources and providing multiple
products, agroforestry systems can increase the resilience of farming communities and
121
reduce their vulnerability to market fluctuations. Agroforestry also offers long-term
benefits by enhancing soil fertility, reducing erosion, and promoting sustainable land
management practices, ensuring the productivity and economic viability of farming
systems over time (Dissanayaka et al. 2023).
3.4. Climate Resilience and Adaptation

Trees in agroforestry systems provide shade and act as windbreaks, offering
protection to crops and livestock (Santoro et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2021). During
heatwaves or periods of high temperatures, the shade provided by trees can reduce
heat stress in crops and animals, mitigating potential yield losses and negative
impacts on livestock health (Ramil Brick et al. 2022). Furthermore, the presence
of trees modifies the microclimate by creating more favorable conditions, such as
reduced temperature fluctuations and increased humidity, within the agroforestry
system (Rosenstock et al. 2019). For example, the jackfruit-based agroforestry system
reported a 3.37–9.25% reduction in soil temperature in Bangladesh (Riyadh et al. 2018).
Agroforestry systems contribute to climate change adaptation by sequestering carbon
dioxide (CO2 ) from the atmosphere, thereby mitigating greenhouse gas emissions
(Chavan et al. 2021). Trees can capture and store carbon in their biomass and soil,
acting as “carbon sinks”. Differences in growth rates, wood densities, and lifespans
are key factors influencing a tree’s carbon storage capacity (Sharma et al. 2016).
Certain tree species exhibit rapid growth, accumulating biomass swiftly, whereas
others grow slowly but boast denser wood, leading to greater long-term carbon
storage (Kaul et al. 2010). Agroforestry systems, with their tree components, can
sequester significant amounts of carbon over time, thus helping to offset emissions
and mitigate climate change (Table 3).
122
Table 3. Carbon storage potential of different agroforestry systems in different
regions of the world.
Type of Carbon Storage Potetial

Established Region
Agroforestry System (Mg C ha−1 ) *
Africa 29–53
39–102
South America
Agro-silvicultural 39–195
12–228
Southeast Asia
68–81
Australia 28–51
133–154
Silvi-pastoral North America
104–198
Northern Asia 15–18
* Carbon storage values were standardized to a 50-year rotation. Source: Authors’ compilation
based on data from Albrecht and Kandji (2003).
4. Factors to Consider
The implementation of agroforestry involves several key steps to ensure the
successful establishment and management of the system. While the specific steps
may vary depending on the context and objectives, the following considerations are
the main steps commonly involved in agroforestry implementation.
4.1. Site Selection and Planning

The first step is to identify suitable sites for agroforestry implementation. Site
assessment helps determine the compatibility of tree species, crops, and livestock
in a specific area. Planning involves determining the appropriate design, layout,
and arrangement of the agroforestry system to maximize benefits and minimize
potential conflicts. The design and layout should be adapted to the agroecological
region and should be easy to manage. Chuma et al. (2021) and Nath et al. (2021)
found the importance of basic parameters including climate, elevation, soil, aspects,
slope orientation, euclidean distance to the road, euclidean distance to a river, and
euclidean distance to the town while implementing agroforestry systems. Among
them, sunlight availability, the direction of wind, precipitation frequency and amount,
and irrigation water availability should be prioritized (De Zoysa 2022).
123
4.2. Component Selection
Selecting suitable animal, tree, and crop species is crucial for the success of the
agroforestry system. The selection should consider local conditions, market demand,
ecological requirements, and compatibility with other components (Banyal et al.
2018). It is important to choose tree and livestock species that are well adapted to
the climate, water, and light contents, have economic value, and provide ecosystem
services (Nerlich et al. 2013). Those species should be compatible with the tree species
and meet the specific objectives of the system (De Zoysa 2022).
4.3. Planting and Establishment

The next step involves planting and establishing the trees, crops, and any
additional components of the system, such as forage or livestock. Proper
planting techniques, including spacing, depth, and care, are essential for successful
establishment. Adequate soil preparation, irrigation, and weed control measures
should be implemented to promote plant growth and survival (Ngarava et al. 2022).
4.4. Management and Maintenance

Ongoing management and maintenance are crucial to increasing the health and
productivity of the agroforestry system (Isaac et al. 2007). This includes practices
such as pruning, thinning, pest and disease management, irrigation, and fertilization
(Ngarava et al. 2022). Regular monitoring of the system helps identify any issues
or adjustments needed to optimize performance and minimize potential conflicts
between tree and crop components.
4.5. Harvesting and Utilization

The harvesting of tree products, such as timber, fruits, nuts, or non-timber forest
products, and the utilization of crops and livestock occur at appropriate stages of
growth and maturity. Proper harvesting techniques and post-harvest handling are
important to maintain the quality and value of the products (Facheux et al. 2007).
The utilization of harvested products may involve marketing, processing, or value
addition activities.
5. Challenges with Agroforestry

Agroforestry systems can take many years to become fully productive, as woody
perennials like trees and shrubs take time to establish and grow. This long payback
period is a major limitation, as farmers do not see returns on their investment for
124
the first several years (Sagastuy and Krause 2019). During this establishment phase,
agroforestry systems often produce less than conventional agricultural systems
do, reducing yields and farm income in the short term (Sollen-Norrlin et al. 2020).
Managing the complexity of agroforestry systems with their multiple components can
be challenging, as can balancing the resource demands of all the components through
competition for light, water, and nutrients (Sollen-Norrlin et al. 2020). Farmers require
substantial knowledge and skills to successfully manage this complexity. However,
technical assistance and guidance are often lacking, due to the limited research and
extension support for agroforestry (Kiyani et al. 2017). The high diversity of plants
in agroforestry systems can attract some pests, diseases, and weeds compared to
those in simpler systems. The availability of alternate hosts and resources can allow
pest populations to build up (Griffiths et al. 1998; Staton et al. 2022). Controlling
these requires additional management efforts. There are also challenges in marketing
the diverse mix of products from agroforestry systems compared to commodity
crops. A lack of established supply chains and low consumer awareness limit market
opportunities in many areas (Do et al. 2020). This marketing uncertainty increases
the risks and limits the economic viability of agroforestry. Additional challenges
like limited financial resources, labor, planting materials, extreme weather events,
livestock damage, and fire risks can all undermine agroforestry success (Ajayi 2007).
While agroforestry offers benefits, overcoming its limitations requires substantial
knowledge, resources, and long-term commitment from farmers and supporting
institutions. It is important to note that the significance of these challenges can vary
substantially across different geographical regions and socio-economic contexts.
6. To Improve the System

This complex system can be scaled up for resilient and productive farming by
expanding the adoption and implementation of agroforestry practices at larger scales.
6.1. Proper Awareness and Knowledge Sharing

Raising awareness about the benefits and potential of agroforestry is crucial
(Buck et al. 2020; Musa et al. 2019). This involves disseminating information about
successful agroforestry case studies, research findings, and best practices. For that,
workshops, seminars, forum discussions, training, peer assistance or advice, film
shows, and action reviews by experts, targeting farmers, agricultural communities,
and local and foreign stakeholders can be organized with the help of universities,
research stations, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations
(Kommey and Fombad 2023). Agroforestry demonstration farms can be established
125
in different regions. These farms can showcase various agroforestry models, providing
tangible examples of how agroforestry works and its benefits. Similarly, open days
where farmers and the general public can visit these model farms can be arranged.
Interactive sessions, guided tours, and hands-on experiences can significantly enhance
understanding. Online platforms and resources can be maintained where farmers
and communities can access knowledge and training on agroforestry techniques,
management strategies, and potential income streams. Regularly updating these
types of platforms with the latest news is necessary. In addition to that, monitoring
and evaluation with continuous data collection and feedback loops will help to
assess the needs and challenges faced by farmers practicing agroforestry and trading
agroforestry products.
6.2. Policy Support and Enabling Environment

Supportive policies and institutional frameworks are essential for scaling up
agroforestry (Dagar et al. 2020; Ndlovu and Borrass 2021). Governments and
policymakers can create incentives, regulations, and programs that promote and
facilitate agroforestry adoption (Xue 2023). This can include financial incentives,
technical assistance, land tenure security, and favorable market conditions for
agroforestry products (Buck et al. 2020). Collaboration among different government
departments, such as agriculture, forestry, and environment, is critical for integrated
policy support.
Access to finance and resources is crucial for farmers to adopt and scale up
agroforestry practices (Foster and Neufeldt 2014; Simelton et al. 2017). Financial
mechanisms, such as subsidies, grants, microfinance, and investment schemes,
can be established to support agroforestry initiatives (Sagastuy and Krause 2019).
Farmers also need access to quality planting material, technical support, and training.
According to a survey conducted by Kareem et al. (2017) to determine the issues with
agroforestry farming, the biggest problems in implementing agroforestry systems
are insufficient capital, insufficient rainfall, land accessibility, an insufficient market
center, a high cost of agro-chemicals, inaccessibility of tractors, and an instability of
market price. Strengthening extension services and establishing nurseries or seed
banks for agroforestry species can facilitate access to resources (Shah 2023).
Other than that, scaling up agroforestry requires a landscape-level approach,
considering the spatial integration of agroforestry systems within larger farming
landscapes and collaboration among various stakeholders, including farmers,
researchers, government agencies, NGOs, and private sector actors. Suggestions of
126
the farmers in Musebeya sector, Nyamagabe District, in the southern province of
Rwanda to improve the agroforestry systems are shown in Figure 2.
17%
20% Availability of agroforestry species (20%)
Improvement of market accessibility (8%)
Tree nursery establishmen (19%)
8%
Capacity building (15%)
21%
Subsidies (21%)
Community participation (17%)
19%
15%
Figure 2. Suggestions of the farmers in Musebeya sector, Nyamagabe District, in

the southern province of Rwanda to improve the agroforestry systems. Source:
Authors’ compilation based on data from Kiyani et al. (2017).
7. The Contribution of Agroforestry to Sustainable Development Goal 2

As a holistic and sustainable agricultural approach, agroforestry plays a vital role
in advancing the objectives of SDG 2 and moving toward a world with zero hunger
(Montagnini and Metzel 2017). Diversified and nutritious food production with
integrated crop and livestock management and the minimum addition of synthetic
harmful agro-inputs fulfill the basic requirement of SDG 2, ensuring access to safe,
nutritious, and sufficient food for all people (Duffy et al. 2021). Improved soil fertility
and land productivity via promoting natural fertilization processes like legume
cropping and high organic matter addition in the soil indirectly influence higher
yields, which contribute to increased food availability (Fahad et al. 2022). Agroforestry
systems are often more resilient to climate change due to their biodiversity and ability
to conserve water. In the face of changing climate patterns, agroforestry provides
a sustainable way to ensure food production, aligning with the goals of SDG 2,
enhancing adaptive capacity against climate-related hazards and natural disasters
(Mbow et al. 2014; Platis et al. 2019). In addition to that, agroforestry encourages local
food production. When food is produced locally, there is often less waste associated
with transportation and storage, contributing to the aim of reducing food loss and
127
waste. Importantly, agroforestry can provide additional sources of income through
the sale of tree products, such as fruits, nuts, and timber (Beetz 2011; Kassie 2018).
Increased income diversity for farmers improves their access to food and supports
their ability to provide nutritious meals for their families. This sustainable land use
system reduces soil erosion, conserves water, and protects biodiversity, contributing
to the objective of SDG 2 on ensuring the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
8. Conclusions
In conclusion, resilient and productive farming is crucial to meeting the
global challenge of ensuring food security for a growing population. Agroforestry
practices play a vital role in achieving this objective by integrating trees, crops,
and livestock in innovative and sustainable ways. Agroforestry systems can
provide numerous benefits, including biodiversity conservation, nutrient cycling,
soil health improvement, multiple income streams, climate resilience, and
carbon sequestration. Through the integration of diverse components, such as
agri-silvicultural, silvo-pastoral, and agro-silvi-pastoral systems, agroforestry can
enhance agricultural productivity, support sustainable livelihoods, and contribute to
ecological sustainability. Scaling up agroforestry requires raising awareness, policy
support, access to finance and resources, landscape-level planning, and collaboration
among stakeholders. By adopting and promoting agroforestry practices, it can foster
resilient and productive farming systems that contribute to food security, poverty
reduction, and sustainable development. Embracing agroforestry is not only a
scientific solution but also an opportunity to create a more sustainable and inclusive
future for agriculture.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.S.D. and A.J.A.; methodology, S.S.U.; validation,

A.J.A. and T.D.N.; formal analysis, N.S.D.; investigation, S.S.U.; writing—original draft
preparation, N.S.D. and S.S.U.; writing—review and editing, A.J.A. and T.D.N.; supervision,
A.J.A.; visualization, N.S.D. and S.S.U.; project administration, A.J.A. All authors contributed
to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments: We would like to extend our gratitude to the technical team at the
Agronomy Division of the Coconut Research Institute for their valuable contributions. We
also want to express our thanks to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for providing
constructive feedback and valuable comments.
128
References
Adams, Mark A., Judy Simon, and Sebastian Pfautsch. 2010. Woody legumes: A review from
the South. Tree Physiology 30: 1072–82. [CrossRef]
Ajayi, Oluyede C. 2007. User acceptability of sustainable soil fertility technologies: Lessons
from farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice in southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 30: 21–40. [CrossRef]
Albrecht, Alain, and Serigne T. Kandji. 2003. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry
systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 99: 15–27. [CrossRef]
Atangana, Alain, Damase Khasa, Scott Chang, Ann Degrande, Alain Atangana, Damase Khasa,
Scott Chang, and Ann Degrande. 2014a. Definitions and classification of agroforestry
systems. In Tropical Agroforestry. Edited by Alain Atangana, Damase Khasa, Scott Chang
and Ann Degrande. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 35–47. [CrossRef]
Atangana, Alain, Damase Khasa, Scott Chang, Ann Degrande, Alain Atangana, Damase Khasa,
Scott Chang, and Ann Degrande. 2014b. Phytoremediation in tropical agroforestry. In
Tropical Agroforestry. Edited by Alain Atangana, Damase Khasa, Scott Chang and Ann
Degrande. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 343–51. [CrossRef]
Atapattu, Anjana J., Sumith H. S. Senarathne, Thilina Raveendra, Chaminda Egodawatta, and
Sylvanus Mensah. 2017. Effect of short-term agroforestry systems on soil quality in
marginal coconut lands in Sri Lanka. Agricultural Research Journal 54: 324–28. [CrossRef]
Ayyam, Velmurugan, Swarnam Palanivel, and Sivaperuman Chandrakasan. 2019. Agroforestry
for livelihood and biodiversity conservation. In Coastal Ecosystems of the Tropics—Adaptive
Management. Edited by Velmurugan Ayyam, Swarnam Palanivel and Sivaperuman
Chandrakasan. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 363–89. [CrossRef]
Banyal, Rakesh, Rajkumar, Manish Kumar, Rajender Kumar Yadav, and Jagdish Chander
Dagar. 2018. Agroforestry for rehabilitation and sustenance of saline ecologies. In
Agroforestry: Anecdotal to Modern Science. Edited by Jagdish Chander Dagar and Vindhya
Prasad Tewari. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 413–54. [CrossRef]
Beetz, Alice E. 2011. Agroforestry: Overview. Karnataka: ATTRA.
Bentrup, Gary, Jennifer Hopwood, Nancy Lee Adamson, and Mace Vaughan. 2019. Temperate
agroforestry systems and insect pollinators: A review. Forests 10: 981. [CrossRef]
Beule, Lukas, Anna Vaupel, and Virna Estefania Moran-Rodas. 2022. Abundance, diversity,
and function of soil microorganisms in temperate alley-cropping agroforestry systems:
A review. Microorganisms 10: 616. [CrossRef]
Bhardwaj, Daulat Ram, Mansi R. Navale, and Sandeep Sharma. 2017. Agroforestry practices
in temperate regions of the world. In Agroforestry: Anecdotal to Modern Science. Edited
by Jagdish Chander Dagar and Vindhya Prasad Tewari. Singapore: Springer Singapore,
pp. 413–54. [CrossRef]
129
Buck, L., S. Scherr, L. Trujillo, J. Mecham, and M. Fleming. 2020. Using integrated landscape
management to scale agroforestry: Examples from Ecuador. Sustainability Science 15:
Centeno-Alvarado, Diego, Ariadna Valentina Lopes, and Xavier Arnan. 2023. Fostering
pollination through agroforestry: A global review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
351: 108478. [CrossRef]
Chavan, Sangram Bhanudas, Ram Newaj, Raza H. Rizvi, Ajit, Rajendra Prasad, Badre Alam, A.
K. Handa, S. K. Dhyani, Amit Jain, and Dharmendra Tripathi. 2021. Reduction of global
warming potential vis-à-vis greenhouse gases through traditional agroforestry systems
in Rajasthan, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability 23: 4573–93. [CrossRef]
Chuma, Geant Basimine, Nadege Cizungu Cirezi, Jean Mubalama Mondo, Yannick
Mugumaarhahama, Deckas Mushamalirwa Ganza, Karume Katcho, Gustave Nachigera
Mushagalusa, and Serge Schmitz Serge. 2021. Suitability for agroforestry implementation
around Itombwe Natural Reserve (RNI), eastern DR Congo: Application of the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach in geographic information system tool. Trees, Forests
and People 6: 100125. [CrossRef]
Dagar, Jagdish Chander, Sharda Rani Gupta, and Demel Teketay. 2020. Agroforestry for Degraded
Landscapes: Recent Advances and Emerging Challenges—Volume 1. Singapore: Springer
Singapore, p. 554. [CrossRef]
De Zoysa, Mangala. 2022. Scientific basis of agroforestry homegardens in Matara district,
Sri Lanka: Present status and improvement needs. Open Journal of Forestry 12: 60–87.
[CrossRef]
Den Herder, Michael, Gerardo Moreno, Rosa M. Mosquera-Losada, João H. N. Palma, Anna
Sidiropoulou, Jose J. Santiago Freijanes, Josep Crous-Duran, Joana A. Paulo, Margarida
Tomé, Anastasia Pantera, and et al. 2017. Current extent and stratification of agroforestry
in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 241: 121–32. [CrossRef]
Dhyani, Shalini, Indu K. Murthy, Rakesh Kadaverugu, Rajarshi Dasgupta, Manoj Kumar, and
Kritika Adesh Gadpayle. 2021. Agroforestry to achieve global climate adaptation and
mitigation targets: Are South Asian countries sufficiently prepared? Forests 12: 303.
[CrossRef]
Dissanayaka, Nuwandhya S., Lakmini Dissanayake, Shashi S. Udumann, Tharindu D.
Nuwarapaksha, and Anjana J. Atapattu. 2023. Agroforestry—A key tool in the
climate-smart agriculture context: A review on coconut cultivation in Sri Lanka. Frontiers
in Agronomy 5: 1162750. [CrossRef]
Do, Hoa, Eike Luedeling, and Cory Whitney. 2020. Decision analysis of agroforestry options
reveals adoption risks for resource-poor farmers. Agronomy for Sustainable Development
40: 1–12. [CrossRef]
130
Duffy, Colm, Gregory G. Toth, Robert P. O. Hagan, Peter C. McKeown, Syed Ajijur Rahman,
Yekti Widyaningsih, Terry C. H. Sunderland, and Charles Spillane. 2021. Agroforestry
contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 95:
Facheux, Charly, Zac Tchoundjeu, Divine Foundjem-Tita, Ann Degrande, and Mbosso Charlie.
2007. Optimizing the Production and Marketing of NTFPs. African Crop Science Conference
Proceedings 8: 1249–54.
Fahad, Shah, Sangram Bhanudas Chavan, Akash Ravindra Chichaghare, Appanderanda
Ramani Uthappa, Manish Kumar, Vijaysinha Kakade, Aliza Pradhan, Dinesh Jinger,
Gauri Rawale, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, and et al. 2022. Agroforestry systems for soil health
improvement and maintenance. Sustainability 14: 14221. [CrossRef]
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2022. FAO and the Sustainable Development
Goals—Achieving the 2030 Agenda through Empowerment of Local Communities. Rome: FAO.
[CrossRef]
Foster, Kristi, and Henry Neufeldt. 2014. Biocarbon projects in agroforestry: Lessons from the
past for future development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 148–54.
[CrossRef]
François, Mathurin, Maria Carolina Gonçalves Pontes, Arthur Lima da Silva, and Eduardo
Mariano-Neto. 2023. Impacts of cacao agroforestry systems on climate change, soil
conservation, and water resources: A review. Water Policy 25: 564. [CrossRef]
Gikas, Georgios D., Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis, and Dimitrios Sykas. 2016. Effect of trees on
the reduction of nutrient concentrations in the soils of cultivated areas. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 188: 1–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Griffiths, J., D. S. Phillips, Steve Compton, C. Wright, and L. D. Incoll. 1998. Responses of slug
numbers and slug damage to crops in a silvoarable agroforestry landscape. Journal of
Applied Ecology 35: 252–60. [CrossRef]
Haggar, Jeremy, Diego Pons, Laura Saenz, and Margarita Vides. 2019. Contribution
of agroforestry systems to sustaining biodiversity in fragmented forest landscapes.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 283: e106567. [CrossRef]
Hoffman, Brian M., Dmitriy Lukoyanov, Zhi-Yong Yang, Dennis R. Dean, and Lance C. Seefeldt.
2014. Mechanism of nitrogen fixation by nitrogenase: The next stage. Chemical Reviews
114: 4041–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hugenschmidt, Johannes, and Sonja Kay. 2023. Unmasking adaption of tree root structure in
agroforestry systems in Switzerland using GPR. Geoderma Regional 34: e00659. [CrossRef]
Hussain, Zafar, Fahad Rasheed, Muhammad Ayyoub Tanvir, Zikria Zafar, Muhammad Rafay,
Muhammad Mohsin, Pertti Pulkkinen, and Charles Ruffner. 2020. Increased antioxidative
enzyme activity mediates the phytoaccumulation potential of Pb in four agroforestry tree
species: A case study under municipal and industrial wastewater irrigation. International
Journal of Phytoremediation 23: 704–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
131
Isaac, Marney E., Bonnie H. Erickson, S. James Quashie-Sam, and Vic R. Timmer. 2007. Transfer
of knowledge on agroforestry management practices: The structure of farmer advice
networks. Ecology and Society 12: 1–12. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/
26267879 (accessed on 20 July 2023). [CrossRef]
Jinger, Dinesh, Raj Kumar, Vijaysinha Kakade, Dhakshanamoorthy Dinesh, Gaurav Singh,
Vinod Chandra Pande, P. R. Bhatnagar, B. K. Rao, Anand Kumar Vishwakarma, Dinesh
Kumar, and et al. 2022. Agroforestry for controlling soil erosion and enhancing
system productivity in ravine lands of Western India under climate change scenario.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 194: 267. [CrossRef]
Jose, Shibu. 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits:
An overview. Agroforestry Systems 76: 1–10. [CrossRef]
Kareem, Idayah A., Michael F. Adekunle, Dorcas A. Adegbite, and Jubril Akanni Soaga. 2017.
Evaluation of selected agroforestry practices and farmers’ perception of climate change in
Ogun State, Nigeria. Forest Research Engineering: International Journal 1: 9–16. [CrossRef]
Kassie, Geremew Worku. 2018. Agroforestry and farm income diversification: Synergy or
trade-off? The case of Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research 6: 1–14. [CrossRef]
Kaul, Meenakshi, Frits Mohren, and Vinay K. Dadhwal. 2010. Carbon storage and sequestration
potential of selected tree species in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 15: 489–510. [CrossRef]
Kiyani, Pilote, Jewel Andoh, Yohan Lee, and Don Koo Lee. 2017. Benefits and challenges
of agroforestry adoption: A case of Musebeya sector, Nyamagabe District in southern
province of Rwanda. Forest Science and Technology 13: 174–80. [CrossRef]
Klein, Alexandra-Maria, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, and Teja Tscharntke. 2003. Pollination of
Coffea canephora in relation to local and regional agroforestry management. Journal of
Applied Ecology 40: 837–45. [CrossRef]
Kommey, Randy, and Madeleine Fombad. 2023. Strategies for knowledge sharing among rice
farmers: A Ghanaian perspective. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 21: 114–29.
[CrossRef]
Kuyah, Shem, Sileshi G. Weldesemayat, Eike Luedeling, Festus K. Akinnifesi, Cory W. Whitney,
Jules Bayala, Kuntashula Elias, Kangbeni Dimobe, and Paramu L. Mafongoya. 2020.
Potential of agroforestry to enhance livelihood security in Africa. In Agroforestry for
Degraded Landscapes. Edited by Jagdish Chander Dagar, Sharda Rani Gupta and Demel
Teketay. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 135–67. [CrossRef]
Lal, Rattan. 2016. Feeding 11 billion on 0.5 billion hectare of area under cereal crops. Food and
Energy Security 5: 239–51. [CrossRef]
132
Lawson, Gerry, William J. Bealey, Christian Dupraz, and Ute M. Skiba. 2020. Agroforestry and
opportunities for improved nitrogen management. In Just Enough Nitrogen: Perspectives
on How to Get There for Regions with Too Much and Too Little Nitrogen. Edited by Mark
A. Sutton, Kate E. Mason, Albert Bleeker, W. Kevin Hicks, Cargele Masso, Nandula
Raghuram, Stefan Reis and Mateete Bekunda. Springer: Cham, pp. 393–417. [CrossRef]
Lee-Mader, E., M. Vaughan, and J. Goldenetz-Dollar. 2020. Agroforestry and cover cropping
for pollinators. In Towards Sustainable Crop Pollination Services: Measures at Field, Farm and
Landscape Scales. Edited by Barbara Gemmill-Herren, N. Azzu, Abram J. Bicksler and A.
Guidotti. Rome: FAO, pp. 105–26.
Mahmud, Aliyu Ahmad, Abhishek Raj, and Manoj Kumar Jhariya. 2021. Agroforestry systems
in the tropics: A critical review. Agricultural and Biological Research 37: 83–87.
Mathijs, Erik, and Erwin Wauters. 2020. Making farming systems truly resilient. EuroChoices
19: 72–76. [CrossRef]
Mbow, Cheikh, Pete Smith, David Skole, Lalisa Duguma, and Mercedes Bustamante. 2014.
Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry
practices in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 8–14. [CrossRef]
Meuwissen, Miranda P. M., Peter H. Feindt, Alisa Spiegel, Catrien J. A. M. Termeer, Erik
Mathijs, Yann De Mey, Robert Finger, Alfons Balmann, Erwin Wauters, Julie Urquhart,
and et al. 2019. A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agricultural
Systems 176: e102656. [CrossRef]
Mohammadi, Khosro, Gholamreza Heidari, Shiva Khalesro, and Yousef Sohrabi. 2011. Soil
management, microorganisms and organic matter interactions: A review. African Journal
of Biotechnology 10: 19840–49. [CrossRef]
Montagnini, Florencia, and Ruth Metzel. 2017. The contribution of agroforestry to sustainable
development goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and
promote sustainable agriculture. In Integrating Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity
Conservation and Food Sovereignty—Advances in Agroforestry. Cham: Springer, vol. 12,
Muoni, Tarirai, Eric Koomson, Ingrid Öborn, Carsten Marohn, Christine A. Watson, Göran
Bergkvist, Andrew Barnes, Georg Cadisch, and Alan Duncan. 2020. Reducing soil erosion
in smallholder farming systems in east Africa through the introduction of different crop
types. Experimental Agriculture 56: 183–95. [CrossRef]
Musa, Fazilah, Nor Asyirah Lile, and Diana Demiyah Mohd Hamdan. 2019. Agroforestry
practices contribution towards socioeconomics: A case study of Tawau communities in
Malaysia. Agriculture and Forestry 65: 65–72. [CrossRef]
Nair, Pradeep Kumar Ramachandran, B. Mohan Kumar, and Vimala D. Nair. 2021.
An Introduction to Agroforestry. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef]
133
Nath, Arun Jyoti, Rakesh Kumar, N. Bijayalaxmi Devi, Pebam Rocky, Krishna Giri, Uttam
Kumar Sahoo, Raj Kumar Bajpai, Netrananda Sahu, and Rajiv Pandey. 2021. Agroforestry
land suitability analysis in the Eastern Indian Himalayan region. Environmental Challenges
4: 100199. [CrossRef]
Ndlovu, Nicholas P., and Lars Borrass. 2021. Promises and potentials do not grow trees and
crops: A review of institutional and policy research in agroforestry for the Southern
African region. Land Use Policy 103: 105298. [CrossRef]
Nerlich, K., Simone Graeff-Hönninger, and W. Claupein. 2013. Agroforestry in Europe:
A review of the disappearance of traditional systems and development of modern
agroforestry practices, with emphasis on experiences in Germany. Agroforestry Systems
87: 475–92. [CrossRef]
Ngarava, Saul, Leocadia Zhou, Thulani Ningi, and Martin Munashe Chari. 2022. Differentiated
Intra-Household Food Utilisation in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality, South Africa. World
Sustainability Series; Edited by Walter Leal Filho, Marina Kovaleva and Elena Popkova.
New York: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, pp. 87–106.
[CrossRef]
Nuwarapaksha, Tharindu D., Nuwandhya S. Dissanayaka, Shashi S. Udumann, and Anjana J.
Atapattu. 2023. Gliricidia as a beneficial crop in resource-limiting agroforestry systems
in Sri Lanka. Indian Journal of Agroforestry 25: 12–18.
Octavia, Dona, Sri Suharti, Murniati, I. Wayan Susi Dharmawan, Hunggul Yudono Setio
Hadi Nugroho, Bambang Supriyanto, Dede Rohadi, Gerson Ndawa Njurumana, Irma
Yeny, Aditya Hani, and et al. 2022. Mainstreaming smart agroforestry for social forestry
implementation to support sustainable development goals in Indonesia: A review.
Pavlidis, George, and Tsihrintzis Vassilios. 2017. Pollution control by agroforestry systems:
A short review. European Water 59: 297–301.
Pavlidis, George, Helen Karasali, and Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis. 2020. Pesticide and fertilizer
pollution reduction in two alley cropping agroforestry cultivating systems. Water, Air, &
Soil Pollution 231: 1–23. [CrossRef]
Platis, Dimitrios P., Christos D. Anagnostopoulos, Aggeliki D. Tsaboula, Georgios C. Menexes,
Kiriaki L. Kalburtji, and Andreas P. Mamolos. 2019. Energy analysis, and carbon and
water footprint for environmentally friendly farming practices in agroecosystems and
agroforestry. Sustainability 11: 1664. [CrossRef]
134
Rahman, Syed Ajijur, Yusuf B. Samsudin, Kishor Prasad Bhatta, Anisha Aryal, Durrah Hayati,
Muhardianto Cahya, Bambang Trihadmojo, Iqbal Husani, Sarah Andini, Sari Narulita,
and et al. 2023. The role of agroforestry systems for enhancing biodiversity and provision
of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes in Southeast Asia. In Agroforestry for
Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa. Edited by Jagdish Chander
Dagar, Sharda Rani Gupta and Gudeta Weldesemayat Sileshi. Singapore: Springer
Nature Singapore, pp. 303–19. [CrossRef]
Ramil Brick, Elisa S., John Holland, Dimitris E. Anagnostou, Keith Brown, and Marc P. Y.
Desmulliez. 2022. A review of agroforestry, precision agriculture, and precision livestock
farming—The case for a data-driven agroforestry strategy. Frontiers in Sensors 3: 998928.
[CrossRef]
Riyadh, Z. A., Md. Ashadur Rahman, Satya Ranjan Saha, and M. I. Hossain. 2018. Soil
properties under jackfruit based agroforestry systems in Madhupur tract of Narsingdi
district. Journal of the Sylhet Agricultural University 5: 173–79.
Rosenstock, Todd S., Ian K. Dawson, Ermias Aynekulu, Susan Chomba, Ann Degrande,
Kimberly Fornace, Ramni Jamnadass, Anthony Kimaro, Roeland Kindt, Christine
Lamanna, and et al. 2019. A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in Sub-Saharan
Africa. One Earth 1: 330–44. [CrossRef]
Sagastuy, Mauricio, and Torsten Krause. 2019. Agroforestry as a biodiversity conservation tool
in the Atlantic forest? Motivations and limitations for small-scale farmers to implement
agroforestry systems in north-eastern Brazil. Sustainability 11: 6932. [CrossRef]
Santoro, Antonio, Martina Venturi, Remo Bertani, and Mauro Agnoletti. 2020. A review of
the role of forests and agroforestry systems in the FAO Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage Systems (GIAHS) program. Forests 11: 860. [CrossRef]
Sarvade, Somanath, and Rahul Singh. 2014. Role of agroforestry in food security. Popular Kheti
2: 25–29.
Sarvade, Somanath, Rahul Singh, Heerendra Prasad, and Dasharath Prasad. 2014. Agroforestry
practices for improving soil nutrient status. Popular Kheti 2: 60–64.
Shah, Shipra. 2023. Policy interventions for scaling up agroforestry in Fiji. New Zealand
Economic Papers 57: 105–13. [CrossRef]
Sharma, Padma, Amarpreet Kaur, Daizy R. Batish, Shalinder Kaur, and Bhagirath S. Chauhan.
2022. Critical insights into the ecological and invasive attributes of Leucaena leucocephala,
a tropical agroforestry species. Frontiers in Agronomy 4: 890992. [CrossRef]
Sharma, Rajni, Sanjeev K. Chauhan, and Abhishek M. Tripathi. 2016. Carbon sequestration
potential in agroforestry system in India: An analysis for carbon project. Agroforestry
Systems 90: 631–44. [CrossRef]
Simelton, Elisabeth S., Delia C. Catacutan, Thu C. Dao, Bac V. Dam, and Thinh D. Le. 2017.
Factors constraining and enabling agroforestry adoption in Viet Nam: A multi-level
policy analysis. Agroforestry Systems 91: 51–67. [CrossRef]
135
Smith, Matthew M., Gary Bentrup, Todd Kellerman, Katherine MacFarland, Richard Straight,
and Lord Ameyaw. 2021. Windbreaks in the United States: A systematic review of
producer-reported benefits, challenges, management activities and drivers of adoption.
Agricultural Systems 187: 103032. [CrossRef]
Sollen-Norrlin, Maya, Bhim Bahadur Ghaley, and Naomi Laura Jane Rintoul. 2020.
Agroforestry benefits and challenges for adoption in Europe and beyond. Sustainability
12: 7001. [CrossRef]
Staton, Tom, Tom D. Breeze, Richard J. Walters, Jo Smith, and Robbie D. Girling. 2022.
Productivity, biodiversity trade-offs, and farm income in an agroforestry versus an arable
system. Ecological Economics 191: e107214. [CrossRef]
Suroso, Johan Iskandar, Susanti Withaningsih, Deden Nurjaman, and Budiawati S. Iskandar.
2023. Bird population and bird hunting in the rural ecosystem of Cijambu, Sumedang,
West Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 24: 4470–84. [CrossRef]
Suzaki, Takuya, Emiko Yoro, and Masayoshi Kawaguchi. 2015. Leguminous plants: Inventors
of root nodules to accommodate symbiotic Bacteria. International Review of Cell and
Molecular Biology 316: 111–58. [CrossRef]
Thomas, George V., Vishnu Potti Krishnakumar, R. Dhanapal, and D. V. Srinivasa Reddy. 2018.
Agro-management practices for sustainable coconut production. In The Coconut Palm
(Cocos nucifera L.)—Research and Development Perspectives. Edited by K. U. K. Nampoothiri,
Vishnu Potti Krishnakumar, P. K. Thampan and M. Achuthan Nair. Singapore: Springer,
Tsegaye, Nigus Tekleselassie. 2023. The Impact of agroforestry practice on forest conservation
and community livelihood improvement: A case of Buno Bedele zone of West Ethiopia’S
Chora district. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 17: 100229. [CrossRef]
Udawatta, Ranjith P., Lalith M. Rankoth, and Shibu Jose. 2019. Agroforestry and biodiversity.
Xue, Zhang. 2023. Review and prospect of the promotion of agroforestry system technology
in Southern collective forest areas. International Journal of Engineering and Management
Research 13: 17–22. [CrossRef]
136
Improving the Diversity of Native Edible
Plants and Traditional Food and Agriculture
Practices for Sustainable Food Security in
the Future
Permani C. Weerasekara and Angelika Ploeger
1. Introduction
By the year 2030, agriculture will have to provide the food and nutritional
requirements of some eight billion people (Godfray et al. 2010). These include
eradicating hunger, improving access to food, ending all forms of malnutrition,
promoting sustainable agriculture, and preserving food diversity (Godfray et al.
2010). Thus, food security or, even better, food sovereignty, is one of the challenges
in this world (Boyer 2010). Simultaneously, research and development are focused
on improving the productivity of a small number of existing crops that will improve
global food production instead of increasing the diversity of crops. The result is the
loss of agrobiodiversity (Shiferaw et al. 2011). This results in a loss of agricultural
biodiversity, which, in turn, results in a food industry that is more vulnerable to
abiotic and biotic stresses and at an increased risk of catastrophic losses (Shelef et al.
2017). Increasing global food production is needed to address these challenges, which
cannot be achieved by expanding industrial agriculture by converting land into an
environmentally degraded environment and biodiversity (Chappell and LaValle
2011). The use of wild plants and the development of new crops will, therefore, help
us diversify global food production and better adapt to the diversity and changing
living conditions of populations (Shelef et al. 2017).
Additionally, the manifestations of global, climate, environmental, behavioral,
and technological changes underscore the need to improve food production in ways
that minimize the negative impacts of sustainability on the ecosystems we believe
to be sustainable (Godfray and Garnett 2014). Indigenous ecological agriculture
can restore the health of land and people through five processes that activate and
connect all life. The five processes are the flow of energy absorbed by plants through
photosynthesis, the soil-mineral cycles that provide nutrients for life, the water cycles,
the biosphere, our ecological relationships that create animal communities, and the
relationships between people and land, including the genes (Massy 2020). As part
137
of these vital connections, we can also benefit from relearning how to use native
plants as sources of healthy food and other products, with a focus on environmental
issues. Shelef et al. (2017) argue that the use of indigenous plants in local food
production will help create more sustainable agriculture. Native food production
has recently received more attention, while the use of native plants in local food
production has received less attention. According to the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), more than 90% of the calories consumed by humans come from
just 30 plant species (Hammer et al. 2003). Humans only cultivate about 150 of
the world’s estimated 30,000 edible plant species, and only 30 plant species make
up most of our food (Shelef et al. 2017; Sethi and Plummer 2015). For some of
these species, genetic diversity decreases as the number of varieties sold decreases
(Shelef et al. 2017).
In any particular culture, no matter how popular they are, traditional foods have
long been consumed and are considered to be an expression of history and lifestyle
(De Soucey 2010). However, the intergenerational dissemination of knowledge about
indigenous and traditional foods is now limited due to changing lifestyles, there
being fewer knowledge holders, and there being fewer flora and fauna resources.
Therefore, new crops and weeds of an indigenous origin can diversify global food
production through commercial practices, as well as the use of traditional knowledge
and allow better local adaptation to human habitation in different environments.
Regarding this matter, this study focused on Sri Lanka. In this article, we
consider Sri Lankan edible plants, their values and advantages, and the barriers to
using local traditional food plants, knowledge, and their uses. Sri Lankan traditional
diets are richly diverse (Weerasekara et al. 2018) and offer various health and
nutritional benefits, including protection from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs)
and micro nutrition deficiencies. As well, Sri Lanka is an island rich in biodiversity
and has approximately identified 3368 plant species belonging to 1294 genera and 132
families (Rajapaksha 1998). About 800 plants are endemic to Sri Lanka (Rajapaksha
1998). Many of these plants have been used in the past to build a healthy rural
community under the precise guidance of local traditional healers, elders, and
indigenous communities. Local and traditional foods in Sri Lanka have a long
history, and unique traditions have existed for thousands of years (Perera 2008). The
traditional diet in Sri Lanka is closely linked to nutritional, health, and therapeutic
arguments regarding food ingredients and preparation methods (Weerasekara et al.
2018). These plant species have unique therapeutic and nutritional properties that
can solve acute local health problems (Weerasekara et al. 2020). This article examines
the local plants and traditional nutritional knowledge. This article helps to improve
138
the diversity of native edible plants and traditional food and agriculture practices for
sustainable food security in the future.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area

The study is part of a collaborative project investigating food system
commercialization and hidden hunger and malnutrition in Sri Lanka (Weerasekara
et al. 2018; Weerasekara et al. 2020). Based on the feasibility and previous research
experience carried out in Sri Lanka in 2016–2019, the agro-environmental zone for
rural areas was selected for this project. The district of Anuradhapura in the
north–central province of Sri Lanka was chosen as the study area. The people in
this area are mainly engaged in agriculture to earn their main source of income.
According to our recent study, the people in this area had rich dietary diversity in
the past (Weerasekara et al. 2018).
2.2. Study Sample

This research used the combined concept of ethnographic and sociological
study approaches. Information and data were collected through field interviews and
historical references. Oral histories are a collection of stories and the reminiscences
of a person or persons who have first-hand knowledge of any number of experiences
(Ritchie 2014; Thompson 2017). Therefore, the interviewers carried out discussions
with older people over the ages of 70–90 years (n = 50) who had experience with
traditional knowledge and with the subject experts (n = 10). The expert interviews
were different to each other in terms of the questions and subjects. The experts were
selected based on the nature of the research questions. Furthermore, there were
open interviews and questions with small-scale farming households (n = 20). These
were mainly incorporated to capture any historical production-related changes in the
traditional food system and dietary patterns in Sri Lanka. Food security Participants
were asked questions about their access to traditional foods. A multi-step coded
question asked participants about their perceptions of their current traditional food
consumption in comparison to 50 years ago.
2.3. Data Analysis

The interviews were conducted in Sinhala, and then translated into English.
The interview data were transferred to an Excel datasheet. MAXQDA 2018 was
used for coding the interviews. The interview data were also transferred to the
139
datasheet before conducting statistical analysis. The interview questions were slightly
altered based on research areas and position. However, it remained connected to the
research objectives. The Sri Lankan food consumption table was used to calculate
nutritional analysis.
3. Results
Historical references showed that, in ancient Sri Lanka, there were no farmers
as they are defined today because people never owned farms or farmed for money.
Agriculture was not a revenue-generating process, and at the same time, it was not
considered to be a business or an industry. Agriculture was essentially everybody’s
service, and it was the public’s responsibility to use and maintain the land for the
sake of the nation (Weerasekara et al. 2018). Therefore, Sri Lanka is an island with
high biodiversity, and access to food was not a problem. This is well documented in
the old chronicles by Robert Knox (1983) and Emerson Tennent (1860). Most of the
foods that the Sri Lankan elders enjoyed were not grown by them. They were found
everywhere, growing naturally (Knox 1983). This was confirmed by the elderly
people in this area.
Eighty-five species were identified, dominated by vegetables, fruits, legumes,
roots/tubers, herbs, wild mushrooms, spices, and cereals, in this study. The findings
show that Sri Lankan people had diverse crops in their home gardens. These findings
suggest that traditional food with high agrobiodiversity contributed more toward
food security among Sri Lankans in the selected sites. These findings suggest that
traditional food with high agrobiodiversity contributed more toward food security
among Sri Lankans in the selected sites. The finding of the study showed many
traditional Sri Lankans have always been concerned about the type of food that they
choose, including the quantity and quality of their food. Also, food security and food
availability in traditional Sri Lanka were higher. Food was consumed according to
the type of person (child, adult, elder), physiology (sick, pregnant, nursing), degree
of activity (less active, energetic), and the type of meal (breakfast, lunch, dinner).
Based on the data, the results can be subdivided into traditional food plants,
traditional food preparation methods, traditional food preservation, food security,
and traditional agricultural practices.
3.1. Traditional Native Food Plants

According to the results, traditional native food plants can be categorized as
green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruits, grains, Pulses, roots, and tubers. Traditional
food plants can be divided in two. One group represents the use of native plant
140
species, which often have not been studied or commercialized. Another one is the
commercial use of food plant species. These, not well-known plants have become an
essential part of Sri Lanka’s rural lifestyle and enhanced the country by providing
people’s daily therapeutic supplements for a healthy lifestyle at no extra cost.
3.1.1. Green Leafy Native Vegetables

Sri Lankan people utilized a large number of plant species to meet their food
needs. Green leafy vegetables of various native plants with good health properties
enrich their diet with fiber and micronutrients. The Sri Lankan diet consisted of
green leaves, which they used in many ways. In particular, green leaves were the
main source of vitamins and other therapeutic values. Green leafy vegetables can
be classified into: (1) Cultivated vegetable leaves (many cultivated plant leaves
are consumed) such as cassava leaves, pumpkin leaves, and beetroot leaves. (2)
Semi-wild vegetables that grew as wild shrubs. But now, they are protected when
they grow in home gardens. (3) Wild leafy vegetables that grew in forest areas.
Most of the green vegetables and leaves listed contain high amounts of minerals and
vitamins that play a significant role in boosting people’s immune systems. These
foods are still often available in forest areas or home gardens. Unfortunately, these
plants are often not consumed, studied, or commercialized. Nineteen green leafy
vegetable species were identified in this study (see Table 1). The historical references
and oral interviews showed that some of the traditional Sri Lankan green leafy foods
have many nutritional benefits.
Some of the leaves are less popular, but have a high nutrient value, and people
can use and cultivate them. These are the examples for that: Bata Krilla (Erythroxylum
moonii), Kara Kola (Canthium coromandelicum), Pothupala (Aniseia martinicensis),
Genda (Portulaca oleracea), Pitawakka (Phylanthus debilis), and Kalu habarala (Maba
buxifolia).
141
Table 1. Leafy green vegetables in the study area.
Food Name Pictures Food Used Nutritional Value/Health Value Current Situatio
This is an herb that grants longevity and
Food Name Pictures 1. Leafy
TableFood Used green vegetables
Nutritional
is used in in the Value/Health
traditional
study area.medicine Value to prevent Current Situatio
Food Name Pictures Food Used This
Nutritional an herb
manyis diseases. thatThis
Value/Health grants longevity
help control
willValue and Current Situatio
Food Name Pictures The Used
Foodwhole is Nutritional
used
memory
This is an Value/Health
in traditional
deficit
herb Value
that grantsmedicine Current
and longevity Situation
to prevent
self-heatingand
Pennywort many is an herb
This diseases. that grants
This will help control Often consumed
1. plant is problems. It also
is used in traditional medicine to preventincreases collagen
(Wal-Gotukola) longevity and is used in traditional commercializ
Theusedwhole memory production,
many
medicinediseases.
to prevent
deficit
whichmanyThis and
might self-heating
willbehelp
diseases. helpful
controlfor
Pennywort Often consumed
1. Theplant
whole is This will
problems.
wound
memory helpIt
healing. control
also
deficit memory
It containsincreases
and many collagen
vitamins
self-heating
(Wal-Gotukola)
Pennywort deficit and self-heating problems. Often consumed commercializ
Often consumed
1. Pennywort The
plantwhole
used is production,
problems. (B,
Itwhich
also K,might
calcium,be helpful
increases zinc,
collagenfor
1. and Itminerals
also increases collagen and and
(Wal-Gotukola)
(Wal-Gotukola) plant is used commercializ
used wound
magnesium).
production, healing.
production, which
which contains
Itmight be
might many vitamins
be commercialized
helpful for
and helpful for
minerals wound (B, healing.
K, It
calcium, zinc, and
Mukunuwenna
woundcontains healing.
many vitamins traditionally
Itiscontains
and used as
many vitamins
magnesium).
minerals
herbal
and (B,
minerals K, calcium,
medicine(B,to K, zinc,
treat and
calcium, ailments.
internalzinc, and
Mukunuwenna magnesium). is traditionally used as
Mukunuwenna is used for simple
magnesium).
Young Mukunuwenna is traditionally
Alternanthera sessilis herbal
stomach
Mukunuwenna medicine
disorders, to
is treat ailments.
internaldysentery,
traditionally used as
used as herbal medicine todiarrhea,
treat
142
2. shoots and Mukunuwenna is used for simple Rarely consum
(Weda mukunuwenna) internal
and
herbal ailments.
a plaster
as medicine Mukunuwenna
for diseased
to treat or wounded
internal ailments.
Alternanthera Young
leaves is used for simple stomach
Alternanthera sessilis Young shoots stomach
skin. disorders,
It contains high amount,
is diarrhea,
used fordysentery,
lipids,
simple
2. 2. sessilis (Weda shoots disorders,
and Mukunuwenna diarrhea, dysentery, and Rarely
ofconsumed Rarely consum
(Weda mukunuwenna) and leaves
Young and as a plaster for diseased or wounded
mukunuwenna)
Alternanthera sessilis amino
stomachas a plaster
acids, for diseased
disorders, vitamin or A, protein,
diarrhea, dysentery,and
2. leaves
shoots and skin. wounded skin. It contains high Rarely consum
(Weda mukunuwenna) calcium.
and It contains
plaster high
for diseasedamount, of lipids,
or wounded
amount,
as a of lipids, amino acids,
leaves amino
vitamin acids,
A, protein, vitamin
and calcium. A, protein, and
There are skin. It contains high amount, of lipids,
There
two are two
types of calcium.
amino acids, vitamin A, protein, and
types
There of aguna
are This Thisleaf
leaf isisusedused in traditional medicine
in traditional
Green milkweed aguna
leaves: kiri calcium.
medicine and prevents many Rarely Rarely consume
Green milkweed two types of and prevents many diseases. Theseconsumed;
leaves
3. 3. climber (Aguna aguna,
leaves: which
There are kiri is diseases. These leaves are can buy it at some buy it at som
climber (Aguna Kola)
Kola) bitter, and
notaguna This
are leaf
detoxifiers,
detoxifiers, used
isLacto in traditional
Lacto
purifiers, and purifiers, medicine
marketsand
two aguna,
types of consume
Rarely markets
Green milkweed thiththa aguna, and prevents
enhancers.
This leaf enhancers.
is used many indiseases.
traditional These leaves
medicine
3. leaves:
which
whichaguna kiri
isisbitter Rarely it at som
buyconsume
climber
Green(Aguna
milkweed Kola) not are detoxifiers, Lacto purifiers, and
and prevents many diseases. These leaves
3. aguna,
bitter,
leaves: and
kiri enhancers. buymarkets
it at som
climber (Aguna Kola) which is not are detoxifiers, Lacto purifiers, and
aguna, markets
6enhancers.
which
bitter,isand not
bitter, and 6
aguna,
aguna,
which
thiththa is
which is
bitter
aguna,
bitter
which is This leaf is used in traditional medicine
This leaf is used in traditional medicine
Table 1. Cont.and
bitter prevents many diseases. The leaf of
and prevents many diseases. The leaf of
Food Name Pictures Food Used the plant
Nutritional
This leaf is helps
Value/Health
usedin producing
Value
traditional insulin.
Current Situation
medicine It
the plant helps ininproducing insulin. It
controls
and leaf blood
Thispreventsis usedmany sugar
in levels. This
traditional
diseases. The plant
leaf is Rarely consume
of
Young controls
medicine blood
and prevents
sugarmany levels. This plant is Rarely consume
4. Canereed (Thebu Kola) Young full
the of antioxidants,
plant helps in producing
which is insulin.good for It buy it at som
4. Canereed (Thebu Kola) leaves diseases.
full of Theantioxidants, helps
leaf of the plantwhich is good for buy it at som
leaves fatty
controls livers
in producingbloodand kidneys.
insulin. It controls
sugar levels.
It is aThis source
richplant is Rarely markets
consume
Young fatty livers and kidneys. It is Rarely
a rich consumed;
source markets
Canereed Young of blood sugar levels.
nutrients, high This
in plant
dietary
is fiber, and rich
4. Canereed
4. (Thebu Kola) full antioxidants, can
is buy
goodit at some
for buy it at som
(Thebu Kola) leaves
leaves of ofofantioxidants,
fullnutrients, high which is which
in dietary
good fiber, and rich
in folate, ascorbic acid, Mg, and, markets
vitamins
for fatty
fatty livers
liversand and kidneys.
kidneys. isIt
a is a rich source markets
in folate, ascorbic acid,It Mg, and, vitamins
K. rich source of nutrients, high in
nutrients,
ofdietary
K. high in dietary fiber, and rich
fiber, and rich in folate,
This
ascorbic
in leaf
folate,acid, isMg,used
ascorbic in traditional
and, vitamins
acid, Mg,
K. and,medicine
vitamins
and prevents
This leaf is used many
in diseases.
traditional It is
Leaves and and K. prevents many diseases. It is mainly
medicine and prevents
mainly
Quail grass, Celosia
Quail grass, Leaves
Leavesand usedThis to treat
leaf is usedswollen
in manyeyes, high blood
traditional medicine
5. Celosia young diseases.
used is mainly
toIt treat used to treat
swollen blood Rarely consum
143
Celosia argentea
Quail5.grass, and young
eyes, Rarely
highconsumed
5. argentea (Kirihanda) young pressure,
swollen
and eyes, high
prevents nosebleeds,
blood pressure,
many diseases. andIt is other
mainly Rarely consum
(Kirihanda)
argentea (Kirihanda) steams
steams
Leaves and pressure, nosebleeds, and other
steams nosebleeds,
conditions and other conditions
associated fire
Quail grass, Celosia used
conditions to treat
associated withassociated
swollen eyes, with high liverblood
liver fire rising.with liver fire
5. young rising. Rarely consu
argentea (Kirihanda) pressure,
rising. nosebleeds, and other
steams
conditions
This Thisleaf
leaf isisused
used traditional
associated
as aas with liver
a traditional medicine fire
Littlebell This medicine
leaf isand prevents
used as amany
traditional medicine
6. Littlebell
6. (Thal Kola) Leaves
Leaves rising.
and prevents many diseases, consumed
Rarelysuch as Rarely consum
(Thal Kola) diseases, such as kidney diseases,
6. Littlebell (Thal Kola) Leaves and prevents many diseases, such as Rarely consum
kidney gastritis,
diseases, and asthma.
gastritis, and asthma.
This leaf is used as a
kidney diseases, gastritis, and asthma.traditional medicine
6. Littlebell (Thal Kola) Leaves This
and leaf prevents is used manyin traditional such as
diseases, medicine Rarely consu
Leaves and and kidney leaf
diseases,
Thispreventsis used inmanytraditional
gastritis, and asthma.
diseases such as
7. (Lolu
Snot berrySnot berryKola)
(Lolu Leaves
Leavesand and prevents
medicine many
and prevents many diseases such as Rarely consum
7. 7.
Snot berry (Lolu Kola) fruits urinary infections and Rarely consumed
bronchial Rarely consum
Kola) and fruits
fruits diseases
This
urinary such
leaf isas urinary
used
infections infections
in traditional
and medicine
bronchial
bronchial infections.
Leaves and infections.
and and
infections.prevents many diseases such as
7. Snot berry (Lolu Kola) Rarely consu
fruits urinary infections and bronchial
infections.
7
7
Table 1. Cont.
Food Name Pictures Food Used Nutritional Value/Health Value Current Situation
ThisThis leaf
leaf is high
is high in iron
in iron and and vitamins B
Leaves and leaf is
Thisvitamins B high
and C. in iron
Used for and vitamins
Rarely consumed; B Rarely consume
amaranth
SlenderSlender amaranth Leaves and
Leaves and This leaf is high
and C. Used for gastritis, in iron and
eatenvitamins
cold, and B Rarely consume
8. Slender
8. amaranth Leaves
young and gastritis, eaten cold, and good for
and C. Used for gastritis, eaten cold, and can buy it at some Rarely
buyconsume
it at som
8. (Kuura
Slender Thampala)
amaranth
(Kuura Thampala) young stems
young and
good C.
forUsed eye. gastritis,
Roots have beencold,
taken and
as buy it at som
the eye. Roots
thehave forbeen taken as eaten markets
8. (Kuura Thampala) young
stems good for
medicine
the
for
eye.
worm
Roots
diseases.
have been taken as it at som
buymarkets
(Kuura Thampala) stems good for the eye.
medicine for worm diseases. Roots have been taken as markets
stems medicine for worm diseases. markets
medicine for worm diseases.
It is used to treat warm diseases, asthma,
It is used to treat warm diseases, asthma,
ItItisis used
used toto
constipation, treat warm
treat diseases,
warm
hemorrhoids, diseases, asthma,
ringworms
Sickle Senna (Thora constipation,
asthma, constipation, hemorrhoids,
hemorrhoids, ringworms
9. Sickle Senna (Thora
Sickle Senna Leaves constipation,
dysentery,
ringworms dysentery,eyehemorrhoids,
diseases,
eye diseases,liver
ringworms
disorders, Rarely consum
9. Senna
Sickle9.leaves) (Thora Leaves
Leaves dysentery, eye diseases, liver disorders,
Rarely consumed Rarely consum
144
9. (Thora leaves)
leaves) Leaves and disorders,
dysentery,
liverskin and skin
eye
diseases. diseases.
diseases,
This willliver
helpdisorders,
to purify Rarely consu
leaves) and skin diseases. This
This will help to purify the blood will help to purify
and
the skin
blood diseases.
and
and is good is This
good will
for thehelp to
heart. purify
the blood andforisthegood
heart.for the heart.
the blood and is good for the heart.
Welpenela is used to treat dysentery,
Leaves and Welpenela is used to treat dysentery, Rarely consume
Cardiospermum Leaves and rheumatoid,
Welpenela is arthritis, used to back dysentery,
treat pain, and Rarely consume
10. Cardiospermum Leaves
young and Welpenela is used
rheumatoid, arthritis,
to treat back pain, and Rarely
buyconsume
it at som
Cardiospermum Rarely consumed;
10. Cardiospermum
halicacabum (Welpenela) Leaves
young and dysentery,
rheumatoid,
hernia rheumatoid,
conditions arthritis,
arthritis,
and is back pain, and
an Ayurvedic buy it at som
10. 10. halicacabum
halicacabum (Welpenela) young
stems hernia conditions buy it at some
and is ancanAyurvedic it at som
buymarkets
halicacabum (Welpenela) young stems back pain, and hernia conditions
hernia conditions and is an Ayurvedic
(Welpenela) stems medicine. markets markets
stems and is an Ayurvedic medicine.
medicine. markets
medicine.
This plant is used for mellitus, liver
This plant is used for mellitus, liver
disorders,
This plant isgonorrhea, used for mellitus, menorrhagia, liver Rarely consume
disorders, gonorrhea, menorrhagia, Rarely consume
11. Ivy Gourd (Kowakka) Leaves wounds,
disorders, leucorrhea, gonorrhea,swelling, menorrhagia,
cough, Rarely
buyconsume
it at som
11. Ivy Gourd (Kowakka) Leaves wounds, leucorrhea, swelling, cough, buy it at som
11. Ivy Gourd (Kowakka) Leaves wounds, leucorrhea,
polyurea, asthma, fevers, swelling, cough,
skin diseases, it at som
buymarkets
polyurea, asthma, fevers, skin diseases, markets
diabetes,
polyurea,jaundice, asthma, and fevers, skin diseases,
anemia. markets
diabetes, jaundice, and anemia.
diabetes,
This plant jaundice,
is a blood and anemia.
purifier; it treats
This plant is a blood purifier; it treats
This plant is
many diseases from skin a blood purifier; it treats
allergies to
many diseases from skin allergies to Rarely consume
Horse Purslane many diseases from skin
constipation. It is a good source of vitamin allergies to Rarely consume
12. Horse Purslane Leaves constipation. It is a good source of vitamin Rarely
buyconsume
it at som
12. Horse Purslane
(Sarana) Leaves constipation.
C, potassium,It is a good source
magnesium, andof vitamin
iron. It buy it at som
9. Leaves dysentery,
and eye diseases,
skin diseases. This will liver
helpdisorders,
to purify Rarely consu
leaves)
and skin diseases. This
the blood and is good for the heart. will help to purify
the blood and is good for the heart.
Welpenela is used to treat dysentery,
Leaves and Welpenela is used to treat dysentery, Rarely consume
Cardiospermum Leaves and rheumatoid, arthritis, back pain, and Rarely
10. Table
young 1. Cont. buyconsume
it at som
Cardiospermum
halicacabum (Welpenela) rheumatoid,
hernia conditions arthritis,
and is back pain, and
an Ayurvedic
10. young
stems it at som
buymarkets
halicacabum (Welpenela)
Food Name Pictures Food Used hernia
Nutritional
medicine. conditions
Value/Health and
Value Ayurvedic
is anCurrent Situation
stems markets
medicine.
This plant
This plant is usedisforusedmellitus,forliver mellitus, liver
This plant
disorders, gonorrhea,
disorders, is used for
menorrhagia, mellitus,
gonorrhea, menorrhagia, liver Rarely consume
Rarely consumed;
Ivy Gourd wounds, leucorrhea, swelling, menorrhagia, Rarely
11. 11.
Ivy Gourd (Kowakka) Leaves
Leaves wounds,
disorders, leucorrhea, gonorrhea,swelling, it at some
can buy cough, buyconsume
it at som
(Kowakka) cough, polyurea, asthma, fevers,
11. Ivy Gourd (Kowakka) Leaves wounds, leucorrhea, swelling, markets
cough, it at som
polyurea, diabetes, jaundice,
skin diseases,asthma, fevers, skin diseases, buymarkets
polyurea, and asthma,
anemia. fevers, skin diseases, markets
diabetes, jaundice, and anemia.
diabetes,
This plant jaundice, a bloodand anemia.
purifier; it treats
This plant is aisblood purifier; it
Thistreats many
plant diseases
is
many diseases from skin a from
blood skinpurifier; it treats
allergies to
manyallergies to constipation.
diseases from It is a
skin allergies to Rarely consume
Horse Purslane constipation.
good source It of is a good
vitamin C, source of vitamin Rarely
12. Horse Purslane Leaves constipation. It is a good sourceRarely consumed;
of vitamin buyconsume
it at som
Horse Purslane
(Sarana) C,potassium,
potassium, magnesium, and iron.
magnesium, and It
12. Leaves can buyiron.
it at some
145
12. (Sarana) Leaves It contains rich amounts of it at som
buymarkets
(Sarana) C, potassium,
contains magnesium,
rich amounts and iron.
markets It
nutrients, antioxidants, vitamins, of nutrients, markets
contains
minerals, fiber,rich
antioxidants, amounts
fatty
andvitamins, acids, and of nutrients,
minerals, fiber,
andis a rich source
fatty acids,
antioxidants, of omega-3
vitamins, fatty
and is aminerals,rich source of
fiber,
acids.
omega-3 fatty acids.
ThisThis
plant has antioxidant,
planthas antioxidant, anti-amylase,
lindleyana
AporosaAporosa lindleyana 8 anti-amylase, and lipid-lowering
13. 13. Leaves
Leaves and lipid-lowering properties. Rarely consumed
Used for Rarely consum
(Kebella)
(Kebella) 8 properties. Used for urine diseases
urine and eye diseases.
diseases and eye diseases.
Water spinach has a lot of nutrients to
offer. It can reduce blood pressure, give
immunity from cancer, improve vision,
boost immunity, and treat skin diseases. It
Water spinach
14. Leaves is a rich source of various vitamins, Commonly cons
(Kankun)
minerals, and antioxidants.
It contains abundant quantities of water,
omega-3
omega-3 fatty acids.
fatty acids.
This
This plant
plant has
has antioxidant, anti-amylase,
antioxidant, anti-amylase,
Aporosa lindleyana
Aporosa lindleyana
13.
13. Leaves
Leaves and
and lipid-lowering
lipid-lowering properties.
properties. Used for
Used for Rarely consu
Rarely consu
(Kebella)
(Kebella)
Table 1. Cont. urine
urine diseases
diseases and
and eye diseases.
eye diseases.
Food Name Pictures Food Used Water spinach

Nutritional Value/Health
Water spinach lot
has Value
has aa lot nutrients
ofCurrent
of to
Situation
nutrients to
offer.
Water
offer. spinach
It can
It can reduce
lot of nutrients
has areduce blood
blood pressure, give
pressure, give
to offer. It can reduce blood vision,
immunity
immunity from from cancer,
pressure, give immunity from
cancer, improve
improve vision,
boost
boost immunity,
improve vision,
cancer,immunity, and
and boost
treat
treat skin
skin diseases.
diseases. It It
Water spinach
Water spinach
14. Leaves immunity, richand treat
source skin diseases. con
14. Water spinach
(Kankun) Leaves is
is aa rich source of variousCommonly
of various vitamins,
vitamins, Commonly
Commonly con
14.
(Kankun) Leaves It is a rich source of various
(Kankun) minerals,
minerals, and antioxidants.
antioxidants. consumed
vitamins,and minerals, and
It contains
It contains antioxidants.
abundant
abundant quantitiesquantities of water,
of water,
It contains abundant quantities of
iron,
water,
iron,iron, vitamin
vitamin
vitamin C, C, potassium,
potassium, vitamin
C,potassium, vitamin A, A,
vitamin
and
and other
otherA, and other nutrients.
nutrients.
nutrients.
This
This plantplant is is used
used to to treat
treat eye diseases,
eye diseases,
flower This plant is used to treat eye
146
15. Climbing
Climbing day
day flower
Climbing day Leaves boils, burns, groin swellings, and consu
15. 15.
(Girapala) Leaves
Leaves boils, boils, burns,
diseases,burns, groin
groin Rarely consumed
swellings, and Rarely
Rarely consu
flower (Girapala)
(Girapala) swellings, and pruritus.
pruritus.
pruritus.
This
This plantplant is is used
used to to treat
treat lung diseases,
lung diseases,
This plant is used to treat lung
male
diseases, male
male infertility,
infertility, spleen
infertility, spleen
spleen disorders,
disorders,
disorders, impotence, diarrhea, and
impotence,
impotence, diarrhea, diarrhea, loss
loss of energy, and dysmenorrhea.
loss ofof energy,
energy, and
dysmenorrhea.
It is rich in antioxidants,
dysmenorrhea. It
It isis rich
rich in antioxidants,
in antioxidants,
Ceylon-spinach (Gas
Ceylon-spinach
Ceylon-spinach (Gas
16. 16. Leaves
Leaves particularly beta carotene and Rarely
andconsumed
lutein, consu
16. (Gas
Nivithi)Nivithi) Leaves particularly
particularly beta beta carotene
carotene and lutein, Rarely
Rarely consu
Nivithi) lutein, which are naturally
occurring
which chemicals
which are naturally
are naturally occurring
keep
that help occurring chemicals
chemicals
your
thatcellshelp fromkeep
aging.yourIt contains It
that help keep your cells
cells from
from aging.
aging. It
vitamin B9, iron, calcium, copper
contains
contains vitamin
and vitamin
magnesium. B9,
B9, iron,
iron, calcium, copper
calcium, copper
and magnesium.
and magnesium.
99
Table 1. Cont. This plant is used to treat liver disorders,
anasarca,
This plant isswollen treat
joints,liverascites,
disorders, the
Food Name
Clitoria ternatea Pictures Food Used Nutritional Value/Health
used toValue Current Situation
17. Leaves enlargement
anasarca, of abdominal viscera,
ascites, the Rarely consu
(Katarolu) This plant isswollen used to treat joints,liver disorders,
Clitoria ternatea This plant is used
dyspepsia, to treat
and liver irritation of the
17. Leaves enlargement
anasarca,
disorders, swollen
anasarca,
of the abdominal
joints, ascites,
swollen joints,
viscera,
the Rarely consu
(Katarolu)
Clitoria ternatea
Clitoria ternatea bladder.
17. 17. Leaves
Leaves ascites, the enlargement
dyspepsia,
enlargement andof the abdominal Rarely consumed
of irritation of the
viscera, Rarely consu
(Katarolu)
(Katarolu) abdominal
This plant
viscera,isdyspepsia,
used and
to treat diabetes
bladder.
dyspepsia,
the irritation ofand the irritation of the
the bladder.
mellitus,
This
bladder. liver
plant is used diseases,
to treatmenstrual,
diabetes
Sweet broom parasitic
This plant
mellitus, is infections,
used to
liver treat diabetesear
diseases, disease, eye
18. Leaves This plant
mellitus, liver
is used
diseases, menstrual,
to treatmenstrual,
diabetes Rarely consu
(Wal koththamalli)
broom
Sweet Sweet diseases,
parasitic venereal
infections, disease,
ear disease,stomach eye
broom parasitic
mellitus,infections, ear disease,
liver eye
diseases, menstrual,
18. 18. Leaves
Leaves ailments, vomiting, leprosy,Rarely consumed
and Noso Rarely consu
(Wal (Wal koththamalli)
koththamalli) diseases,
diseases, venereal disease, stomach
venereal disease, stomach
Sweet broom parasitic infections, ear disease, eye
18. Leaves ailments,
pharyngeal vomiting, leprosy, and Rarely consu
(Wal koththamalli) ailments,
diseases, vomiting,
Noso pharyngeal
infection. leprosy, and Noso
venereal
infection. disease, stomach
147
This
pharyngeal infection. diabetes
This plant is used
ailments, to treat diabetes
plantvomiting,
is used leprosy, to treatand Noso
mellitus,
mellitus,
This
pharyngeal swellings,
swellings, wounds,wounds,
is used to treat diabetes
plant infection. gonorrhea,
burning burning sensation,
gonorrhea,sensation, rectal prolapse, pains,
Cluster tree mellitus, swellings, wounds, gonorrhea,
19. Cluster
19. tree (Attikka) Leaves
Leaves rectal
Thisprolapse,
plant pains,
is oral diseases,
used Rarely
to treat consumed
diabetes Rarely consu
(Attikka) oral diseases, dysentery, skin diseases,
dysentery,
burning skin diseases,
sensation, rectal prolapse, pains,
mellitus, swellings, wounds, gonorrhea,
19. Cluster tree (Attikka) Leaves menorrhagia,
menorrhagia, thirst, and
excessiveexcessive thirst, and Rarely consu
oral
burning diseases,
sensation,
leucorrhoea. dysentery, skin
rectal prolapse, diseases,
pains,
19. Cluster tree (Attikka) Leaves leucorrhoea. Rarely consu
oral diseases,
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Rajapaksha (1998); Jayaweeramenorrhagia,
(1980); De Fonseka anddysentery,
Vinasithamby
excessive(1971); thirst,
skinBFNdiseases,
Projectand
Sri
Source: Authors’ compilation
Lanka (2009); Biodiversity
basedfor data
onFood from
and Rajapaksha
Nutrition (2018). (1998); Jayaweera (1980); De Fonseka and Vinasithamby (1971); BFN Project Sri Lanka (2
leucorrhoea.
menorrhagia, excessive thirst, and
Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition (2018).
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Rajapaksha (1998); Jayaweera (1980); De Fonseka and Vinasithamby (1971); BFN Project Sri Lanka (2
leucorrhoea.
Biodiversity for Food
Source: Authors’ and Nutrition
compilation (2018).
based on data from Rajapaksha (1998); Jayaweera (1980); De Fonseka and Vinasithamby (1971); BFN Project Sri Lanka (2
Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition (2018).
3.1.2. Vegetables and fruits
Ninteen species of native fruits and vegetables were identified in this study (see
Table 2). Traditional Sri Lankans believed that eating vegetables daily is important
for good health. Vegetables provide vitamins, minerals, and other essential nutrients,
such as antioxidants and fiber. Vegetables provide the nutrients necessary for the
well-being and maintenance of the human body. This reflects the growing need
to promote less-exploited crops, especially conventional crops, to meet the food
needs of Sri Lanka’s growing population. The villagers defined “naturally grown
vegetables” as edible plants grown without special care, without the use of pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers, and that are not grown using commercial seeds or for
commercial purposes (Perera 2008). The vegetables were picked daily around
the houses, preferably before cooking. They also mentioned that freshly picked
vegetables made their food tastier.
Table 2. Sri Lankan traditional vegetables and fruits.
Wild Fruit Local Vegetables

Thumba Karawila/Spine gourd
(Momordica dioica)
Mora (Dimocarpus longan)
This vegetable is native to natural forest
This fruit is a good source of B vitamins and
areas, especially in high altitudes. This
vitamin C. This fruit is used for insomnia,
vegetable is eaten locally as a vegetable that
cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes
has high nutritional and medicinal value.
mellitus. It contains fair amounts of
This vegetable cures stomach problems,
minerals like phosphorus and copper.
diarrhea and asthma, leprosy, bronchitis,
heart diseases, and urinary problems.
Weera (Draperies septaria)
Hal (Vateria copallifera)
The fruits that are slightly astringent in
This vegetable is endemic to Sri Lanka. The
taste are borne at the leaf axils and scattered
flour obtained from fruits is used in the
profusely on all branches. This fruit is freely
preparation of traditional food. This food
available in the forest. It is chemical-free
was used for diarrhea and diabetes.
and contains the nutritious value.
Nelum Ala/Lotus root
Madan (Syzygium cumini) (Nelumbo nucifera)
Barks and seeds are used to treat diabetes It is rich in nutrients and has a lot of
and the leaf juice is used for gingivitis beneficial effects. Health benefits of eating
conditions. The fruit contains iron and lotus root include reduction in cholesterol,
ascorbic acid. This fruit is used for heart improvement in digestion, lower blood
and liver problems. pressure, and also helps to boost the
immunity system.
148
Table 2. Cont.

Wal del (Artocarpus nobili)
Palu (Manikara hexandra)
This plant is endemic to Sri Lanka. Waldel
This fruit is used to relieve burning
seeds are good for asthma patients. Wal del
sensation and anorexia while the bark is
oil from seed was used in traditional
used for odontopathy.
medicine.
Eraminiya (Ziziphus napeca)
This fruit is used for fever, dysentery, and Kekatiya (Aponogeton crispus)
loss of appetite. People also use this fruit This plant is native to Sri Lanka. This plant
for constipation, diabetes, aging skin, high is a good source of nutrition. These flowers
cholesterol, insomnia, and many other are consumed as vegetables. This plant is a
conditions, but there is no good scientific good source for burning sensations in the
evidence to support these uses. This fruit is body, heart disease, and diabetes.
freely available in the forest and it contains Traditional men gave to pregnant women.
a high nutritional value.
Karamba (Carissa spp.)
It prevents excessive secretion of bile by the
Emberella (Spondias dulcis)
liver and is used for Ayurvedic medicine.
This fruit is used for high blood pressure
This fruit is also rich in vitamin C, vitamin
while leaves are used to cure mouth sores.
A, calcium, phosphorus, and iron.
Veralu/Ceylon olive
Ash Pumpkin/Puhul
(Elaeocarpus serratus)
(Benincasa hispida)
This fruit is rich in minerals, vitamins, fiber,
The fruit contains a fixed oil, starch, resin,
and valuable antioxidants. It possesses
proteins, vitamins B and C. It is used for
anti-inflammatory, antibiotic, antianxiety,
insanity, epilepsy and other nervous
analgesic, antidepressant, and
diseases. The cortical part of the fruit is
antihypertensive properties. It is used in
given to diabetics.
rheumatism and is an antidote for poison.
Drumstick/Murunga
(Moringa oleifera)
The fruits contain energy, iron, moisture,
Katuanoda (Annona muricata)
protein, fats, carbohydrates, calcium,
It has strong anti-cancer effects. Katuanoda
phosphorus, carotene, thiamine, riboflavin,
is high in carbohydrates, especially fructose
niacin, vitamins C and B. It was used for
and It has large amounts of vitamins C, B1,
insanity, epilepsy and other nervous
and B2. It has an antioxidant known to
diseases. The cortical parts of the fruit are
boost immune health.
given for diabetes. Leaves and antidote
bark of the tree are used in food
preparation.
149
Table 2. Cont.

Kohila (Lasia spinosa)
Kohila is used as a vegetable. There are
Damuna (Grewia tiliifolia)
several varieties of kohila such as kiri
This fruit is freely available in the forest. It
kohila, well kohila, guru kohila, kalu kohila
is chemical-free and contains the nutritious
and goda kohila. The tubers, roots and
value.
leaves are used as medicine. It contains lots
of fibre, calcium and vitamin C.
Beli (Aegle marmelos)
It is a rich source of a variety of nutrients
that are useful for human health since it
includes several vitamins and minerals. It
contains various nutrients like
beta-carotene, protein, riboflavin, vitamin
C, vitamin B1, and B2. It has anti-fungal,
anti-parasitic, and anti-viral properties that
help prevent bacterial or viral infections
and skin issues. It helps flush out all the
harmful toxins from the body, purify the
blood, and thus prevent kidney and liver
issues.
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from BFN Project Sri Lanka (2009); Biodiversity for Food
and Nutrition (2018).
The traditional diet consists of a large range of vegetables and fruit extracts
of different species prepared in different ways. Jackfruit and breadfruit, which are
found all over the island, provide many edible components. In Sri Lanka, jackfruit is
consumed as a vegetable as well as a fruit. Young jackfruit seeds are high in fiber
and have many health benefits, such as high levels of protein and vitamins (Swami
et al. 2012), and they boost people’s appetite when they are boiled, fried, or cooked.
Also, different types of bitter gourd (fence, snake, crested, bitter, and bottle), gourd
(gray gourd, Malay, button, Arjuna, Samson, Mimini, Ruhuna, and Janani), melon,
bean (long, French, winged, and wide), eggplant, luffa, gray bananas, tomatoes,
women’s fingers, beets, drumsticks, radishes, leeks, banana flowers, and cucumbers
are some of the most popular traditional vegetables. Sri Lankans also consume a
variety of young fruits, such as bananas, mangoes, pineapples, and papayas, as
vegetables. Additionally, different variations of ripe fruits, such as mango, pineapple
papaya, passion fruit, sugar apple, durian, rambutan, mangosteen, wood apple, bael
fruit, avocado, different kinds of banana (“kolikuttu”, “seeni kesel”, “ambul kesel”,”
150
suwadal”, “puuwalu”, “rathkehel”, “ambun”, etc.) and jackfruit, were common
desserts that accompanied main meals.
In addition, the villagers defined “naturally grown vegetables” as edible plants
grown without special care, without the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers,
and those that are not grown using commercial seeds or for commercial purposes
(Perera 2008). These vegetables were picked daily around houses, preferably before
cooking. They also mentioned that freshly picked vegetables made their food tastier.
Some local fruits, such as “beli”, “masan”, “mora”, “himbutu”, “nelli”, “katu anoda”,
“veralu”( ceylon olive and “lavulu”, are rapidly disappearing. More than 100 species
of wild fruits have been recorded in Sri Lanka. Many of the selected wild fruits and
vegetables are listed below (Table 2).
3.1.3. Grains and Cereal

Fourteen spices of traditional grains were found in this study (Table 3). Rice
has been a staple food and a major carbohydrate source in the Sri Lankan diet since
ancient times. Rice was consumed three times a day. Different varieties of rice
were served to different people, such as pregnant and lactating women, sick people,
monks, and children (Perera 2008; Weerasekara 2013). Pregnant mothers, for example,
were given “Ma Vee” varieties and other varieties were fed “Heenati” to infants and
adults who could not easily digest them. There are reports that there were more than
2442 different types of rice in ancient Sri Lanka (Perera 2008; Weerasekara et al. 2018).
These traditional varieties have good nutritional benefits. In addition to rice, there
were many types of grains in Sri Lanka.
3.1.4. Roots and Tubers

The study found five types of roots in this study area (see Table 4). Starchy
roots and tubers are plants that originate from diversified botanical sources that store
edible starch in underground stems, roots, corms, bulbs and tubers. After grains,
starchy root and potato crops are important as a global carbohydrate source. In
addition, various tubers and roots provided the carbohydrates in the Sri Lankan diet.
The edible Dioscorea and colocasia species were traditionally the most popular in Sri
Lanka. There are more than 93 varieties of roots and tubers crops in Sri Lanka, but
despite their abundance, their use has been declining in recent decades. Starchy root
and tuber crops are important components of the human diet. There are several roots
and tubers of different species that produce great biodiversity even within the same
geographical location. Starchy roots and tubers have been a part of dietary choices
since ancient times.
151
Table 3. Most common traditional grains in Sri Lanka.
Type of Grains
Nutritional Benefits
Original Name
Flavorful white rice with a milky taste. This rice
has more nutritional benefits than other rice
Suwadel varieties. This rice is fortified with vitamins,
(Oryza sativa) minerals, antioxidants and a very low glycemic
index (GI) compared to other varieties of white
rice.
This rice is rich in minerals, zinc and iron. This is
a nutritious meal for breastfeeding mothers. The
high fiber content of this rice controls bowel
Kalu Heenati movements and constipation. Porridge made
(Oryza sativa) from this rice variety is used as a medicine for
snake bites. It is highly recommended for patients
with high cholesterol, diabetes and diarrhea.
Improves sexual energy and physical strength.
Rice This rice is a highly nutritious old type of rice.

(Oryza sativa L.) This rice has a rich flavor rich in protein and fiber.
Kuruluthuda This variety is used to improve bladder function
(Oryza sativa) and is used in medicine and cosmetic treatments
to reduce diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
This is a high antioxidant.
This rice is high in protein, minerals and fats
compared to much other rice and is rich in iron,
zinc, potassium and antioxidants. Due to its many
Madathawalu
medicinal and nutritional properties, rice is
important in the treatment of diabetes and
oxidative stress.
It is rich in nutrients and protein and is considered
an excellent option for the daily diet. It would also
be part of a good diet for people with diabetes and
Pachchaperumal
cardiovascular disease. In traditional Sinhalese
culture, pachchaperumal has long been
considered divine rice.
152
Table 3. Cont.
Type of Grains
Nutritional Benefits
Original Name
Kurakkan is an amazing grain variety that has
Bala Kurakkan been grown in Sri Lanka for thousands of years. It
is high in calcium, iron, magnesium and fiber
Finger content. It has beneficial properties for the heart
Millet/Kurakkan and severity of asthma and reduces the frequency
(Eleusine of migraine attacks. It may help lower blood
coracana) Wadimal
pressure and reduce the risk of heart attack,
Kurakkan
especially in older people with atherosclerosis or
diabetic heart disease.
Foxtail millet It is highly nutritious benefits. It is used as a
Ran, Kaha and
/Thanahaal medicine for snake bites. This grain is used for
Kalu Thanahaal
(Setaria italica) cooling the body.
This grain has high vitamins and energy. It is used
Water Lily seeds as a medicine for blood pressure and heart attack,
Olu Haal
(Nymphaeaceae) fatty liver, urine problems, kidney diseases and
piles (hemorrhoids).
Whole grains are high in fiber and high in protein.
Regular consumption of this grain is beneficial for
Kodu Millet
postmenopausal women who suffer from
(Paspalum Amu
metabolic diseases such as cardiovascular disease,
scrobiculatum)
high blood pressure and high cholesterol and are
at increased risk of colon cancer.
Millet is rich in soluble and insoluble dietary fiber.
The insoluble fiber in millet is called "probiotic",
Proso Millet
which means it supports the good bacteria in your
(Panicum Meneri
digestive system. This type of fiber adds a large
miliaceum)
amount to the stool, maintaining it regularly and
also reducing the risk of colon cancer.
This is a nutritious grain. It is rich in vitamins and
Sorghum
Idal Iguru minerals. It is an excellent source of fiber,
(Sorghum bicolor)
antioxidants and proteins.
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Rajapaksha (1998); Jayaweera (1980); De Fonseka
and Vinasithamby (1971); BFN Project Sri Lanka (2009); Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition (2018).
153
Table 4. Type of commonly used roots and tubers in traditional Sri Lanka.
Type of Roots and Tubers Description

This is a rare food that grows spontaneously in the
forests and bushes of Sri Lanka. Traditional people
Katu Ala burned this food in the fire and ate them. These
(Dioscorea esculenta) yams were a staple of the traditional diet in those
days. The effort of digging is eaten by the villagers
themselves, and coming to market is rare.
Raja ala is known for its nutrient content, for
example, protein, minerals and vitamin C. It is
Elephant yam/Raja Ala perfect for strengthening the immune system and
(Amorphophallus campanulatus) is also known as an anti-inflammatory and serves
as an excellent antibody against stomach and
intestinal cramps.
It has high nutritional content and high antioxidant
capacity. This tuber was consumed in cases of
Udala
hemorrhoids, hormonal deficiency, hysteria,
(Dioscorea bulbifera)
sterility, nervous excitability, syphilis, cancer and
abdominal pain.
Angili Ala It has high micronutrients and minerals and high
(Dioscorea alata) antioxidant capacity.
Kukulala It has high nutritional content and high antioxidant
(Dioscorea esculenta) capacity.
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from Rajapaksha (1998); Jayaweera (1980); De Fonseka
and Vinasithamby (1971); BFN Project Sri Lanka (2009); Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition (2018).
3.1.5. Pulses and Legumes

Legumes play an important role as a source of protein in the Sri Lankan diet
(Sherasia et al. 2018; Ofuya and Akhidue 2005). The health and nutritional benefits of
pulses are remarkable. Therefore, they are considered to be a good source of nutrients
to combat malnutrition in developing countries such as Sri Lanka. There are many
species and varieties of legumes with different carbohydrates, proteins, minerals,
vitamins, fiber, and other bioactive compounds. Sri Lanka is a valuable repository
of agrobiodiversity and is rich in genetic diversity. The pulses grown in Sri Lanka
reflect this value, and there are almost 100 varieties in Sri Lanka (Helvetas Sri Lanka
2001). The most common examples are cowpeas, peas, horse gram, black gram,
lentils, common beans, and winged beans. The nutritional value, health benefits,
and therapeutic effects of these varieties vary from species to species. Furthermore,
genetically modified legume varieties are more tolerant of harsh environmental
154
conditions. Therefore, it is essential to identify cereals with a high nutritional value
and high level of tolerance to adverse environmental conditions, pests, and diseases.
3.1.6. Herbs and Spices

Sri Lanka was known as the “Pearl of the East” and the “Spice Island” in ancient
times. The Portuguese, the Dutch, and finally, the British were drawn to Sri Lanka
because of their passion for spices. Sri Lanka has a variety of plant-based spices
(flavors) that have incredible health benefits, most of which we can use. As for the
herbs used in everyday life, they can be used as medicines for many minor ailments.
For example, if someone has a stomachache, they can roast cumin and drink it like
coffee. In addition, goraka (Garcinia cambogia), consumed in moderation, can reduce
cholesterol levels. It prolongs the life of various herbs and spices and adds flavor. All
herbs and spices used in traditional Sri Lankan cuisine have antifungal, antimicrobial,
bactericidal, antifungal, and/or antifungal properties, and anti-inflammatory and
anti-diabetic properties have been reported (Weerakkody et al. 2010). Commonly
used spices are listed in the following table (see Table 5).
Table 5. Commonly used spices in Sri Lanka.
Food Name Used of Food and Benefits

It contains antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic,
Cinnamon/Kurudu antimicrobial, anticancer, hypolipidemic, cardiovascular,
(Cinnamomum verum) anti-inflammatory properties. Traditionally, people used
it to treat toothache and improve the food’s taste.
It is commonly used as a breath freshener. Cardamom
Cardemon/Enasal has been shown to have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory,
(Elettaria cardamomum) antihypertensive, cholesterol-lowering, and blood
sugar-lowering effects.
Cloves/Karabunati It is commonly used to treat stomach aches and
(Syzygium aromaticum) toothache and as a swelling worm treatment.
Coriander It is used to treat colds, fevers, urine infection, and pains.
It is used to counteract snake venom, and it treats
Curry leaf stomach aches, high blood pressure, and a loss of
appetite and controls cholesterol levels.
Gamboge/Goraka It is used to treat stomach ailments, foot worms, and
(Garcinia morella) fungal problems and swelling and weight loss.
Lemon Grass It is used to treat allergies; the stalk is worn as an earring.
155
Table 5. Cont.
Food Name Used of Food and Benefits

It is used to treat stomach aches and grips caused by
Fennel
water.
Cumin It is used to treat stomach aches and diarrhea.
Mustard It is used to treat swelling and for traditional rituals.
It is used to treat stomach aches and vomiting; it is
Nutmeg/Mace
included in wine and cakes; it is eaten with betel leaves.
It is used as a cosmetic, for the treatment of lizard bites,
Turmeric broken bones, pimples, sores, measles, chickenpox, and
broken bones, and tincture.
Pepper It is used to treat stomach aches and indigestion.
It is good for pregnant women. It is used to treat
Fenugreek stomach aches and rheumatic pains; it is applied as a
treatment for the hair.
It is used to treat rheumatic discomforts, stomach aches,
Garlic heart problems, and most other ailments for pregnant
mothers.
It is used to treat colds, fevers, stomach aches, swellings,
Ginger
coughs, and sore throats.
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from BFN Project Sri Lanka (2009); Rajapaksha (1998);
Jayaweera (1980).
3.1.7. Wild Mushrooms

Forests are the main source of food producer for people in surrounding villages.
The forests produce different types of mushrooms. There are about 2500 species of
mushrooms in Sri Lanka, of which only a little over 200 are known. Additionally,
limited research has been conducted on edible mushrooms. However, commercially
available mushrooms were first introduced to Sri Lanka in 1985, and later, the
consumption of wild mushrooms declined significantly (Karunarathna et al. 2017).
Therefore, traditional knowledge is important. There are traditional beliefs
about collecting and cooking different types of mushrooms because some mushrooms
are poisonous. ’Mushroom hunting’ became a common occurrence during this period
as there is a special season that can be attributed to the growth of a particular species
of fungi (Hewage 2015). Some wild mushrooms are very nutritious, tasty, and safe
to eat, while others pose a serious risk to human health and can even cause death
if ingested. Therefore, it is important to pick mushrooms only with someone who
156
has extensive experience in identifying edible and poisonous mushrooms. The study
found different kinds of wild mushrooms in this area. They are Urupaha, Leena
Hathu, Heenvali Hathu, Idalolu, Kukul Badawel, Wea Hathu, Kotan Hathu, Kos
Hathu, Uru Hathu, Piduru Hathu, Mahavali Hathu.
However, everyone must protect themselves from poisonous mushrooms. Sri
Lankan people were careful with dark-colored and bad-smelling mushrooms. They
avoided consuming that kind of mushroom. Also, if they found that birds and
animals avoid them, they avoided eating those mushrooms.
3.2. Traditional Stable Foods and Preparation Methods

The study found that types of traditional foods, preparations, and consumption
habits were more diverse than today. Sri Lankan cuisine is famous for its special
combinations of herbs, spices, fish, vegetables, rice and fruits. Many of these dishes
are based on rice, rice flour and coconut, and seafood plays a major role in Sri Lankan
cuisine. Many Sri Lankans prefer vegetable curries and rice. Rice and curries are the
staple food anywhere on the island. The curry has a huge flavor and color from the
list of hot spices from Sri Lanka. These spices not only adding great flavor to the dish
but also add Ayurvedic value to the dish. As Sri Lankan food culture is regionally
diverse, one can expect the same food in different styles and flavors (e.g., Rice and
curry Figure 1). The different dishes had unique and unique preparation systems.
(a) (b)
Figure1.1.Rice
Figure Riceand
andcurry
curry(a,b).
(a,b).Source:
Source:KavindaF
KavindaF (2021)
(2021) (left);
(left); field
field work (right).
Rice preparation is a beautiful remedy for various ailments. Milk rice (Kiri Bath)
is one Rice
of thepreparation
specialtiesisof
a beautiful remedy
Sri Lankan food for various
culture. Toailments.
prepare Milk riceused
it, they (Kiri raw
Bath)rice
is one of the specialties of Sri Lankan food culture. To prepare it, they
with coconut milk. Kiri bath plays a major role in various traditional festivals used raw riceand
with coconut
ceremonies. milk.bean
Mung Kiri (green
bath plays
gram)a major role in various
and turmeric powderstraditional
are alsofestivals
added toand make
ceremonies. Mung bean (green gram) and turmeric powders are also
a bowl of colorful milk rice. Yellow Rice (Kaha bath) is also one of the healthyadded to makerice
preparation methods in Sri Lanka. Rice, turmeric, coconut milk and some spices
mixed are tasty and healthy. Diya bath157 is also one of the healthy rice preparation
methods in Sri Lanka. They prepared the rest of the rice mixed with water the before
night. The next morning this rice mixed with coconut milk onions, salt, burned chili
pieces, lime, and curry leaves were prepared for breakfast. This is a very popular
a bowl of colorful milk rice. Yellow Rice (Kaha bath) is also one of the healthy rice
preparation methods in Sri Lanka. Rice, turmeric, coconut milk and some spices
mixed are tasty and healthy. Diya bath is also one of the healthy rice preparation
methods in Sri Lanka. They prepared the rest of the rice mixed with water the before
night. The next morning this rice mixed with coconut milk onions, salt, burned chili
pieces, lime, and curry leaves were prepared for breakfast. This is a very popular
food that delays hunger. Rice porridge is a traditional way of preparing healthy food.
Different porridge has different health benefits. Most of used coconut milk, green
leaves, garlic, and onions. “Kola Kanda” is a traditional herbal porridge made from
raw rice, coconut milk, and the fresh juice of medicinally valued leafy greens. It is
usually served at breakfast with a piece of jaggery (made from coconut honey or palm
honey). Badi haal keda (roasted rice porridge) is also a porridge dish with roasted
rice and salt. Roasted rice porridge is an energy-dense and easily digestible food
for people recovering from any ailment. Ripe coconut water extract or coconut milk
is rich in proteins and oils and is also an essential ingredient in Sri Lankan curries
and sauce. Lightly cooked (almost boiling) coconut milk with salt, turmeric, green
chilies, salt, curry leaves, and lime juice make “kiri hodi”. Traditionally they had
rice flour-based different types of preparation methods. Those are hoppers, string
hoppers,” pittu”, “roti” as well as “sweets kaum”, “asmi”, “aluwa”, “walithalapa”,
etc. Although some foods are only prepared for certain occasions or certain purposes,
all the ingredients are natural. Some dishes are specially prepared for particular
people. e.g., “Asmee”, “Konda kaum”.
This diet includes thin gravy “niyabalawa” mildly cooked salad “malluma”
dry roasted “kabale baduma” deep fry (baduma) fry (themparaduwa). Also mixed
with grated coconut or coconut oil or coconut milk and various herbs and spices
are essential ingredients. Some of these supplements are paired with staple foods.
For example, “lunumiris” with milk rice and coconut sambal or grated coconut with
boiled potatoes or jackfruit.
They always try to eat healthy. They detected compatible foods. Incompatible
foods have always been avoided. If the food had any harmful effects, it was always
omitted in an ordinary meal. For example, they did not drink milk, but rather,
they ate milk in its fermented form as curd. Today, scientific evidence has proven
curd contains many beneficial bacteria. Cultivated and wild vegetables, especially
wild green leaves and other wild plant food types were important ingredients for
sauces that accompanied carbohydrate staples. The seeds were naturally hybridized
and fertilized. The food was plentiful. The choice of food was dependent on the
need for it. For children to overcome the burden of intestinal worms, a ‘mellum’
158
prepared from ‘Eth thora’ (Cassia alata) or ‘Erabadu’ (Erythrina indica) was used;
for diabetic patients, a curry made of bitter gourd (Mormodia aurandica) was eaten.
Similarly, there were many other dietary recommendations that could be used for
therapeutic and treatment purposes. Some foods heat your body, but they use
different ingredients to control that. For example, breadfruit/del (Artocarpus altilis)
and fresh tuna are body-heating foods. To control this, eat this kind of food with
coconut. Similarly, some food sources are consumed depending on the health
properties of the ingredients. For example, mung beans and long beans are generally
not eaten for dinner or by someone with a cold or body pain.
Also, the food that was prepared and brought to the rice field to serve the
people was called “Ambula” consisting of local vegetables and rice. Another
special preparation was sour fish curry (Malu Ambul thiyal), a unique spicy fish
preparation with thick gamboge “Goraka” paste (Perera 2008). This shows, with
diverse foodstuffs, how varieties of delicious dishes were prepared (Perera 2008).
This was confirmed by Robert Knox in his book An Historical Relation of the Island
Ceylon in the East-Indies. Some foods are used during a special time. “Hath maluwa”
is also one of the special food recipes during the traditional new year festival. They
prepared seven different food plant items that were mixed with coconut milk.
Also, “Tambum Hodi“or “Miris Hodi” is a Sri Lankan soup traditionally
prepared using herbs and spices, such as black pepper, ginger, drumsticks, cinnamon,
curry leaves, garlic, coriander, cumin, and fennel. “Tambum Hodi” is a special
soup for various ailments including appetite and stomach ailments. It helps lower
blood cholesterol, obesity, certain cancers, the immune system, and inflammatory
diseases. It is also good for postpartum mothers. Therefore, the functional ingredients
in this soup play a key role in digestive functions and are used as a medicine to
prevent diseases.
3.3. Traditional Food Preservation

Traditionally, Sri Lankans have always kept surplus food for future use.
Traditional Sri Lankan people have always kept the surplus for future use. The
food preservation was due to two reasons. First, to ensure food security in the future
and then to use it in difficult times. Therefore, the need for a conservation diet was
satisfied during the off-season, and food waste also did not happen. Preservation
was carried out using simple, appropriate, inexpensive, and sustainable indigenous
technologies. The game meat is preserved in its fat, and the product is called
"Kurukkal". This can only be done with high-fat meat. Therefore, Kurukkal can
only be made from wild boar meat and mature venison. As well as Boiled jackfruit
159
bulbs are half boiled, dried and preserved as "Atu kos ata" and "Atu kos madulu",
respectively. During the harvest period, the seeds are collected and stored for later
use. For that, they used ’Atuwa’ and ’Bissa’. These play an important role in
preserving traditional seeds. Until now could not find better than this structure in
Sri Lanka. The study found that there were several ways to preserve it.
(1) Salting and drying: Salting and drying are combined and are popular
preservative methods. These involve the use of a saline solution called dry
salt or brine. When using dry salt to preserve fish, the fish is salted for two
to three days before drying it in the sun and removing the excess salt. The
salt concentration can be better controlled with salting. The clay pot, salt, and
fish or fruit are added back to a crockpot, and then covered and left to sit for
a few weeks. While absorbing the amount of water it contains, the seal adds
a lot of flavors to the salt and squash, ensuring that it is not spoiled by water
vapor and other contaminants in the surrounding air. Some vegetables can also
be preserved by drying the sun, e.g., Atu kos (dry jackfruit), Del (breadfruit),
mushroom and some vegetables.
(2) Smoking: This is probably not the easiest way to preserve meat/fish, but
smoking adds extra depth to the flavor profile. This is also something that
takes a long time. It takes a few more days to store and care for the food. On
the other hand, smoking causes skin irritation. The traditional method is to
place the meat/fish on a grill over a layer of charcoal. Usually, all traditional
home kitchens had a smoking area.
(3) Immersion in honey: Traditionally, people would dip meat and fruits in honey,
which was a popular way to preserve food. It acts as an antibacterial agent,
and the honey protects the meat (Game meat) or fruits from oxygen exposure.
In addition, it adds a complementary sweetness, enhancing its flavor.
(4) Buried under dry sand: Burying food under sand does not produce a tasty
result, but with its pH level, cold temperature, and lack of light and oxygen, it
creates an environment that can extend the life of some edible seeds like sand
jackfruit seed (Wali kos ata).
(5) Pickling: Pickling is a combination of two preservation methods, salting and
adding sugar, with a little vinegar and spices in the mix. Sri Lankans call foods
treated this way pickles. Vegetable or fruit pickles are an adjunct to traditional
foods. There are traditional pickles made from young papaya (Carica papaya),
jackfruit, mango, Ceylon olive (Elaeocarpus serratus), and bilin (bile pigments).
Traditional Sri Lankan vegetable pickles are made by mixing coconut vinegar
as an acidic substance with the sharp flavor emitted from wet mustard paste
and chopped drumstick bark.
160
3.4. Traditional Agricultural Practices
Food crops are traditional because they are accepted by rural communities as
appropriate due to their customs, habits, and traditions. They believe traditional
food crops have nutritional and therapeutic value. In addition, these plants are
cultivated in a particular ecosystem at a specific location or are harvested in the wild
or semi-wild state. Cultivation practices and methods have evolved to meet the
needs of the plants as knowledge of the environmental impact of different plants
cultivated by humans has improved. In ancient Sri Lanka, agriculture was indeed an
organic farming system closely linked to ecosystems (Bandara 2007).
As knowledge of the environmental responses of each crop plant has improved,
people have adapted cultural practices and cultivation methods to the needs of the
plants. In ancient Sri Lankan people have used three main agricultural methods
from the earliest times (Siriweera 1993). Namely, upland and low country paddy
cultivation, Chena cultivation (transfer cultivation), and mixed home gardening
methods (upcountry home gardening). They are closely associated with nature,
natural ecosystems, water management, and pest control systems. Paddy cultivation
is the most widely used agricultural method in Sri Lanka. This civilization has
been based on paddy cultivation since ancient times. Although, there are only
two main agricultural seasons in Sri Lanka called Yala and Maha seasons. The
ancient agriculture system was based on both irrigated and rainfed field crops. With
the construction of reservoirs and canals for irrigation more areas were cultivated.
Short- and long-duration paddy varieties have been selected for cultivation in Yala
and Maha seasons respectively. Paddy cultivation in the central hills is related
to terrace cultivation called “Helmalu”. The intensity and frequency of rainfall
increases in the central highlands. In traditional rice terrace cultivation, people used
to set up rice terraces using these upland slopes; so, the drainage channels for paddy
cultivation had to be well managed. Conventional paddy cultivation with low rainfall
in arid areas was mainly based on irrigation systems and developed from people’s
accumulated experience and knowledge of temperature, rainfall patterns, and soil
behavior. Irrigation reservoirs are important structures that demonstrate their ability
to adapt to their subsistence activities in the natural environment. These large
and small irrigation systems are the best examples to illustrate the environmental
protection given by sustainable agriculture. The traditional village function was
based on irrigation reservoirs or streams. Rice paddy fields were located below the
reservoir/canal. Due to this well-organized location, the paddy fields were gradually
supplied with water from reservoirs through canals.
161
The second agricultural system is called shifting cultivation or slash-and-burn
cultivation, which is more commonly known in Sri Lanka as “chena cultivation”.
Shifting cultivation is a traditional system of agriculture widely practiced in the dry
zone of Sri Lanka. It involves the clearing of forest land via slashing and burning and
the annual planting of crops for periods of about three years, after which the practice
is moved to another forest plot, leaving the previous plot fallow. With increasing
population growth and migration, the fallow period was drastically reduced until the
practice was no longer viable for sustainable agriculture. In the chenas, secondary
crops and vegetables were grown under rainy conditions. The secondary grains
include kurakkan (millet), which was considered as the second staple, meneri (millet),
thanahal (Foxtail millet), amu (Kodo millet), mustard, ginger, sesame, green gram,
and black gram. Also, vegetables such as luffa, cucumber, lady’s fingers (okra), snake
gourd, bitter gourd, ash gourd, yellow gourd, melon, and brinjal (eggplant) were
cultivated in mixed cultures in the Chenas.
The third agricultural system practiced by Sri Lankans since the earliest times is
the Kandyan Forest Garden. A variety of economically valuable tree species such
as spices, fruits, medicinal plants and woody species are grown. The systems are
generally practiced on small family farms and in a few districts (Kandy, Matale, and
Kurunegala) in the central region of Sri Lanka. Traditional root and tuber crops, yak,
coconut, areca nut, vine palm (kithul), banana, sugarcane, ginger and turmeric, citrus
species, and other important food and medicinal plants were commonly grown in
home gardens (Siriweera 1994). In addition, it is known that the forest plays an
important role in the food system of our people. It provided a wide range of food.
3.5. Food Security, Food Practice, and Diversity

When asked for their perceptions of their own consumption of traditional foods
over the past 50 years, they ate “game meat” (wild meat), such as porcupine, jungle
fowl, hare, wild boar, and so on. There was no shortage of any sources of “game
meat” in the past, and the slaughtering of wild animals for meat (game) was allowed
with restrictions. This community was consuming less of the traditional variety of
foods such as healthier wild plants. This study also showed that indigenous fruits
and vegetables were not so popular in this area, helping to understand the diversity
of food and food transition. When decreases in consumption of a group of traditional
foods were reported, the main reason given in each community was the decreased
availability or unavailability of that food.
This study indicates that people do not eat wild greens, bark, roots, and
mushrooms. The reasons given were not liking the foods, never having tried them,
162
and for mushrooms uncertainty about which types were safe. However, when and if
available, these conventional varieties can largely increase food security and nutrition
security in this society.
Ninety percent of the households reported that their traditional foods and
knowledge came from within their household or immediate family, while 10%
reported that others in the community were their main source of traditional foods.
Fifty percent of the households in this community reported obtaining all the
traditional foods that their households wanted.
Our recent research outcome indicated that their vulnerability to food and
nutrition insecurity (Weerasekara et al. 2020). In this study, we found that some
endemic vegetables and fruits may be helping to achieve food security. The
common vegetables and fruits in these areas have a variety of nutritional benefits,
which include leafy greens consumed as part of their regular diets and used in
various ways (Weerasekara et al. 2020). Since most of the households partake
in small-scale agriculture, they are provided with better food security. Some of
their food proportions, especially those of vegetable legumes, different kinds of
mushrooms, nuts, seeds, and leafy greens from the wild, are considerably higher
than in they are in urban areas. Wild foods can support households who experience
financial difficulties and are important contributors to food security. Unfortunately,
many did not report eating these types of wild foods. It has become customary to buy
food from markets, and many are unaware of the nutritional benefits of these foods.
Our recent research study shows that wild food, such as fruits, leafy vegetables,
mushrooms, tubers, and honey, increase the dietary diversity and micronutrient
consumption among rural Sri Lankan communities (Weerasekara et al. 2020).
Different food items are listed in the following table (Table 6). There was a
significant positive correlation between the food groups (p < 0.01). A total of 100% of
the participants reported eating starchy staple foods, but the variety of grains, tubers,
white roots, and plantation foods was wider in this area. Most of the foods that are
consumed by women include rice flour products (string hoppers, hoppers, pittu, and
noodles) and wheat flour products (bread, buns, koththu, and noodles). In this area,
people consumed starchy staple foods, and more than 90% consumed pulses, beans,
peas and lentils, nuts, and seeds. More than 50% of them consumed Vitamin A-rich
fruits and vegetables, as well as other vegetables. In this study, the sample results
revealed that most of the people consumed a low percentage of animal protein. There
are no data about the traditional varieties.
163
Table 6. Type of foods consumed in this area by people.
Food Groups Correlation p-Value Mean ± S.D. Food Items

Rice (Oryza sativa), Wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.), Jackfruit (Artocarpus
heterophyllus), Katu ala (Dioscorea
Starchy staple foods
pentaphylla), Breadfruit (Artocarpus),
(grains, white roots,
- - 1.00 ± 0.000 Cassava (Manihot esculentum), Sweet
and tubers
potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), Kiri ala
plantations)
(Xanthosoma sagittifolium), Lotus root
(Nelumbo nucifera), Bananas/unripe (Musa),
Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Mung bean (Vigna radiata), Cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata), Long bean (Vigna
Pluses, beans peas and subterranean), Bean (Vigna angularis),
−0.336 ** 0.000 1.08 ± 0.264
lentils Chickpea (Cicer arietinum), Winged bean
164
(Psophocarpus tetragonolobus), Daal, Soya
(textured soy protein/TSP)
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea), Cashew
Nuts and seeds −0.840 ** 0.000 1.08 ± 0.272 (Anacardium occidentale), Coconut palm
(Cocos nucifera)
Dairy product (e.g.,
milk, yoghurt, and 0.292 ** 0.000 1.77 ± 0.457 Milk powder
cheese
Meat (all meat fish,
Chicken, fresh or dried fish (seafood or
chicken and liver or 0.537 ** 0.000 1.69 ± 0.466
tank fish)
organ meat)
Eggs 0.130 ** 0.009 1.87 ± 0.337 Chicken eggs
Table 6. Cont.
Food Groups Correlation p-Value Mean ± S.D. Food Items

Kankung (Ipomoea aquatica), Gotukola
(Centella asiatica), Mukunuvanna
(Alternanthera sessilis), Manioc leaves
(Maniot esculenta), Kathurumurunnga
Dark green vegetables 0.492 ** 0.000 1.37 ± 0.487
(Sesbania grandiflora), Pumkin leaves
(Cucurbita maxima), Japan batu (Sauropus
androgynus), Thebu (Costus speciosus),
Passion fruit leaves (Passiflora edulis)
Carrot (Daucus carota), Pumpkin (Cucurbita
pepo), Papaya (Carica papaya), Mango
(Mangifera indica), Radish (Raphanus
sativus), Aubergine (Solanum melongena),
Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), Ridge
165
gourd (Luffa), Snake cucumber/kekiri
Fruits and vegetables 0.272 ** 0.000 1.65 ± 1.132
(Cucumis melo), Tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum), Banana/Plantain flower
(Musa acuminata Colla), Ambarella
(Spondias dulcis), Plate brush/Thibbatu
(Solanum torvum), Banana (Musa paradisiaca
L.), Apple (Malus pumila Mill.)
Source: Table by authors. ** Statistical significance p < 0.01 (two-tailed), S.D.: standard deviation.
4. Discussion
These results show that many wild native edible species contribute to food
security in Sri Lanka. In addition, many medicinal plants play an important role
in food diversity. The traditional population of Sri Lanka diversified their diet by
consuming wild, semi-cultivated, and cultivated local foods. The culture and food
practices that had a major impact on household food security were the desire to
control household income and to share food within the household.
Therefore, we understand the benefits of the practice of local food production
for sustainable food practices. Therefore, this study understands the benefits of
the practice of local food production for sustainable food practices. First of all, the
closer proximity of food production and consumption can help reduce waste and
energy inputs as well as recycling factories for transport, storage, and preservation
(Murphy et al. 2017). Local food supply can reduce food miles, which in turn reduces
carbon emissions (Cowell and Parkinson 2003; Coley 1988). Indigenous food cultures
provide fresh and healthy foods because they reduce the use of preservatives and
reduce their nutritional value. In short-chain production systems, fresh food is
less likely to be severely processed. People’s changing appetites and preference for
processed foods can adversely affect their health (Provenza et al. 2015). Thus, this
study shows the benefits of using native plants and developing new crops.
Obtaining new foods and local crops is one way to diversify their commercial
use. Adaptation of local communities to climate change is essential to reduce poverty
and food security (FAO 2016).
Native plants have adapted to their native environment. These plants require a
small amount of water, fertilizer, and pest and disease control to survive, and they
produce high yields (Provenza et al. 2015). Native plants can minimize soil erosion
and maintain plant–microorganism–soil interactions (Balestrini et al. 2015; Hawkes
et al. 2007). In addition, some research indicates that the role of below-ground
interactions of plants with other organisms has been underestimated in the past
(Shelef et al. 2013) and has the considerable potential to increase plant activity levels
and crop yields (Drinkwater and Snapp 2007). Incorporating native food crops as
temporal and spatial by-products in land management helps to maintain soil quality
and prevent soil degradation. Similarly, intercropping helps maintain the soil quality
and improves nitrogen uptake (Eaglesham et al. 1981), reduces the number of weeds
(Liebman and Dyck 1993), and provides farmers with a higher net income (Yildirim
and Guvenc 2005). The use of indigenous species can have a positive impact on
human health. With the introduction of specially processed foods, the so-called
Western diet has changed the main nutritional properties of human food. In addition,
166
the food industry has opted for fewer fruits and vegetables, preferring varieties that
are less rich in phytochemicals than their traditional counterparts are (Robinson
2013). The diversification and expansion of the use of local plants, coupled with the
cultural practices of preparing these foods, adds health-promoting plants to people’s
diet and eliminates the obvious economic costs of such practices (Provenza et al.
2015). According to our study, indigenous plants used by humans for centuries are
highly nutritious, tasty, and easily digested foods. Therefore, the use of native plants
as a supplement in food production has considerable advantages and, due to their
richness in plant substances, they improve both human health and food security
(Provenza et al. 2015). The selection of native plants not only increases food diversity
for humans, but also diversifies agricultural entrepreneurship and preserves genetic
diversity to improve the environmental conditions.
However, it is well known that both natural and human factors contribute to the
erosion of plant diversity. In the evolutionary process, plants die out or evolve into
new species, but the extinction rate due to human factors is much higher. Political,
economic, and social factors have a direct influence on genetic erosion, especially the
erosion of food crops.
Traditional Sri Lankan’s subsistence agriculture, farming methods, food system
and food culture were challenged during the British era of the 19th century. They
promoted the cultivation of tea, coffee, and rubber on plantations. Plantation
agriculture damaged traditional agriculture and plant diversity. For a long time,
the British did not promote traditional agriculture, hoping to break the backbone
of traditional agriculture. This had a profound impact on traditional food varieties
and farming practices. European food habits have also had a serious impact on
traditional Sri Lankan food and farming methods (Weerasekara et al. 2018). Although
the introduction of these plants can enrich the plant diversity of Sri Lanka the damage
to the diversity of traditional food crops is greater as various plants are grown on
a large scale to meet the high demand for exotic varieties. Some of the policies
and strategies of the governments that took power before and after independence
also led to the decline of traditional food crops. The motto of the green revolution
initiated in the 1960s was to increase productivity. The existing traditional varieties
were deemed to be unsuitable for the new conditions, and a few new varieties
were bred and cultivated. The monoculture is the accepted cultivation method in
modern agriculture.
Thousands of food crops grown in farmers’ fields are seriously threatened by the
cultivation of certain varieties of commercial or useful crops. Deforestation also has
167
profound effects on the genetic erosion of plants and the food security of the people
in this region. About 200,000 square kilometers of forests disappear every year.
The diversity of wild edible plant varieties and edible plants is seriously
threatened. For example, cereals such as millet, which were a major contributor
to carbohydrate intake at the start of this century, are hardly grown anymore. This
situation has been aggravated by commercial agriculture. The relative advantage of
commercial agriculture has led to the cultivation of a multitude of plants in farmers’
fields to meet food needs, displacing several commercially important plants. In
modern agriculture, much of the food is destroyed as "weeds". Consider the reasons
why a wide range of traditional food plants are important for human survival. In Sri
Lanka, the diversity of edible wild plants is seriously threatened. For example, millet
is hardly grown anywhere due to commercial crops.
Food security depends on the diversity of food crops. It is now widely
recognized that increasing the number of food plant varieties can bring benefits to
the community both in the short and long term; so, the search for new alternatives or
unconventional plant resources is desperately needed to diversify current agriculture.
In this context, underused traditional foods are of particular importance.
Despite the improvement of many public health indicators, malnutrition
remains a problem in Sri Lanka, particularly among women and children. Diseases
and a lack of high-quality food are two major causes of malnutrition. These
problems include poor infant growth, infants with a low birth weight (LBW), poor
maternal nutrition, and micronutrient deficiencies. The preparation and conservation
of local seasonal foods are important to improve the family’s nutritional status.
Also, traditional local plants can be effectively used as a low-cost food source for
low-income groups. In this context, traditional food crops are of great benefit as they
make an important contribution to meeting the nutritional needs of the general,
popular and even the rural poor. These food crops adapt well to unfavorable
environmental conditions, and some of them can even be grown in marginal soils
that are resistant to pests and diseases. Therefore, they require less attention and
fewer resources. They are nutritious and have the same value as socially accepted
foods and can serve as a staple or as a supplement. Since most of them are harvested
from the environment or use fewer agrochemicals than commercial crops do, they
can be considered as fresh and healthy foods. Consuming a variety of plant species
ensures that the human body is getting all the nutrients it needs.
They provide seasonal food and give additional income to the farmers. Many
plants are used as medicine, and firewood, and can be a useful household appliance.
Traditional indigenous knowledge for sustainable agriculture can be directly
168
promoted as an important crop such as traditional yam and green leaves in the
future incorporating traditional food plants into agriculture development programs.
This plant has beneficial properties in terms of nutrition and value, resistance to
adverse soil conditions, resistance to drought and resistance, and benefits to disease
so that it can be used as genetic material or future crop improvement programs. It
contains invaluable local knowledge on the cultivation, preparation, nutrition, and
storage of traditional food crops and can be incorporated into future agricultural
programs with or without modifications. Traditional farmers had extensive and
unique knowledge of plants and their agricultural practices.
The traditional Sri Lankan people knew about the ecosystem in which they
lived and applied methods to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources. They
not only used a wide range of plant species, but also developed a large number of
varieties adapted to different climatic conditions. They knew how to prepare tasty
and nutritious food and how to safely store leftovers for later consumption. Cookery
is one of the sixty-four noble arts of ancient Sri Lanka.
People ate different foods. Rice was the staple food and was prepared in many
ways. They knew that preparing certain foods could destroy their toxic components.
They also realized that certain foods are not allowed to be eaten together because
they can be harmful to humans. They tried to prepare good food for different ages
and conditions. This extensive knowledge of preparation and nutrition is especially
integrated with women. This knowledge was transmitted from mother to daughter
from generation to generation. Much of this knowledge is rapidly disappearing,
but knowledge of the traditional Ayurvedic system and nutrition is still present.
This knowledge has been transmitted orally and practically from one generation to
another. Unfortunately, this knowledge and the skills related to traditional agriculture
and food culture are rapidly disappearing. According to this sustainable agricultural
policy, attention should be paid to traditional food cultures and local knowledge.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to this research work.

Acknowledgments: This research was facilitated by the Department of Organic Food Quality
and Food Culture at the University of Kassel, Germany. The authors express their thanks to all
the interviewees in the field who dedicated their time and allowed the authors to participate
in their meetings. Without their unconditional support, it would have been impossible to
complete this field research study. Last, but not least, we would like to thank the anonymous
reviewers of the MDPI Books for their critical and constructive comments.
169
References
Balestrini, Raffaella, Erica Lumini, Roberto Borriello, and Valeria Bianciotto. 2015. Plant-soil
biota interactions. Soil Microbiology, Ecology and Biochemistry 2015: 311–38.
Bandara, Sarath. 2007. Nature Farming-Integration of Traditional Knowledge Systems with Modern
Farming in Rice. Leusden: ETC/Compas.
BFN Project Sri Lanka. 2009. The Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project. Peradeniya: National
Agriculture Information & Communication Centre—Department of Agriculture.
Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition. 2018. The Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project.
Available online: http://www.b4fn.org/resources/species-database/ (accessed on 2 July
2023).
Boyer, Jefferson. 2010. Food security, food sovereignty, and local challenges for transnational
agrarian movements: The Honduras case. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37: 319–51.
[CrossRef]
Chappell, Michael Jahi, and Liliana A. LaValle. 2011. Food security and biodiversity: Can we
have both? An agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 3–26. [CrossRef]
Coley, P.D. 1988. Effects of plant growth rate and leaf lifetime on the amount and type of
anti-herbivore defense. Oecologia 74: 531–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cowell, Sarah J., and Stuart Parkinson. 2003. Localisation of UK food production: An analysis
using land area and energy as indicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 94:
221–36.
De Fonseka, R.N., and S. Vinasithamby. 1971. A Provisional Index to the Local Names of the
Flowering Plants of Ceylon. Peradeniya: Department of Botany, University of Ceylon.
De Soucey, Michaela. 2010. Gastronationalism: Food traditions and authenticity politics in the
European Union. American Sociological Review 75: 432–55. [CrossRef]
Drinkwater, Laurie E., and Sieglinde S. Snapp. 2007. Understanding and managing the
rhizosphere in agroecosystems. In The Rhizosphere. Cambridge: Academic Press,
pp. 127–53.
Eaglesham, A.R.J., A. Ayanaba, V. Ranga Rao, and D.L. Eskew. 1981. Improving the nitrogen
nutrition of maize by intercropping with cowpea. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 13: 169–71.
[CrossRef]
FAO. 2016. The State of Food and Agriculture 2016 (SOFA): Climate Change, Agriculture
and Food Security. Available online: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/
18679629-67bd-4030-818c-35b206d03f34/ (accessed on 13 May 2020).
Godfray, H. Charles J., and Tara Garnett. 2014. Food security and sustainable intensification.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369: 20120273. [CrossRef]
Godfray, H. Charles J., John R. Beddington, Ian R. Crute, Lawrence Haddad, David Lawrence,
James F. Muir, Jules Pretty, Sherman Robinson, Sandy M. Thomas, and Camilla Toulmin.
2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812–18.
[CrossRef]
170
Hammer, Karl, Nancy Arrowsmith, and Thomas Gladis. 2003. Agrobiodiversity with emphasis
on plant genetic resources. Naturwissenschaften 90: 241–50. [CrossRef]
Hawkes, Christine V., Kristen M. DeAngelis, and Mary K. Firestone. 2007. Root interactions
with soil microbial communities and processes. In The Rhizosphere. Cambridge: Academic
Press, pp. 1–29.
Helvetas Sri Lanka. 2001. Sustainable Farming System. Sri Lanka: Helvetas Sri Lanka.
Hewage, Dammika. 2015. Traditional Knowledge of Edible Wild Mushrooms in a Village
Adjacent to the Sinharāja Forest. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka 2015: 77–95.
Jayaweera, DMA. 1980. Medicinal Plants (Indigenous and Exotic) Used in Ceylon. Colombo:
National Science Council of Sri Lanka, Part II.
Karunarathna, Samantha C., Peter E. Mortimer, Jianchu Xu, and Kevin D. Hyde. 2017.
Overview of research of mushrooms in Sri Lanka. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana 40: 399–403.
[CrossRef]
KavindaF. 2021. Rice, Food, Dish Image. Available online: https://pixabay.com/photos/rice-
food-dish-meal-curry-6324799/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
Knox, Robert. 1983. An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon in the East-Indies. Colombo: K.V.G.
de Silva and Sons (Co.) Ltd.
Liebman, Matt, and Elizabeth Dyck. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed
management. Ecological Applications 3: 92–122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Massy, Charles. 2020. Call of the Reed Warbler: A New Agriculture—A New Earth. Brisbane:
University of Queensland Press.
Murphy, Brian, Paul Crosson, Alan K. Kelly, and Robert Prendiville. 2017. An economic
and greenhouse gas emissions evaluation of pasture-based dairy calf-to-beef production
systems. Agricultural Systems 154: 124–32. [CrossRef]
Ofuya, ZM., and V Akhidue. 2005. The role of pulses in human nutrition: A review. Journal of
Applied Sciences and Environmental Management 9: 99–104. [CrossRef]
Perera, ANF. 2008. Sri Lankan Traditional Food Cultures, and Food Security. Economic Review
2008: 40–43.
Provenza, Frederick D., Michel Meuret, and Pablo Gregorini. 2015. Our landscapes, our
livestock, ourselves: Restoring broken linkages among plants, herbivores, and humans
with diets that nourish and satiate. Appetite 95: 500–19. [CrossRef]
Rajapaksha, Udaya. 1998. Traditional food plants in Sri Lanka. Colombo: Hector Kobbekaduwa
Agrarian Reserarch and Training Institute.
Ritchie, Donald A. 2014. Doing Oral History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, Jo. 2013. Breeding the nutrition out of our food. New York Times. May 25.
Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breeding-
the-nutrition-out-of-our-food.html (accessed on 7 March 2022).
Sethi, Simran, and Therese Plummer. 2015. Bread, Wine, Chocolate. New York: Harpercollins
Publishers Incorporated.
171
Shelef, Oren, Peter J. Weisberg, and Frederick D. Provenza. 2017. The value of native plants
and local production in an era of global agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 2069.
[CrossRef]
Shelef, Oren, Yael Helman, Ariel-Leib-Leonid Friedman, Adi Behar, and Shimon Rachmilevitch.
2013. Tri-party underground symbiosis between a weevil, bacteria and a desert plant.
PLoS ONE 8: e76588. [CrossRef]
Sherasia, P. L., Manget Ram Garg, and B. M. Bhanderi. 2018. Pulses and Their By-Products as
Animal Feed. New York: United Nations.
Shiferaw, Bekele, Boddupalli M. Prasanna, Jonathan Hellin, and Marianne Bänziger. 2011.
Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by
maize in global food security. Food Security 3: 307–27. [CrossRef]
Siriweera, Indrakerthi. 1993. Sri Lankawe Krushi Ithihasaya (till 1500 AD). Colombo: S. Godage
and Brothers, pp. 9–29.
Siriweera, W. I. 1994. A Study of the Economic History of pre-Modern Sri Lanka. Uttar Pradesh:
Vikas Publishing House Private.
Swami, Shrikant Baslingappa, N. J. Thakor, P. M. Haldankar, and S. B. Kalse. 2012. Jackfruit
and its many functional components as related to human health: A review. Comprehensive
Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 11: 565–76. [CrossRef]
Tennent, James Emerson. 1860. Ceylon: An Account of the Island, Physical, Historical, and
Topographical with Notices of Its Natural History. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and
Roberts, vol. 2.
Thompson, Paul. 2017. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weerakkody, Nimsha S., Nola Caffin, Mark S. Turner, and Gary A. Dykes. 2010. In vitro
antimicrobial activity of less-utilized spice and herb extracts against selected food-borne
bacteria. Food Control 21: 1408–14. [CrossRef]
Weerasekara, Permani C., Chandana R. Withanachchi, G. A. S. Ginigaddara, and
Angelika Ploeger. 2018. Nutrition transition and traditional food cultural changes
in Sri Lanka during colonization and post-colonization. Foods 7: 111. [CrossRef]
Weerasekara, Permani Chandika. 2013. The Impact of Policy Responses to the Food Price
Crisis and Rural Food Security in Sri Lanka. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture
and Society 1: 61–70.
Weerasekara, Permani C., Chandana R. Withanachchi, G.A.S. Ginigaddara, and
Angelika Ploeger. 2020. Understanding Dietary Diversity, Dietary Practices and Changes
in Food Patterns in Marginalised Societies in Sri Lanka. Foods 9: 1659. [CrossRef]
Yildirim, Ertan, and Ismail Guvenc. 2005. Intercropping based on cauliflower: More
productive, profitable and highly sustainable. European Journal of Agronomy 22: 11–18.
[CrossRef]
172
173
Eliminating Hunger: Yam for Improved
Income and Food Security in West Africa
Beatrice Aighewi, Norbert Maroya, Robert Asiedu, Djana Mignouna,
Morufat Balogun and P. Lava Kumar
1. Introduction
Yam is a monocotyledonous tuber crop in the family Dioscoreaceae. The genus
includes more than 600 species worldwide (Mondo et al. 2020), but only a few are
cultivated. Dioscorea rotundata is the most valuable and widely cultivated species in
West Africa, followed by D. alata. D. cayenensis, D. dumetorum, and D. esculenta,
which are also cultivated in limited quantities in the region. Yam is a crop of
great value in many communities in West Africa, and it is mainly cultivated for its
underground tubers, although some species also produce aerial tubers. The crop has
the highest value of the aggregate production compared to other crops in West Africa
(Elbehri 2013; Hollinger and Staatz 2015), with an apparent per capita consumption
that increased fastest in major producing countries of Ghana and Nigeria over the
period 1980–82 to 2007–09 (Hollinger and Staatz 2015). While some yam species
are important as food, others provide useful pharmaceutical products (Price et al.
2016; Tohda et al. 2017). Diosgenin and dioscorin are compounds isolated from yam
and used in the pharmaceutical industry (Obidiegwu et al. 2020). However, some
yam species are not edible due to poisonous substances (Dave et al. 2020; Joob and
Wiwanitkit 2014; Kyung-Sik and Taek Heo 2015; Yoon et al. 2019).
Yam is grown as an annual with a duration from planting to harvest ranging
from 8 to 12 months, depending on the agroecological conditions. Varieties in the
forest region typically have a longer crop duration due to the longer rainy season
than crops in the savanna. About 74.9 million tons of yam tubers are produced
annually in the world on about 8.9 million hectares of land with an average yield of
8.5 t/ha (FAOSTAT 2021). Africa contributes 97.8% to world production, and Benin,
Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, and Togo account for 93.9% of world production
(FAOSTAT 2021). Nigeria alone produces 66.9% of global production. Yam is the
fourth most utilized root and tuber crop globally after potato (Solanum spp.), cassava
(Manihot esculenta), and sweetpotato (Ipomoea spp.), and it is the second in West Africa
after cassava (Lev and Shriver 1998).
175
Where yam is produced, it is a significant food source and cash crop, thus
combating malnutrition, food insecurity, and poverty (Obidiegwu et al. 2020). In
Nigeria and Ghana, 31.8% and 26.2% of the population depend on yam for food and
income security. Yam tubers have better nutritional attributes than other root crops
(Shajeela et al. 2011). The tubers are a good source of essential dietary supplements
such as protein and well balanced essential amino acids (Baah et al. 2009). Even
where yam is not a significant crop in some parts of Africa, it is considered a famine
food for small and marginal rural families and forest-dwelling communities during
periods of food scarcity (Ngo et al. 2015). In West Africa, yam is most preferred when
processed fresh. It is mainly consumed boiled in sauce or soup (using pieces directly
from the tuber or frozen chips from a supermarket), made into a dough by pounding
boiled tuber pieces or reconstituting from flour (as instant pounded yam or amala),
roasted, or fried.
Yam is often referred to as the “king of crops” in West Africa, and it is essential
in the socio-cultural life of the population. It is used in ceremonies related to fertility
and marriages, cultural rites of passage, thanksgiving, petitions, and annual festivals
held to celebrate its harvest (Obidiegwu and Akpabio 2017; Nweke 2016). Poor seed
and ware yam storage systems cause seasonality in the price and quality of available
yams. Surplus during peak production season leads to price ‘crashes’, affecting
farmers, while scarcity at other times causes a lack of affordability by consumers
and undernutrition. Cropping of yam, especially seed, throughout the year therefore
contributes immensely to the regional requirement for food and income.
2. Trends and Systems of Yam Production

A 70 percent increase in global food production is required to feed an additional
2.3 billion people by 2050 (FAOSTAT 2021), while food production from developing
countries should almost double. Yam production in West Africa increased from
8.3 million tonnes in 1961 to 74.2 million tonnes in 2019. Figure 1 shows a decline
in the average world yield to a present average of 8.5 t/ha, although yam has a
potential of 40 to 50 t/ha (Adewumi et al. 2022; FAOSTAT 2021). The increase
in production is due to an expansion of the area cultivated (Frossard et al. 2017).
However, low productivity in most production systems results from poor quality
of soils and inputs, accompanied by little or no application of improved agronomic
practices (limited weeding, low planting density, persistent virus infections, no pest
and disease management). Although there are improved and released varieties in
major producing countries such as Nigeria and Ghana, local landraces still dominate
farmers’ varieties mainly due to challenges associated with large-scale multiplication
176
of seed to meet demand. Smallholder farmers who constitute the most producers
mainly cultivate yam in the richest soils available to them. As fertility reduces, they
use the land for other crops while yam cultivation is moved to more fertile soils.
However, with an increase in population and pressure on agricultural land, the
availability of fertile land is reducing. Therefore, marginal soils and non-traditional
yam lands are put under cultivation to obtain the same yields or less.
Figure 1. Trends
Figure 1. Trends in
in yam
yamproduction
production and
and yields
yields in
in West
WestAfrica,
Africa, 1961–2019.
1961–2019. Source:
Source:
(FAOSTAT 2021).
(FAOSTAT 2021).
Traditionally, farmers
Traditionally, farmers use whole tuberstubers oror large
largesetts
setts(sliced
(slicedportions
portionsofoftubers)
tubers)
ofof200
200toto500500ggor ormore
moreas asplanting
planting materials
materials (seeds)
(seeds) and
and plant
plantininmounds
moundsprepared
prepared
usingtopsoil.
using topsoil.Most Mostyam
yam farmers
farmers grow the crop crop without
withoutinputs
inputssuch
suchasasfertilizer
fertilizeroror
undertake crop management practices control pests and diseases (Mignounaetetal.al.
undertake crop management practices to control pests and diseases (Mignouna
2015).ItItisisfrequently
2015). frequently intercropped,
intercropped, butbut sole
sole crops
cropsarearealso
alsocommon
commonininWest WestAfrica.
Africa.
At harvest, farmers sort small- to medium-sized tubers (200 g to 1 kg) for reuseasas
At harvest, farmers sort small- to medium-sized tubers (200 g to 1 kg) for reuse
seeds,while
seeds, whilelarge-sized
large-sized tubers
tubers (>1
(>1 kg)
kg) are
are used
used asas food.
food. They
Theyarearestored
storedand
andeaten
eaten
piecemeal or sold in markets when cash is needed. The seed-sized tubers arestored
piecemeal or sold in markets when cash is needed. The seed-sized tubers are stored
totobreak
breakdormancy
dormancybeforebeforeplanting
plantingininthe
thenext
nextcropping
croppingseason,
season,ororthey
theyare
areplanted
plantedin
in newly prepared fields where they will be dormant until the start of the rainy
newly prepared fields where they will be dormant until the start of the rainy season
season three to four months later.
three to four months later.
177
3. Opportunities for Increased Income, Employment, and Food Supply in Seed
Yam Production
Seed tubers are expensive, sometimes accounting for 63% of total variable
3. Opportunities for Increased Income, Employment, and Food Supply in Seed
production costs, and are bulky and expensive to transport (Manyong 2000; Agbaje
Yam Production
et al. 2005). Seed
As planting
tubers arematerial,
expensive, the yam tuber
sometimes has a meager
accounting for 63%multiplication
of total variableratio of
1:3 to 1:5 compared
production toand
costs, some cereals
are bulky and(1:300).
expensiveThe low multiplication
to transport (Manyong 2000; rate is a critical
Agbaje
constraint
et al.to2005).
increasing
As plantingyam production
material, the yamand
tuberproductivity, resulting inratio
has a meager multiplication theofscarcity
1:3 to 1:5 compared to some cereals (1:300). The low multiplication
and high cost of quality seed yam (Aighewi et al. 2017). The consequence is that rate is a critical
constraint to increasing yam production and productivity, resulting in the scarcity
improved, released yam varieties are rarely found with farmers, and the use of
and high cost of quality seed yam (Aighewi et al. 2017). The consequence is that
farmer-saved
improved, seed is the yam
released norm. About
varieties area rarely
third found
of harvested yam and
with farmers, tubers
the are reserved
use of
for seedfarmer-saved
for the next seedcrop.
is the Thus,
norm. About from aathird
West African yam
of harvested production
tubers areof 70.8 million
reserved
tonnes, for
it isseed
estimated thatcrop.
for the next overThus,23.6 million
from a Westtonnes, some
African of which
production would
of 70.8 have been
million
tonnes, it is estimated that over 23.6 million tonnes, some of
used as food, is reserved for planting the next crop (Figure 2). Continuous recycling which would have been
used as food, is reserved for planting the next crop (Figure 2). Continuous recycling
of planting material often reduces quality by accumulating pests and diseases. After
of planting material often reduces quality by accumulating pests and diseases. After
planting, some some
planting, farmers cancan
farmers stillstill
reserve
reserveup toaathird
up to thirdof of
thethe quantity
quantity of seedofplanted
seed planted
to replace thosethose
to replace thatthat
would
would eventually
eventually notnot sprout
sprout due todue
poor to poor
quality quality
(Aighewi (Aighewi
1998),
1998), further depleting a potential food and income source.
further depleting a potential food and income source.
Figure 2.Figure
Yam tubers
2. Yam of up to
tubers 1 kg,
of up to 1which are good
kg, which forfor
are good local food
local foodand
andexport,
export, are
are used as
seed andused as seed
cut into and cut of
minisetts into
30minisetts of 30multiplication.
to 50 g for to 50 g for multiplication. Source: Pictures
Source: Pictures by authors.
by authors.
The traditional methods to produce seed yam include cutting ware-sized tubers
The traditional methods to produce seed yam include cutting ware-sized tubers
into seed
into seedharvesting
size, the same
size, harvesting the samecrop twice
crop twice(the
(thefirst
first harvest
harvest isisused
usedforfor food and
food
the second forsecond
and the seed),forsorting seed size
seed), sorting tubers,
seed size and
tubers, andusing onlythe
using only thehead
head portions of
portions
tubers (Aighewi et al. 2015). These options multiply yam very slowly no
of tubers (Aighewi et al. 2015). These options multiply yam very slowly with with no
guarantee of seed quality. This situation formed the basis for the Yam
guarantee of seed quality. This situation formed the basis for the Yam Improvement Improvement
for Income and Food Security in West Africa (YIIFSWA) initiative of the International
for Income and Food Security in West Africa (YIIFSWA) initiative of the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). The focus was on developing
178
methods to improve the quality of seed yam and rapidly multiply the seed to meet
the needs of farmers for increased productivity. Any technology to rapidly multiply
the crop is an opportunity to develop seed yam production-related businesses as a
source of income, especially for youths and women. The development of hitherto
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). The focus was on developing methods to
improve the quality of seed yam and rapidly multiply the seed to meet the needs of
farmers for increased productivity. Any technology to rapidly multiply the crop is
an opportunity to develop seed yam production-related businesses as a source of
income, especially for youths and women. The development of hitherto non-existent
seed yam enterprises will fill the gap in the supply of quality seed yam and create
job opportunities.
4. The Key Elements of the YIIFSWA Project

YIIFSWA is a ten-year project, implemented from 2011 to 2021 with grants
provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) to the International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in two phases of five years each. The project’s
focus was to improve the productivity of yam through enhancing its seed systems.
4.1. Summary of Achievement of the First Phase of the YIIFSWA Project

The first five years of the YIIFSWA project (September 2011 to December 2016)
facilitated activities to increase yam productivity (yield and net output) by 40% for
200,000 smallholder farmers in Ghana and Nigeria. Another goal was to generate
international research goods that will double the income of 3 million yam producers
in a 10-year horizon. During this first phase, YIIFSWA initiated the development of
formal yam seed production systems, leading to the first set of certified seed yams
for sale to ware yam producers in May 2016. This significant step in developing the
yam seed market was critical to sustaining commercial production and marketing
of high-quality seed yam. Diagnostics tools for virus detection and technologies for
elimination of virus infected sources from seed production, high-ratio propagation
technologies (HRPTs) such as the Temporary Immersion Bioreactor System (TIBS)
and aeroponics, and seed yam quality management protocols as well as quality
standards for seed yam certification were developed.
Over 65,000 farmers were trained to improve their seed production techniques
using the adaptive yam minisett technique (YIIFSWA 2017), which is similar to what
is used in the traditional seed production system (Aighewi et al. 2014). Yam-growing
households in Ghana and Nigeria were characterized through a baseline survey
(Mignouna et al. 2014a, 2014b). Economic assessments showed gains from the
various technologies emanating from YIIFSWA and their relative profitability
(Mignouna et al. 2020). Thousands of training materials (flyers, books, videos, and
posters) were produced and disseminated to stakeholders to improve their capacities
in seed and ware yam production, handling, and marketing (YIIFSWA 2017).
179
4.2. Summary of Achievements of the Second Phase of the YIIFSWA Project (YIIFSWA-II)
A primary goal of the YIIFSWA II project was to significantly increase yam
productivity by at least 30% by delivering clean, quality seed yam of improved
varieties to at least 320,000 smallholder farmers for long-term benefits in Nigeria and
Ghana. This initiative aimed to improve the yield gains of the rural and urban poor,
with more gender-equitable income for participants in the yam value chain. The
project achieved its vision of demand creation, improving production systems and
enhancing the enabling environment for improved varieties through four objectives:
i. Increase productivity and income by empowering smallholder ware yam

producers with the seed of improved varieties. Three improved and released
varieties of D. rotundata (TDr 89/02665 named Asiedu and TDr 95/19177 named
Kpamyo) and one of D. alata, (TDa 98/01176 named Swaswa) were introduced
to farmers in demonstration plots to show the potential of improved varieties.
Their mean productivity was higher than that of the local farmers’ preferred
varieties amounting to 38% productivity increase.
The project developed functional and sustainable seed systems by strengthening

national agricultural research institutions to produce high-quality breeder seed yam
of improved varieties using the TIBS. In 2020, the Ghana Crops Research Institute
(CRI), with the assistance of the YIIFSWA-II project, produced 350% of its target of
21,840. The Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) in northern Ghana,
with the support of the project, established its first TC Laboratory since inception
and produced 399% of its yearly target of 8736 breeder seed plantlets using TIBS.
The National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI- Umudike) of Nigeria produced
104% above its target of 21,840 breeder seeds in 2020. The breeder seeds produced
by NRCRI were partially distributed to two private seed companies (Nwabudo
Agro Seeds and Inputs Ltd. and Strategic Seeds Nigeria Ltd.) and to the Federal
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. In total, 221,735 breeder seeds were
produced by IITA and NARIs within the year 2020 exceeding the target production
of 71,872 by 309%.
ii. YIIFSWA developed, demonstrated, and trained private seed companies on

foundation seed production models using best management practices in
aeroponic and hydroponic systems. These activities were aimed to deliver
high-quality seeds of improved varieties to farmers at the right time and prices
to encourage adoption through commercial seed entrepreneurs. One of the
primary outcomes of the project was to establish a functional, scalable, and
sustainable foundation and commercial seed systems that are driven by the
180
private sector. The project accomplished this by identifying and developing the
capacities of nine private seed companies in Ghana (3) and Nigeria (6). These
seed companies together with some of the NARIs produced about 3.6 million
foundation tubers of 25 g each in 2020.
iii. Raise the awareness of policy makers of the economic impact of the yam
sector through advocacy and information dissemination strategies, including
developing and implementing investment targets to popularize YIIFSWA’s
improved seed yam technologies for increased production, adoption, and
scaling. This was to influence key stakeholders and decision-makers to raise the
profile of yam in relevant fora and debates in Nigeria, Ghana, and beyond. This
caused the Federal Government of Nigeria to include yam in its list of priority
crops. In addition, new investments were engaged in the yam development
sector, especially in seed yam for Ghana and Nigeria totaling USD 1,959,159
(USD 1,509,968 and USD 449,191 in Nigeria and Ghana, respectively).
iv. Empower women to participate profitably in the commercial yam seed value
chain. Customarily, women’s participation in the yam value chain is limited
due to some socio-cultural settings. The project was deliberate in ensuring that
women were part of the seed yam value chain. Randomly selected yam farmers
in Nigeria have been growing yam for a mean period of 17.5 and 26.57 years
for female and male, respectively, while in Ghana, female experience was
18.37 years and males 19.34 years. Only 35.93% of females and 52.68% males
had heard of a yam project in the last seven years. It was observed that 19.57%
of females and 31.83% of males had heard about the YIIFSWA project, while
only 14.57% of females and 20.37% of males had benefited from the programme.
The same trend was also observed in Ghana. Out of the total number of
farmers trained on the adaptive minisett technique of seed yam production
during the first phase of the project, 39.6% were women. During the second
phase, female-owned private seed companies were targeted for partnership
and capacity building. Hence, there was one each in Nigeria and Ghana out of
the total of nine for both countries.
The implementation of YIIFSWA II ensured that all the advances made in

establishing the yam seed system by YIIFSWA were fully transferred to and
operationalized by National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and private
seed companies. Additionally, enhanced on-farm agronomic packages were
accessible and utilized by seed and ware yam farmers to increase productivity and
income generation. Beneficiaries of the project include seed and ware yam producers
and their family members, processors, marketers, transporters, and consumers.
181
5. Novel Yam High Ratio Propagation Systems: Outcomes and Prospects in
Adaptation to Climate Change and Nutrition Security
The YIIFSWA project developed and standardized a tissue-culture-based heat
therapy combined with a meristem culture procedure to generate virus-free yam
planting material. This procedure had a 73% success rate in eliminating the yam
mosaic virus (YMV), the most frequently contaminating virus in yams in West
Africa (Balogun et al. 2017a). This procedure established YMV-free stocks of 25 yam
genotypes consisting of improved varieties and landraces, which were used as stocks
for rapid bulking of clean planting material using the TIBS, an advanced high-ratio
in vitro propagation technology also standardized by YIIFSWA.
Plantlets from TIBS are of better quality than those from conventional
tissue culture (CTC). TIBS plantlets are more vigorous and resilient to post-flask
acclimatization. Due to more efficient process control, large batches are handled
more easily for scale-up propagation with lower risks of mix-ups. The propagation
ratio in TIBS was five to six per plantlet every eight to ten weeks compared to three
to four every 12 to 16 weeks in CTC (Balogun et al. 2017b). Up to 300 single-node
vine cuttings were obtained per plant that was derived from TIBS plantlet and grown
aeroponically (Maroya et al. 2014c, 2017), while the drip system hydroponics further
saves on electricity needs in the production system (Balogun et al. 2020, 2021). About
100 single-node vine cuttings can be made per TIBS plantlet using hydroponics after
eight weeks of growth, with 95% rooting success followed by field planting. After
five months of hydroponic growth, the seed tubers ranged from 5 g to 220 g per plant.
Aeroponics yam propagation started under the YIIFSWA project in 2013 at
IITA-Ibadan, Nigeria (Maroya et al. 2014a, 2014c). Atomizing nozzles ensure the
most effective nutrient delivery in this system by turning the nutrient solution into
a mist, which is absorbed through the cell walls of the plant’s roots by osmosis.
Genotypes of both D. rotundata and D. alata were successfully propagated with
aeroponics using both pre-rooted and freshly cut two-node vine cuttings. Three
types of planting materials are generated from the aeroponics production system:
mini-tubers which range from 0.2 g to 110 g depending on the genotype, harvest
age, and the composition of the nutrient solution, the aerial bulbils from both water
yam and white yam varieties, and single-node cuttings from vines (Maroya et al.
2014b). All the propagules had a propagation rate of over 90%. Yam vine cuttings
were previously known to grow slowly, but those from aeroponic plants produced
new leaves 14 to 21 days after planting. The single-node vine cuttings from aeroponic
plants produce an average of 200 to 300 cuttings per plant in four to six months. A
manual was produced to help private seed companies to establish their aeroponics
182
systems with step-by-step instructions for building and managing the system for
foundation seed production (Maroya et al. 2017). In 2017, the YIIFSWA-II project
funded each of five selected seed companies with USD 30,000, half of the cost to build
a screen-house and an aeroponics system. The project produced and distributed
virus-indexed plantlets for multiplication to seed companies. Relevant stakeholders
were trained, including postgraduate degree students, to apply various propagation
techniques through participatory research. After training, new technical information
on the high ratio propagation of yam was constantly provided, accompanied by
backstopping partners and other stakeholders.
The capacities of the seed regulatory agencies of Nigeria, the National
Agricultural Seed Council (NASC); and of Ghana, the Plant Protection and
Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD); were also enhanced. As coordinators
in the management of seed quality in their respective countries, they were trained
and provided with equipment to ensure that high-quality seeds of authentic varieties
were produced and sold.
6. Improved Yam Seed Systems as Key to Building Resilience in Production to

Enhance and Sustain Food Security
A functional yam seed system is essential to build resilience in the ware yam
production systems. As the most critical and expensive input of yam production,
the seed should be healthy to generate healthy plants in the field and reduce yam’s
current high postharvest losses estimated at 30%. Seed health influences the shelf life
of harvested ware tubers or postharvest storage quality since pests and diseases are
easily transferred from the field into storage and over different seasons through the
seed. Therefore, a yam seed system must have protocols to ensure the production
of seed tubers at a high rate of multiplication. Rapid propagation of pest- and
disease-free seeds and a network of commercial seed producers within a formal
seed system are crucial for disseminating improved varieties for sustained and
increased productivity. Extension services were used to educate farmers on plant
health management in the field to recognize pest and disease symptoms and carry
out positive selection practices to sustain good yields.
Technologies for breeder seed production were transferred to the following
NARIs, the National Center for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology (NACGRAB)
and the National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) in Nigeria, and the Crops
Research Institute (CRI) and Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) in Ghana.
These institutions were provided with equipment and supplies for backup electricity,
TIBS, post-flask handling and documentation, and initial clean stock of planting
183
Technologies for breeder seed production were transferred to the following
NARIs, the National Center for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology (NACGRAB)
and the National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) in Nigeria, and the Crops
Research Institute (CRI) and Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) in
Ghana. These institutions were provided with equipment and supplies for backup
electricity,
materials. TIBS,
The post-flask
NARIs handling
now provide andbreeder
clean documentation,
plantingand initial to
materials clean stockseed
private of
planting materials. The NARIs now
companies for foundation seed production. provide clean breeder planting materials to
private seed companies for foundation seed production.
The innovations developed by YIIFSWA to improve yam seed systems have
addedThe innovations
value to the yamdeveloped
crop byby YIIFSWA
using vines to
forimprove yam seed
propagation. systems
Before now,have
yam
added value to the yam crop by using vines for propagation. Before now, yam vines
vines were mainly considered as the apparatus for manufacturing photosynthates for
were mainly considered as the apparatus for manufacturing photosynthates for
storage in tubers. In the new seed production systems, leafless nodal cuttings are used
storage in tubers. In the new seed production systems, leafless nodal cuttings are
in TIBS, while those with leaves are planted in various hydroponic systems or rooted
used in TIBS, while those with leaves are planted in various hydroponic systems or
and planted in the field (Figure 3). The nodal cuttings with leaf can also be planted
rooted and planted in the field (Figure 3). The nodal cuttings with leaf can also be
directly in the field for seed yam production. Methods of producing minitubers of
planted directly in the field for seed yam production. Methods of producing
less than 10 g, which perform excellently in seed yam production (Aighewi et al.
minitubers of less than 10 g, which perform excellently in seed yam production
2021), have also
(Aighewi et al.been developed.
2021), If widely
have also adopted by If
been developed. seed companies,
widely adopted there
by would
seed
becompanies,
less pressurethere would be less pressure on using yam tubers for food and seed. Sixin
on using yam tubers for food and seed. Six seed companies
Nigeria
seed companies ininNigeria
and three Ghana andare using the
three in innovations
Ghana are usingdeveloped and scaled
the innovations by the
developed
YIIFSWA project for seed production.
and scaled by the YIIFSWA project for seed production.
Figure 3.3. Types

Figure Types ofof yam
yam planting
planting materials
materials (a).
(a). In vitro single
In vitro single node
node cuttings
cuttings for
for
multiplication in temporary immersion bioreactor systems; (b) Ex vitro nodal cuttings with
multiplication in temporary immersion bioreactor systems; (b) Ex vitro nodal
leaf for multiplication in various hydroponics systems, soil, and composite media; (c).
cuttings
Minitubers with
fromleaf for multiplication
ex vitro single node plantsinfor
various
vine andhydroponics
tuber plantingsystems, soil, and
material production
composite media; (c). Minitubers from ex vitro
in the field or screenhouse. Source: Pictures by authors. single node plants for vine and
tuber planting material production in the field or screenhouse. Source: Pictures by
authors.
9
184
The HRPTs developed by YIIFSWA are contributing to the efficient production
of end-user preferred improved varieties. According to previous studies by CIRAD
and partners, flour from dried chips made from the late maturing, multiple tubering
(5–10 tubers per plant) varieties of D. cayenensis and D. rotundata with relatively high
dry matter content (around 40%) and tolerance to poor soil conditions were most
demanded for preparation of amala, a popular food in Nigeria and Benin. This link
between food demand and preferred variety confirms that seed systems need to
choose their promoted varieties based on market demand. However, the delivery
rate of improved varieties is slow due to the low propagation ratio in traditional yam
cultivation, where cropping is seasonal, with a single annual production cycle that is
significantly limited by season (Orkwor and Asadu 1998). Weather elements are also
crucial for yam production ranging from water, light, nutrients, and temperature.
Yam requires 20 ◦ C to 30 ◦ C for optimum growth. However, according to the IITA’s
Geospatial laboratory, in 2015, temperatures lower than 20 ◦ C were recorded only
in January and December, a period that is typically outside the crop growth period,
while at least 7 out of the 12 months in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2017 recorded higher
than 30 ◦ C (Personal communication) with associated rising air temperature and
carbon dioxide levels. The impact of climate change on the yam yield, including
its vulnerability to climate-change-related soil conditions, has been discussed by
Srivastava et al. (2012).
Just as drought causes significant losses, floods also cause significant yield
losses (Balogun and Gueye 2013). These climate-related scenarios force farmers to
vacate flood- or drought-prone farmlands or risk immense losses due to inadequate
photosynthetic rates, tuber bulking, and premature senescence. While there
have been significant breakthroughs in the real-time availability of geographical
information systems, its utilization in timing yam production is yet to be entirely
scaled and adopted at the level of producers and processors. The scarcity of clean
planting materials (Aighewi et al. 2015, 2021), dormancy of the tuber for about
four months, and uncontrolled sprouting after dormancy break limits the control of
the cropping calendar by farmers and reduces profits (Craufurd et al. 2001). This
established need for resilient, climate-smart mitigation strategies is also addressed
by the gains from the YIIFSWA project, especially in terms of yam cropping cycles.
Seed production can be carried out in controlled environments during the offseason,
and ware yam production timed to maximize the available rainy period.
Table 1 shows the timing of seed yam production based on the traditional
system relative to the HRPTs. Two cropping cycles are possible per year, from May to
December and October to August. Previously, 14 t/ha at 40,000 stands for seed yam
185
production was recorded. If the same land is used, up to 30 t/ha will be produced
per cycle when vine cuttings are used, giving 60 t/Ha per year. With continuous
availability of seed yam from the HRPTs, ware yam can be produced throughout
the year, combining the traditional cycle of October to July with the HRPT cycle of
May to December. This scheme is more amenable to delayed rains if supplemental
irrigation is provided. Significantly more land can also be used for yam production
due to 500-fold more seed yam, which culminates in more food availability.
Table 1. Seed yam production based on novel high ratio propagation technologies.
Before Current Revolution (Now) Prerequisite

Stock One tuber One tuber
6 gives 6
Cut portions mother 6 gives 6 mother plants
plants
October to
January to May/June July to December
August
6 mother
6 mother 180 Tissue Culture plantlets in laboratory
Year 1 plants × 30 CTC Lab
plants cleaned
nodes
Production
of 3240
6 cut 540 × 3 = 1620 × 2 =
180 × 3 = breeder TIBS Lab,
portions per 1620 3240
Year 2 540 plantlets plants in AS, HS, Air
mother plant plantlets in seedlings in
in 11 TIBS Aeroponics Cooling
= 36 32 TIBS Vivipak
and
Hydroponics
6 cut
Production of 3240 × 100 =
portions Field planting of breeder vine
324,000 single node vine Supp
Year 3 from 36 seedlings for foundation seed,
seedlings from AS/HS plants irrigation
mother 324,000 seed tuber production
in nurseries
plants = 216
6 cut
Field planting of foundation
portions
Dormancy of foundation seed seed tubers certified seed Supp
Year 4 from 216
tubers production using AYMT irrigation
mother
(324,000 × 2 = 648,000)
plants = 1296
AS = aeroponic system; HS = hydroponic system. Source: Maroya et al. (2022).
van Etten et al. (2017) has established that the access farmers have to quality
seed and the functionality of seed systems in relation to production, distribution,
innovation, and regulation determines the efficacy in contributing to sustainable
agrobiodiversity and food systems. Available evidence has shown that the YIIFSWA
II project has impacted all four aspects. However, it is necessary to incorporate good
practices for efficient soil and water management as well as good agronomic and
agroecological practices that mitigate and enhance the adaptation to climate change
in future projects.
186
An additional benefit of the novel high-ratio propagation system is the
mitigation against hidden hunger. Nutrients can be dosed to yam grown
in aeroponics and hydroponics systems. High-quality planting materials of
improved varieties are disseminated as reported by a study conducted by YIIFSWA
(unpublished) to determine the nutrient components that limit the propagation
ratio and quality of plantlets in the TIBS. Using white and water yam varieties,
Kpamyo and Swaswa, respectively, the nitrogen (N), potassium (K), and phosphorus
(P) concentrations in culture medium were determined every two weeks for ten
weeks and in plantlets at transplanting. After eight weeks of culture, the pH and
refractometer values for medium acidity and sugar concentration were determined in
the varieties. In Swaswa, N, P, and K in the medium reduced by 83.8, 96.2, and 28.7%,
while it was 63.3, 61.2, and 23.1% in Kpamyo over the ten-week period. Reduction
in K concentration at two weeks was limited to Swaswa. In Kpamyo, adding P at
two weeks and N at six weeks would be beneficial. Thus, it is necessary to consider
diet requirements from seed production to determine optimum fertigation regimes.
This will ensure that plants absorb the available nutrients in sufficient quantities
for storage in tubers, which can also be fortified with additional micronutrients if
processed into other products after harvest.
7. Outcomes and Impact on Reducing Hunger by Raising Food Security

Food security is commonly defined as the access by all people to sufficient food
for active and healthy life (World Bank 1986). Three critical dimensions implicit in
this definition are (i) the availability of sufficient quantity and appropriate quality of
food supplied through own production or otherwise; (ii) access by all households
and individuals to enough and adequate resources to acquire such food; and (iii) the
utilization of this food through an adequate diet, water, sanitation, and health care
(Timmer 2012). In the developing world, household food security is largely linked to
food availability from household production. Gifts and transfers from friends and
relatives also play essential roles. Food purchased are also common but limited due
to a lack of liquidity.
7.1. Changes Perceived in Household Food Consumption Status of Yam Growing Areas of
Nigeria and Ghana
Food deficit was the main periodic shock experienced by most households across
the yam-growing areas of Nigeria and Ghana. This type of vulnerability results from
qualitative analysis considering the respondents’ perception about the number of
households affected by food shortages and the frequency of food shortages during a
187
season. To assess the farm household’s food consumption during surveys organized
by the YIIFSWA project, memory recall on different food shortage scenarios in the
past 12 months was employed.
Following the baseline survey, an end-line survey was performed within the
same major yam-producing zones in Nigeria and Ghana using the same multistage,
random sampling design, drawing on 1400 households based on the same sampling
frame (Mignouna et al. 2016). The respondents were asked whether their households
had sufficient food during the previous year. Figure 4 shows how households
occasionaltheir
perceived foodfood
shortage decreased
security status.byThis
27%perception
points fromwas
about 62% to 35%,
observed to bewhile the
different
households that reported having a food surplus increased by 26% from about 8%
between the two rounds of surveys. After the project’s first phase, changes in shocks to
34% (Figure 4). Almost no difference was observed between households
faced by households pursuing their livelihood strategy were noticed by comparing that
reported no food shortage but no surplus and food shortage throughout the year.
their baseline situation to the end line.
Figure 4. Changes
Figure Changesininhousehold
householdfood consumption
food consumptionstatus in ain
status 12-month period
a 12-month for yam
period for
growing
yam households
growing in Nigeria
households and Ghana.
in Nigeria andSource:
Ghana. (Mignouna et al. 2014a, 2014b,
Source: (Mignouna 2017a,
et al. 2014a,
2017b).
2014b, 2017a, 2017b).
Positive changes in food consumption status were reported, and these probably
In Nigeria, from the baseline to end line, households reported a reduction
resulted from increased productivity due to interventions of the YIIFSWA project.
in food shortages throughout the year from about 5% to 1%. In comparison,
They are good indicators of food security improvement in the region, likely due to
reports on occasional food shortages decreased from 32% to about 26% (Figure 4).
YIIFSWA’s interventions. This translates into a contribution of the project in
Households that reported no food shortage, but no surplus increased from about
reducing vulnerability to food insecurity among rural households in the surveyed
44% to 54% during the two periods. Households reported that food surplus was
areas.
almost unchanged during the same periods. In Ghana, the remarkable observations
7.2. Project Impact on Food Security
Total household expenditure included
188 expenditures on non-food items and
consumables. Under food expenditure, all the food items consumed by the
household during a year were collected. Food consumption included food that the
household purchased, produced, and received from other sources. The total
expenditure on food, obtained by aggregating expenditure on all food items, was
from baseline to the end line are that the proportion of households that reported
occasional food shortage decreased by 27% points from about 62% to 35%, while
the households that reported having a food surplus increased by 26% from about
8% to 34% (Figure 4). Almost no difference was observed between households that
reported no food shortage but no surplus and food shortage throughout the year.
Positive changes in food consumption status were reported, and these probably
resulted from increased productivity due to interventions of the YIIFSWA project.
They are good indicators of food security improvement in the region, likely due to
YIIFSWA’s interventions. This translates into a contribution of the project in reducing
vulnerability to food insecurity among rural households in the surveyed areas.
7.2. Project Impact on Food Security

Total household expenditure included expenditures on non-food items and
consumables. Under food expenditure, all the food items consumed by the household
during a year were collected. Food consumption included food that the household
purchased, produced, and received from other sources. The total expenditure on
food, obtained by aggregating expenditure on all food items, was used to estimate
the project’s impact on food security. The total expenditure for each food group was
calculated by aggregating the expenditure of all food and non-food items falling
within a group. The results of the propensity score matching (PSM) presented in
Table 2 show that the Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATT) of YIIFSWA
project on food security (per capita expenditure on food) of beneficiaries in Nigeria
and Ghana were about USD 55 and USD 94 for the Radius Matching technique. These
results imply that the beneficiaries that profited directly or indirectly from the project
are more food secure than the non-beneficiary farmers.
In summary, this study sought to find out the average treatment effect on the
treated, which gives the average effect of the project on food security. The results
showed a positive impact on food security, implying that the increase in productivity
generated by the project interventions led to increased household food security and
poverty reduction in the region.
189
Table 2. Impact of YIIFSWA on food security.
YIIFSWA
YIIFSWA
Country Parameter Non-Beneficiaries Difference S.E.
Beneficiaries
Nearest Neighbor Matching
Unmatched 348.90 291.10 57.80 17.57
ATT 350.52 295.54 54.98 19.46
Nigeria
ATU 290.50 325.00 34.50 .
ATE 38.16 .
Unmatched 715.32 630.36 84.96 179.19
ATT 718.09 623.95 94.14 175.80
Ghana
ATU 635.62 721.47 85.85 .
ATE 89.41 .
ATT: Average Treatment Effect on the Treated; ATU: Average Treatment on Untreated; ATE:
Average Treatment Effect. USD 1 = GHS 1.85 = NGN 157. Source: (Mignouna et al. 2014a,
2014b, 2017a, 2017b).
8. Conclusions
The YIIFSWA initiative has focused on efficient seed yam propagation and
production, significantly impacting the yam value chain. The project has developed
high-ratio propagation technologies and seed-health management innovations to
improve the seed quality and increase productivity by supplying yam farmers with
healthy seeds. The new methods emphasize using vines and minitubers of less than
10 g to produce seed tubers and free large quantities of tubers for food. Stakeholders’
capacities were enhanced through training on improved seed production methods
and equipment to build resilience and sustainability, and increase seed production
for income, nutrition, and food security.
9. Recommendations
The gains from the innovations contributed by the YIIFSWA project are visible.
However, greater emphasis is required for scaling innovations, especially in certified
seed production, for higher impact. Further research efforts are necessary to identify
cheaper alternatives in the novel seed yam propagation technologies that will increase
the profit margins in seed yam businesses. Studies are also required to identify the
most appropriate agronomic practices and control of yam tuber dormancy to allow
integration into cropping cycles in the face of production intensification and the
changing climate.
190
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.A.; writing—original draft preparation, B.A.,
R.A.; writing—review and editing, B.A., N.M., R.A., D.M., M.B., P.L.K.; project administration,
N.M., R.A.; funding acquisition, IITA: R.A., N.M., P.L.K., M.B., D.M. and B.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, bearing
Investment Number OPP1159088. Grant to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture,
Ibadan, Nigeria, November 2016 to 31 December 2021. IITA receives funding for research on
yams from the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers, and Bananas (CRP-RTB) between
2011–2021 and the ongoing CGIAR Seed Equal Initiative, both supported by CGIAR Trust
Fund donors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in
the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of
the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
Adewumi, Adeyinka S., Paterne A. Agre, Paul A. Asare, Michael O. Adu, Kingsley J. Taah,
Jean M. Mondo, and Selorm Akaba. 2022. Exploring the Bush Yam (Dioscorea praehensilis
Benth) as a Source of Agronomic and Quality Trait Genes in White Guinea Yam (Dioscorea
rotundata Poir) Breeding. Agronomy 12: 55. [CrossRef]
Agbaje, Olubunmi G., Lucia O. Ogunsumi, J. A. Oluokun, and T. A. Akinlosutu. 2005. Survey
on the Adoption of Yam Minisett Technology in South-Western Nigeria. Journal of Food,
Agriculture and Environment 3: 222–29.
Aighewi, Beatrice A. 1998. Seed yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir.) Production and Quality in
Selected Yam Zones of Nigeria. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of
Agriculture and Forestry, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria; p. 252.
Aighewi, Beatrice A., Norbert Maroya, and Robert Asiedu. 2014. Seed Yam Production from
Minisetts: A Training Manual. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(IITA), p. 36.
Aighewi, Beatrice A., Norbert Maroya, P. Lava Kumar, Morufat Balogun, Daniel Aihebhoria,
Djana Mignouna, and Robert Asiedu. 2021. Seed Yam Production Using High-Quality
Minitubers Derived from Plants Established with Vine Cuttings. Agronomy 11: 978.
[CrossRef]
Aighewi, Beatrice A., Osei Kingsley, Ennin A. Stella, and P. Lava Kumar. 2017. Practices to
Improve the Quality of Seed Yam Produced by Smallholder Farmers. A Seed Yam Production
Guide. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), p. 22.
Aighewi, Beatrice A., Robert Asiedu, Norbert Maroya, and Morufat Balogun. 2015. Improved
Propagation Methods to Raise the Productivity of Yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir.). Food
Security 7: 823–34. [CrossRef]
191
Baah, D. Faustina, Busie Maziya-Dixon, Robert Asiedu, Ibuk Oduro, and William O. Ellis. 2009.
Nutritional and Biochemical Composition of D. alata (Dioscorea spp.) Tubers. Journal of
Food, Agriculture and Environment 7: 373–78.
Balogun, Morufat O., and Badara Gueye. 2013. Status and Prospects of Biotechnology
Applications to Conservation, Propagation and Genetic Improvement of Yam. In Bulbous
Plants: Biotechnology. Edited by Kishan Gopal Ramawat and Jean-Michel Merillon. New
York: CRS Press, pp. 92–112.
Balogun, Morufat, Norbert Maroya, Beatrice Aighewi, Djana Mignouna, Mark Nelson, and
Jason Nickerson. 2021. Manual for Seed yam production in Hydroponics system. Croydon:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) & Context Global Development
(CGD), p. 34.
Balogun, Morufat O., Norbert Maroya, Beatrice Aighewi, P. Lava Kumar, Djana Mignouna,
Ihuoma Okwuonu, Marian Quain, Adedotun Afolayan, and Emmanuel Chamba. 2020.
Capacity strengthening and breeder seed yam production. Paper presented at the
4th YIIFSWA II Annual Review and Planning Meeting, Bolton White Hotel, Abuja,
Nigeria, February 18–21; Available online: http://yiifswa.iita.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/04/2019-end-of-year-report-on-pre-basic-seed-production.pdf (accessed on 15
July 2021).
Balogun, Morufat O., Norbert Maroya, Joao Augusto, Adeola Ajayi, Lava Kumar, Beatrice
Aighewi, and Robert Asiedu. 2017a. Relative Efficiency of Positive Selection and Tissue
Culture for Generating Pathogen-free Planting Materials of Yam (Dioscorea spp.). Czech
Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 53: 9–16. [CrossRef]
Balogun, Morufat O., Norbert Maroya, Joao Taiwo, Chukwunalu Ossai, Adeola Ajayi, P. Lava
Kumar, Olugboyega Pelemo, Beatrice Aighewi, and Robert Asiedu. 2017b. Clean Breeder
Seed Yam Tuber Production Using Temporary Immersion Bioreactors. Ibadan: International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), p. 66. ISBN 978-978-8444-89-3.
Craufurd, Peter O., Rodney J. Summerfield, Robert Asiedu, and Vara Prasad. 2001. Dormancy
in Yams. Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37: 75–109. [CrossRef]
Dave, Buenavista P., Nikko Manuel A. Dinopol, Eefke Mollee, and Morag McDonald. 2020.
From Poison to Food: On the Molecular Identity and Indigenous Peoples’ Utilisation of
Poisonous “Lab-o” (Wild Yam, Dioscoreaceae) in Bukidnon, Philippines. Cogent Food &
Agriculture 7: 1870306. [CrossRef]
Elbehri, Aziz. 2013. West Africa’s Food Potential: Policies and Market Incentives for
Smallholder-inclusive Food Value Chains. Rome: The Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations and the International Fund for Agriculture Development.
FAOSTAT. 2021. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. On-Line
and Multilingual Database. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed on 30
November 2021).
192
Frossard, Emmanuel, Beatrice A. Aighewi, Sévérin Aké, Dominique Barjolle, Philipp Baumann,
Thomas Bernet, Daouda Dao, Lucien N. Diby, Anne Floquet, Valérie K. Hgaza, and et al.
2017. The Challenge of Improving Soil Fertility in Yam Cropping Systems of West Africa.
Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1953. [CrossRef]
Hollinger, Frank, and John M. Staatz. 2015. Agricultural Growth in West Africa Market and Policy
Drivers. Rome: African Development Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.
Joob, Beuy, and Viroj Wiwanitkit. 2014. Asiatic Bitter Yam Intoxication. Asian Pacific Journal of
Tropical Biomedicine 4: S42. [CrossRef]
Kyung-Sik, Kang, and S. Taek Heo. 2015. A Case of Life-threatening Acute Kidney Injury with
Toxic Encephalopathy caused by Dioscorea quinqueloba. Yonsei Medical Journal 56: 304–6.
[CrossRef]
Lev, Larry S., and Ann L. Shriver. 1998. A Trend Analysis of Yam Production, Area, Yield, and
Trade (1961–1996). In Actes du Seminaire International CIRAD-INRA-ORSTOM-CORAF
CIRAD. Edited by Julien Berthaud, Nicolas Bricas and Jean-Leu Marchand.
Montpellier: L’igname, Plante Seculaire et Culture d’avenir, pp. 13–20.
Available online: https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers17-
08/010014891.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2021).
Manyong, M. Victor. 2000. Farmers’ Perceptions of the Resource Management Constraints in
Yam-based Systems. Project 13: Improvement of Yam-Based Systems. In Annual Report
1999. Ibadan: IITA, pp. 3–4.
Maroya, Norbert, Morufat Balogun, and Robert Asiedu. 2014a. Seed yam production in an
aeroponics system: A novel technology. In YIIFSWA Working Paper Series No 2 (Revised).
Yam Improvement for Income and Food Security in West Africa. Ibadan: International Institute
of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), p. 20.
Maroya, Norbert, Morfa Balogun, Beatrice Aighewi, Djana B. Mignouna, P. Lava Kumar, and
Robert Asiedu. 2022. Transforming Yam Seed Systems in West Africa. In Root, Tuber and
Banana Food System Innovations. Edited by Graham Thiele, Michael Friedmann, Hugo
Campos, Vivian Polar and Jeffery W. Bentley. Cham: Springer. [CrossRef]
Maroya, Norbert, Morufat Balogun, Beatrice Aighewi, Jimoh Lasisi, and Robert Asiedu.
2017. Manual for Clean Foundation Seed Yam Production Using Aeroponics System. Ibadan:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), p. 68. ISBN 978-978-8444-88-6.
Maroya, Norbert, Morufat Balogun, Robert Asiedu, Beatrice Aighewi, P. Lava Kumar, and
Joao Augusto. 2014b. Yam Propagation Using Aeroponics Technology. Annual Research
and Review in Biology 4: 3894–903. [CrossRef]
Maroya, Norbert, Robert Asiedu, P. Lava Kumar, Djana Mignouna, Antonio Lopez-Montes,
Ulrich Kleih, David Phillips, Fadel Ndiame, John Ikeorgu, and Emmanuel Otoo. 2014c.
Yam Improvement for Income and Food Security in West Africa: Effectiveness of a
Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Institutional Team-Work. Journal of Root Crops 40: 85–92.
193
Mignouna, Djana B., Adebayo Akinola, Tahirou Abdoulaye, Arega Alene, Norbert Maroya,
Beatrice Aighewi, Thomas Wobill, and Robert Asiedu. 2016. YIIFSWA Working
Paper Series No 7. Impact Evaluation Protocols for Agricultural Projects: The Case of Yam
Improvement for Income and Food Security in West Africa, Impact-Evaluation Guidelines.
Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), p. 70.
Mignouna, Djana B., Akinola Adebayo, Tahirou Abdoulaye, Arega Alene, Victor Manyong,
Norbert Maroya, Beatrice Aighewi, Lava P. Kumar, Balogun Morufat, Antonio
Lopez-Montes, and et al. 2020. Potential Returns to Yam Research Investment in
Sub-Saharan Africa and Beyond. Outlook on Agriculture 49: 215–24. [CrossRef]
Mignouna, Djana B., Maroya Norbert, Aighewi Beatrice, Kumar Lava, Akinribido Bolanle,
Ikeorgu John, Abdoulaye Tahirou, Akinola Adebayo, Alene Arega, Manyong Victor,
and et al. 2017a. Impact Assessment Report of YIIFSWA Project. Raising Household Income,
Improving Food Security and Reducing Poverty in Nigeria. Ibadan: International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA), p. 48. ISBN 978-978-8444-94-7.
Mignouna, Djana B., Maroya Norbert, Aighewi Beatrice, Kumar Lava, Abdoulaye Tahirou,
Akinola Adebayo, Otabil Prince, Braimah Haruna, Alene Arega, Manyong Victor, and
et al. 2017b. Impact Assessment Report of YIIFSWA Project. Raising Household Income,
Improving Food Security and Reducing Poverty in Ghana. Ibadan: International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA), p. 48. ISBN 978-978-8444-95-4.
Mignouna, Djana B., Tahirou Abdoulaye, and Adebayo Akinola. 2015. Factors Influencing the
Use of Selected Inputs in Yam Production in Nigeria and Ghana. Journal of Agriculture
and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 116: 131–42.
Mignouna, Djana B., Tahirou Abdoulaye, Arega Alene, Robert Asiedu, and Victor M. Manyong.
2014a. Characterization of Yam-growing Households in the Project Areas of Ghana. Ibadan:
Mignouna, Djana B., Tahirou Abdoulaye, Arega Alene, Robert Asiedu, and Victor M. Manyong.
2014b. Characterization of Yam-Growing Households in the Project Areas of Nigeria. Ibadan:
Mondo, Jean M., Paterne A. Agre, Alex Edemodu, Patrick Adebola, Robert Asiedu, Malachy
O. Akoroda, and Asrat Asfaw. 2020. Floral Biology and Pollination Efficiency in Yam
(Dioscorea spp.). Agriculture 10: 560. [CrossRef]
Ngo, Ngwe M.F.S., N. Denis Omokolo, and Simon Joly. 2015. Evolution and Phylogenetic
Diversity of Yam Species (Dioscorea spp.): Implication for Conservation and Agricultural
Practices. PLoS ONE 10: e0145364. [CrossRef]
Nweke, Felix I. 2016. Yam in West Africa: Food, Money and More. East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press.
Obidiegwu, Jude E., and Emmanuel M. Akpabio. 2017. The Geography of Yam Cultivation
in Southern Nigeria: Exploring its Social Meanings and Cultural Functions. Journal of
Ethnic Foods 4: 28–35. [CrossRef]
194
Obidiegwu, Jude E., Jessica B. Lyons, and Cynthia A. Chilaka. 2020. The Dioscorea Genus
(Yam)—An Appraisal of Nutritional and Therapeutic Potentials. Foods 9: 1304. [CrossRef]
Orkwor, Gabriel C., and Charles L. A. Asadu. 1998. Agronomy. In Food Yams. Advances
In Research. IITA and NRCRI, Nigeria. Edited by G. C. Orkwor, R. Asiedu and I. J.
Ekanayake. Ibadan: INTEC Printers, pp. 105–41.
Price, Elliott J., Paul Wilkin, Viswambharan Sarasan, and Paul D. Fraser. 2016. Metabolite
Profiling of Dioscorea (Yam) Species Reveals Underutilised Biodiversity and Renewable
Sources for High-value Compounds. Scientific Reports 6: 29136. [CrossRef]
Shajeela, P. S., Veerabahu R. Mohan, Jesudas L. Louis, and Soris P. Tresina. 2011. Nutritional
and Antinutritional Evaluation of Wild Yam (Dioscorea spp.). Tropical and Subtropical
Agroecosystems 14: 723–30.
Srivastava, Amit K., Thomas Gaiser, Heiko Paeth, and Frank Ewert. 2012. The Impact of
Climate Change on Yam (Dioscorea alata) Yield in the Savanna Zone of West Africa.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 153: 57–64. [CrossRef]
Timmer, Peter. 2012. Behavioral Dimensions of Food Security. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 109: 12315–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tohda, Chihiro, Ximeng Yang, Mie Matsui, Yuna Inada, Emika Kadomoto, Shotaro Nakada,
Hidetoshi Watari, and Naotoshi Shibahara. 2017. Diosgenin-rich Yam Extract Enhances
Cognitive Function: A Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Double-blind, Crossover Study
of Healthy Adults. Nutrients 9: 1160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van Etten, Jacob, Isabel L. Noriega, Carlo Fadda, and Evert Thomas. 2017. The Contribution of
Seed Systems to Crop and Tree Diversity in Sustainable Food Systems. Available online:
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/89755 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
World Bank. 1986. Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing
Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.
YIIFSWA. 2017. Yam Improvement for Income and Food Security in West Africa Project Achievements
and Recommendations Report. Submitted on 28 February 2017 to BMGF.
Yoon, Jae C., Jae B. Lee, Tae O. Jeong, Si O. Jo, and Young H. Jin. 2019. Symptomatic
Hypocalcemia Associated with Dioscorea tokoro Toxicity. Journal of the Korean Society of
Clinical Toxicology 17: 42–45. [CrossRef]
195
Coconut-Based Livestock Farming:
A Sustainable Approach to Enhancing Food
Security in Sri Lanka
Tharindu D. Nuwarapaksha, Shashi S. Udumann, Nuwandhya S. Dissanayaka
1. Introduction
Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) has emerged as a versatile plantation crop, carrying
crucial nutritional value and boundless functionalities that open doors to various
industrial undertakings (Nair 2021). With the diverse applications of its different
parts, the coconut palm has become an inseparable aspect of the social, economic, and
cultural lives of nearly 80 million people across 92 countries (Nair 2021; Beveridge
et al. 2022). The history of coconut cultivation in Sri Lanka can be traced back to 330
B.C. The crop is grown across twenty-five administrative districts on the island. In
many aspects, coconut cultivation bears similarities to the extension and historical
significance of paddy cultivation. Regarding land coverage, coconut ranks second,
following the country’s staple food crop, paddy, accounting for approximately 20%
of the total agricultural extent on the island. The coconut industry also contributes
to 0.7% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with the total extent of coconut
cultivation in the country being 505,000 hectares (CBSL 2021). Annual coconut
production fluctuates yearly due to various factors, such as weather conditions,
disease outbreaks, and market demand (Utomo et al. 2016). Approximately 58%
of coconut cultivation is concentrated in three districts: Gampaha, Kurunegala,
and Puttalam, which are collectively known as the “Coconut Triangle” (Esham and
Wijeratne 2021). Regarding the share of the total coconut extent compared to the total
agricultural extent by district, Puttalam district stands at the top, with approximately
69.8% of its land devoted to coconut cultivation. Gampaha district follows closely at
64.0%, and Kurunegala district is at 60.6% (DCS 2021). The lowest share is reported in
Nuwara Eliya district, where only 0.6% of the land is allocated to coconut cultivation
due to the dominance of tea as the primary crop.
Moreover, animal husbandry plays a crucial role in the Sri Lankan agricultural
sector, with a focus on raising various types of animals. Similar to coconut farming,
the livestock sector makes a comparable contribution of approximately 0.75% to
the total GDP (CBSL 2021). The main livestock raised in the country include cattle,
197
water buffalo, goats, sheep, pigs, and poultry (Perera and Jayasuriya 2008). Cattle
and water buffalo are primarily bred for milk production, making a significant
contribution to the dairy sector. On the other hand, goats and sheep are versatile
animals used for milk and meat production (Rout and Behera 2021). In Sri Lanka,
traditional animal husbandry practices typically revolve around small-scale, mixed
crop–livestock farming systems. However, coconut plays a significant role as a
plantation crop in Sri Lanka, and due to its specific morphological characteristics,
only 25% of this land is utilized for monoculture coconut cultivation (Samarajeewa
et al. 2003; Nuwarapaksha et al. 2022).
The practice of incorporating livestock into coconut farming to achieve
maximum land use efficiency is becoming popular among coconut farmers. This
is primarily because of its potential to improve resource sharing, especially
in areas with limited land for intercropping on coconut farms (Nuwarapaksha
et al. 2023a). This presents opportunities for the integration of livestock or
intercropping practices on coconut land. According to Ibrahim and Jayatileka
(2000), approximately 22% of natural grasslands exist on coconut land; therefore,
it has been identified as a prime location for the development of livestock
activities. The abundance of coconut plantations in Sri Lanka presents an excellent
opportunity for implementing sustainable agricultural practices and advancing
livestock development (Nuwarapaksha et al. 2022). Leveraging the inherent strengths
of Sri Lanka, the cultivation of forage crops in coconut plantations stands as the
key substantial agricultural endeavor (Table 1). Recognizing the capabilities of
the nation, strategically incorporating livestock or intercropping practices within
these coconut-rich areas presents a noteworthy opportunity to advance agricultural
sustainability across the country.
The intersection of coconut farming and animal husbandry assumes a key role
in ensuring food security, as noted by Ansar and Fathurrahman (2018). The deep
involvement of the rural population in coconut cultivation and other agroforestry
pursuits establishes a robust link to the production of food, wood, energy resources,
and animal feed. Additionally, forests contribute significantly to vital ecological
functions, encompassing carbon storage, the preservation of wildlife habitats,
and the protection of environmental resources. Consequently, these multifaceted
contributions offer a tangible pathway toward achieving the SDGs (Ruba and
Talucder 2023). In the pursuit of achieving the SDGs, they have been categorized
into five distinct groups, each dedicated to addressing specific thematic areas.
These categories include Category 1 (encompassing SDGs 1–5, addressing poverty),
Category 2 (covering SDGs 6–9, related to development infrastructure), Category
198
3 (addressing SDGs 10–12, focusing on sustainable production and consumption),
Category 4 (encompassing SDGs 13–15, related to green infrastructure), and Category
5 (incorporating SDGs 16–17, concerning green institutions) (Sharma et al. 2022).
Within the context of coconut-based livestock farming systems, it has been observed
that Category 1 and SDG 2 have been particularly well realized (McElwee et al.
2020). Hence, the primary objective of this chapter is to investigate the concept of
coconut-based livestock farming in the Sri Lankan context, aiming to contribute to
the realization of the SDGs, particularly in the realm of ensuring food security.
Table 1. Forage sources, land extent, and expected production in Sri Lanka.
Expected Dry Matter Production (MT’)

Favorable Unfavorable
Approx. (Rainy Season) (Drought Season)
Land
Source MT’ Per MT’ Per
Extent
(000’ Hectare) ha and Total * ha and Total **
Single MT Single MT
Defoliation Defoliation
Coconut plantations (30% of
145 1.25 543,750 0.65 188,500
total coconut lands)
Permanent pasture under
large farms—well managed 5.7 2.5 42,750 2 22,800
pasture
Permanent pasture under
large farms—poorly 13.27 1.25 49,763 0.65 17,251
managed pasture
Permanent fodder under
1.87 7.5 42,075 6.5 24,310
large farms—well managed
Cultivated fodder under
18.5 7.5 416,250 4.5 199,800
Small and medium holders
Marginal tea lands 30.23 0.75 68,017 0.37 22,370
Fellow paddy fields 150 1.5 675,000 1 300,000
Road siders/railway
5 1.5 22,500 0.75 7500
embankments
All types of natural
grasslands/wastelands 530 0.75 1,192,500 0.37 392,200
(50% total land extent)
Total 899.57 3,052,605 1,174,731
* Minimum 3 defoliations during the season for the total land extent; ** minimum 2
defoliations during the season for total land extent. Source: Authors’ compilation based
on data from Weerasinghe (2019).
199
2. Coconut-Based Livestock Farming Systems
The coconut-based livestock farming system involves integrating livestock and
crops on the same land to establish a mutually beneficial relationship between them
(Devendra 2007). This approach can take various forms, including agroforestry,
silvopastoral systems, mixed crop–livestock systems, and integrated crop–livestock
systems, all characterized by the interdependence of their components (Altieri et al.
2015). By combining crops and animals, farmers can achieve several advantages, such
as diversifying production, lessening reliance on external inputs, enhancing resilience
to climate variations and market fluctuations, and increasing overall income. Moreover,
this integrated approach fosters improved soil health, biodiversity, reduced greenhouse
gas emissions, and more effective waste management (Lehmann et al. 2020).
2.1. Coconut-Based Agroforestry Systems

Coconut-based agroforestry refers to a land management practice that combines
the cultivation of coconut trees with the integration of other tree species, agricultural
crops, and livestock in the same farming system (Dissanayaka et al. 2023). This
agroforestry approach aims to optimize the utilization of land, enhance overall
productivity, and promote environmental sustainability by harnessing the benefits
of diverse components (Atapattu et al. 2017). In addition to coconut trees, other
crop species are strategically planted within the coconut plantation (Figure 1).
These companion crops can include fruit crops, vegetable crops, export agriculture
crops, forages, timber crops, or legume crops that contribute to soil fertility and
ecosystem health (Nuwarapaksha et al. 2022). The combination of different tree
species provides a range of ecological and economic benefits, such as improving
biodiversity, enhancing carbon sequestration, and generating additional income from
various tree products (Jose 2009). The overarching goal is to maximize the social,
economic, and environmental benefits for land users at various levels. Agroforestry
plays a significant role in climate-smart agriculture, serving both adaptation and
mitigation purposes (Dawid Mume and Workalemahu 2021). Trees and agroforestry
systems offer a diverse array of goods and services that can serve as substitutes for
one another and, under suitable conditions, can be produced in a synergistic manner.
Livestock-keeping serves as a means to diversify the production options of rural
communities and is frequently suited to marginal environments. This adaptability
can contribute to enhancing climate resilience within these communities (Behera and
France 2016). The interaction between agroforestry and livestock-keeping is vital
for the livelihoods of rural communities, and the combination of these two practices
plays a crucial role in supporting and sustaining the well-being of rural communities.
200
a b
c d
Figure 1. Components of coconut-based livestock farming systems: (a) coconut

+ gliricidia + pepper mixed cropping; (b) fodder sorghum grass cultivation
under coconut plantation; (c) goat naturally grazing on coconut land; (d) biogas
production under coconut plantation. Source: Figures by authors.
2.2. Coconut-Based Silvopastoral Systems

Silvopastoral farming is a popular practice involving cultivating a harmonious
combination of grasses, legumes, and trees while raising livestock on the same parcel
of land (Kreitzman et al. 2022). Its aim to optimize land productivity, conserve soil
and water, and yield a variety of resources such as forage, fuelwood, and timber on a
sustainable basis. Planting trees and understory components is essential to create
a thriving silvopastoral system (Gautam et al. 2003). The main difference between
agroforestry and silvopastoral systems is their emphasis and scope. Agroforestry
encompasses a broader range of interactions between trees and various agricultural
or livestock activities, while silvopastoral systems specifically focus on integrating
fodder grasses with livestock grazing (Soler et al. 2018). Mainly forages and shrubs
are planted to feed the animals, and the livestock manure is used as crop fertilizer
(Figure 1). The integration of trees, grasses, and legumes (gliricidia) in silvopasture
contributes to soil and moisture conservation (Raveendra et al. 2021). The specific
201
systems and practices are identified based on the trees’ or shrubs’ role in the setup
(Leakey 2017). The successful establishment of silvopasture involves the careful
selection of suitable tree species, shrubs, grasses, and legumes suited to different
regions. Additionally, measures to protect the area from animals and appropriate
soil and water conservation methods are crucial. However, a well-designed and
properly managed silvopastoral system aligns closely with the goals of SDG 2 by
addressing hunger, promoting sustainable agriculture, and improving food security
and nutrition. Its multifunctional benefits contribute to a more resilient and holistic
approach to meeting the global challenges of food production and access.
2.3. Coconut-Based Mixed Crop–Livestock Systems

The mixed crop–livestock system focuses on integrating crops and livestock
(Thornton and Herrero 2014). This system aims to achieve mutual benefits between
crops and livestock, each supporting and complementing the other regarding
resources, productivity, and sustainability. In mixed crop–livestock systems, farmers
strategically plan the integration of crops and livestock based on their complementary
interactions (Figure 1). For instance, crop residues, such as leftover plant materials
after harvest, can serve as valuable feed for livestock, reducing the need for additional
fodder. In return, the manure produced by the livestock serves as a natural fertilizer
for the crops, enhancing soil fertility and nutrient cycling. The diversity introduced
by mixed crop–livestock systems contributes to improved resilience against climatic
variability and potential economic risks (Thornton and Herrero 2014). Farmers are
less dependent on a single income source, as they can derive revenue from both
crop sales and livestock products, such as meat, milk, and wool. Crop–livestock
integration also helps in managing pests and diseases. For example, some livestock
species can graze on weeds that would otherwise compete with crops for resources
or act as hosts for pests (Hilimire 2011). Overall, mixed crop–livestock systems offer
a promising approach to sustainable and resilient agriculture, providing a balance
between food production, natural resource conservation, and economic stability
for farming communities (Sekaran et al. 2021). By harnessing the benefits of crops
and livestock, these integrated systems contribute to promoting food security and
sustainable development in various regions across the world.
2.4. Coconut-Based Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems

The core component of these systems is coconut cultivation, and they are
typically combined with other crops such as intercropping of food crops or forages
beneath the coconut canopy. Livestock may also be reared on the same land.
202
This practice is known as intercropping or mixed cropping and allows for the
simultaneous cultivation of food crops, vegetables, or forages, which complement
coconut farming (Sekaran et al. 2021). Coconut-based integrated crop–livestock
systems are innovative and sustainable agricultural practices that revolve around the
cultivation of coconut trees alongside the integration of diverse crops and livestock
(Wulandari 2021), while biogas production is a crucial and necessary component in
an integrated crop–livestock system (Figure 1). It plays a pivotal role in converting
organic waste, such as livestock manure and agricultural residues, into valuable
biogas and nutrient-rich digestate. This biogas serves as a renewable energy source,
while the digestate can be used as a natural fertilizer for crops, completing the cycle
of sustainability (Surendra et al. 2014). By utilizing the anaerobic digestion process,
methane-rich biogas can be extracted from organic waste materials, which can then
be harnessed for cooking, heating, and electricity generation in daily life. The
diverse array of crops adds to the overall farm productivity and provides additional
income sources. Furthermore, coconut-based integrated crop–livestock systems
often include livestock rearing as an integral component (Seresinhe and Sujani 2016).
The well-managed integration of coconut-based cultivation with livestock rearing
epitomizes harmonious alignment with the objectives of SDG 2.
3. Fodder Production and Conservation on Coconut Land

Fodder crops play a significant role in enhancing livelihoods through diverse
means. The primary ways in which fodder crops contribute to improved food
security, increased incomes, and overall better livelihoods have been demonstrated
(Franzel et al. 2014). Apart from naturally occurring and naturalized varieties like
guinea grass, there are a few cultivated pasture and fodder varieties in Sri Lanka. The
most commonly established variety is the hybrid Napier (CO3) (Weerasinghe 2019).
CO3 is specifically grown for livestock use and receives government support through
the Department of Animal Production and Health and its respective provincial
authorities. It is primarily cultivated for farmers’ own use, although there are a few
instances where it is grown for sale outside the farm. In addition to CO3, CO4, CO5,
and Red Napier, are also gaining popularity among farmers as improved fodder
varieties (Figure 2). Additionally, farmers cultivate fodder sorghum and fodder maize
to feed the livestock. Additionally, gliricidia and ipil-ipil are also grown, primarily
for use as boundary fencing and as feed for ruminant animals (Weerasinghe 2019;
Nuwarapaksha et al. 2023b).
203
a b
c d
Figure 2. Fodder grasses: (a) CO3; (b) CO4; (c) CO5; and (d) Red Napier cultivation
under coconut plantation. Source: Figures by authors.
The primary method of conserving fodder in Sri Lanka is through the use of
silage (Figure 3). Previous attempts to produce hay using readily available grasses
have been made through various programs, but these efforts have been unsuccessful
thus far. The lack of commercial or large-scale pasture production in the country,
unfavorable weather conditions (such as heavy rain during the two monsoon seasons
affecting haymaking, and a scarcity of good-quality pasture during the dry season),
and high operational costs are potential reasons for this lack of success. In contrast,
silage-making has become viable for commercial dairy farms and small-scale on-farm
use. There are three main methods of silage production: small-scale silage production
using plastic barrels or vacuum-packed polythene bags, bunker silage production
at large-scale commercial dairy farms, and commercial silage production, mainly
in bales (Weerasinghe 2019). The crops used for this purpose are maize and/or
sorghum; typically, the silage is produced for on-farm use.
204
Figure 3. Small-scale barrel silage production from fodder maize grasses. Source:
Figures by authors.
4. Contributions of Coconut-Based Livestock Farming to SDGs

Coconut-based livestock farming can contribute significantly to achieving several
SDGs, including SDG 2. Both coconut cultivation and animal husbandry practices
can improve the productivity of animals and coconut land’ and the quality of the
products produced from them (Devendra 2007). They can also play a role in sustainable
food production and preserving genetic diversity, especially in relation to eradicating
hunger, promoting sustainable agriculture, and ensuring the well-being of communities.
The following SDGs can be achieved mainly through coconut-based livestock farming
systems (Figure 4). By using coconut by-products as livestock feed and integrating
coconut farming with animal husbandry, we can enhance the availability of nutritious
food for both humans and animals. Increased livestock productivity can provide a
sustainable source of foods and beverages, contributing to food security and reducing
hunger. Coconut-based livestock farming can enhance food security and nutrition by
providing a diversified source of food products, such as milk, meat, and eggs, to meet
the dietary needs of the population (SDG 2) (Paramesh et al. 2022).
Integrating livestock activities within coconut plantations can create
employment opportunities, particularly in rural areas, leading to economic growth
and poverty reduction (SDG 8) (Devendra and Chantalakhana 2002). By adopting
sustainable practices in coconut-based livestock farming, such as efficient resource
use, reduced waste, and environmentally friendly methods, this approach can
contribute to responsible consumption and production patterns (SDG 12) (Behera
and France 2016). Sustainable coconut-based livestock farming practices can
help mitigate climate change by promoting carbon sequestration through coconut
trees and implementing climate-resilient farming techniques (SDG 13) (Nair et al.
205
2018). Integrating livestock within coconut plantations can support biodiversity
conservation and land restoration, contributing to the protection of terrestrial
ecosystems (SDG 15) (Zoysa and Inoue 2014). Collaboration between the government,
the private sector, local communities, and international organizations is essential
to realizing the potential of coconut-based livestock farming in achieving the SDGs
(SDG 17) (Achmad et al. 2022). By aligning coconut-based livestock farming with
these SDGs, Sri Lanka can harness the full potential of its coconut resources while
promoting sustainable and inclusive agricultural practices that benefit both people
and the planet.
SDGs
Coconut
Livestock
Farming
Systems
DECENT WORK & RESPONSIBLE

ZERO HUNGER ECONOMIC CONSUMPTION
G G GROWTH G & PRODUCTION
o o o
a a a
1 1 1
02 08 12
Figure 4. Visual concept: contributions of coconut-based livestock farming to SDGs.

Source: Figure by authors.
206
5. Benefits of Coconut-Based Livestock Farming Systems
Coconut-based farming systems, integrating coconut plantations with livestock
and other vegetation, offer a myriad of advantages. They improve livestock nutrition
by providing diverse fodder options within the coconut plantation, enhancing
animal health (Devendra and Leng 2011). These systems optimize land use by
combining grazing and coconut cultivation on the same land, leading to efficient
resource utilization and reducing the need for additional grazing areas. Moreover,
livestock grazing within the plantation aids in weed and pest control, minimizing
the use of herbicides and maintaining pest balance (Nicholls and Altieri 2013).
Furthermore, the integration of nitrogen-fixing trees, including gliricidia and shrubs,
enhances soil fertility, benefiting coconut trees and other crops (Raveendra et al.
2021). Silvopastoral systems also contribute to carbon sequestration through the
excellent CO2 absorption capabilities of coconut trees and diversified vegetation
(Ramachandran Nair et al. 2010). According to Raveendra et al. 2017, carbon stocks
in a gliricidia-based mixed cropping system was significantly different compared to
that in a mono-crop system. They also promote biodiversity, ecosystem resilience,
and improved pest and disease management. Farmers gain multiple income streams
from coconut products, livestock, and other agricultural produce, enhancing their
financial and energy security. Integrated systems foster climate adaptation by
providing a resilient and adaptable farming approach, helping farmers cope with
climate-related challenges. They offer a sustainable and integrated agriculture model,
delivering numerous environmental, economic, and social benefits to farmers and the
surrounding ecosystem (Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2018). In summary, coconut-based
livestock farming can contribute to achieving SDG 2, which aims to end hunger,
achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
6. Challenges for Coconut-Based Livestock Farming Systems

Coconut-based livestock farming systems offer numerous benefits, but also
present challenges that require careful attention from farmers and land managers
to ensure success and sustainability. Integrating livestock and vegetation within
coconut plantations can create competition for vital resources like water, sunlight,
and nutrients, necessitating a delicate balance to maintain productivity (Kumar
and Kunhamu 2022). Selecting compatible livestock breeds becomes crucial to
avoid potential damage to coconut trees and maintain a thriving environment.
Managing pests and diseases in this complex system requires vigilant monitoring and
timely intervention. Successful implementation demands a deep understanding of
agroforestry practices, livestock management, and coconut cultivation, emphasizing
207
the need for access to proper training and knowledge (Mizik 2021). Long-term
planning and investments in planting fodder trees, acquiring suitable livestock,
and diligent management are essential for achieving sustainable benefits. Market
access and fair prices for coconut and livestock products play a pivotal role in
ensuring economic viability (Kaplinsky and Morris 2018). Overcoming land tenure
issues and obtaining policy support are vital for encouraging farmers to adopt
these integrated systems. Climate variability and environmental risks necessitate
climate-resilient strategies. Additionally, labor-intensive management is required
compared to conventional monoculture plantations (Feintrenie et al. 2015). Despite
these challenges, with careful planning, training, and management, coconut-based
farming systems can flourish, offering a sustainable and resilient agricultural
approach that benefits farmers and the environment alike.
7. Conclusions
Coconut-based livestock farming represents a promising pathway to achieve
several SDGs outlined by the United Nations, mainly SDG 2, as well as SDG 8, SDG
12, SDG 13, SDG 15, and SDG 17. By integrating coconut plantations with livestock
and other vegetation, this innovative agroforestry approach offers a range of benefits,
promoting environmental sustainability, economic growth, and social well-being.
Coconut-based livestock farming offers a promising and sustainable approach
to agricultural production, combining the benefits of coconut cultivation with
livestock rearing. This integrated farming system provides numerous advantages
for farmers, the environment, and local communities. By strategically managing
coconut plantations alongside livestock, farmers can diversify their income sources
and improve overall farm productivity. The system promotes biodiversity by creating
diverse habitats for various plant and animal species. By diversifying production and
income sources, farmers are better equipped to withstand challenges and ensure the
well-being of their communities. Overall, coconut-based livestock farming represents
a holistic and ecologically sound approach to agriculture in Sri Lanka. By capitalizing
on the strengths of both coconut cultivation and livestock rearing, this integrated
farming system offers a pathway to sustainable and prosperous farming practices.
As the world faces increasing demands for food production and environmental
stewardship, coconut-based livestock farming stands as a viable model to support
the livelihoods of farmers while conserving natural resources for future generations.
Further research and development programs are very important in determining the
most suitable crop species and suitable livestock species for each system.
208
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.D.N. and A.J.A.; Methodology, S.S.U.; Validation,
A.J.A. and N.S.D.; Formal Analysis, T.D.N.; Investigation, S.S.U.; Writing—Original Draft
Preparation, T.D.N. and S.S.U.; Writing—Review and Editing, A.J.A. and N.S.D.; Supervision,
A.J.A.; Visualization, T.D.N. and S.S.U.; Project Administration, A.J.A. All authors contributed
to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments: We would like to extend our gratitude to the technical team at the
Agronomy Division of the Coconut Research Institute for their valuable contributions. We
also want to express our thanks to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for providing
constructive feedback and valuable comments.
References
Achmad, Budiman, Sanudin, Mohamad Siarudin, Ary Widiyanto, Dian Diniyati, Aris Sudomo,
Aditya Hani, Eva Fauziyah, Endah Suhaendah, Tri Suslistyati Widyaningsih, and et al.
2022. Traditional Subsistence Farming of Smallholder Agroforestry Systems in Indonesia:
A Review. Sustainability 14: 8631. [CrossRef]
Altieri, Miguel A., Clara I. Nicholls, Alejandro Henao, and Marcos A. Lana. 2015. Agroecology
and the Design of Climate Change-Resilient Farming Systems. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 35: 869–90. [CrossRef]
Ansar, Muhammad, and Fathurrahman. 2018. Sustainable integrated farming system: A
solution for national food security and sovereignty. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 157: 012061. [CrossRef]
Atapattu, Anjana J., Sumith H. S. Senarathne, Thilina Raveendra, Chaminda Egodawatte, and
Sylvanus. Mensah. 2017. Effect of Short-Term Agroforestry Systems on Soil Quality in
Marginal Coconut Lands in Sri Lanka. Agricultural Research Journal 54: 324. [CrossRef]
Behera, Umakanta, and James France. 2016. Integrated Farming Systems and the Livelihood
Security of Small and Marginal Farmers in India and Other Developing Countries.
Advances in Agronomy 138: 235–82. [CrossRef]
Beveridge, Fernanda Caro, Sundaravelpandian Kalaipandian, Chongxi Yang, and Steve
W. Adkins. 2022. Fruit Biology of Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.). Plants 11: 3293. [CrossRef]
CBSL. 2021. Central Bank Annual Report Data. Ministry of finance. Colombo. Available
online: https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/publications/
annual_report/2021/en/Full_Text_Volume_I.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2023).
Dawid Mume, Ibsa, and Sisay Workalemahu. 2021. Review on Windbreaks Agroforestry as a
Climate Smart Agriculture Practices. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 9: 342.
[CrossRef]
209
DCS. 2021. Department of Census and Statistics Sri Lanka Annual Report Data. Ministry
of Finance. Colombo. Available online: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Agriculture/
StaticalInformation/rub4 (accessed on 8 August 2023).
Devendra, Canagasaby. 2007. Perspectives on Animal Production Systems in Asia. Livestock
Science 106: 1–18. [CrossRef]
Devendra, Canagasaby, and Charan Chantalakhana. 2002. Animals, Poor People and Food
Insecurity: Opportunities for Improved Livelihoods through Efficient Natural Resource
Management. Outlook on Agriculture 31: 161–75. [CrossRef]
Devendra, Canagasaby, and Ronald Alfred Leng. 2011. Feed Resources for Animals in Asia:
Issues, Strategies for Use, Intensification and Integration for Increased Productivity.
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 24: 303–21. [CrossRef]
Dissanayaka, Nuwandhya S., Lakmini Dissanayake, Shashi S. Udumann, Tharindu
D. Nuwarapaksha, and Anjana J. Atapattu. 2023. Agroforestry a Key Tool in the
Climate-Smart Agriculture Context: A Review on Coconut Cultivation in Sri Lanka.
Frontiers in Agronomy 5: 1162750. [CrossRef]
Esham, Mohamed, and A. W. Wijeratne. 2021. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment for
Resilience Building in the Colombo City Region Food System (CRFS). Sustainability and
Climate Change Education in Sri Lanka for Systems Change and Futures Literacy View
Project PACSA: Phosphorus and Climate Smart Agriculture View Project. Available
online: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/faoweb/ffc/docs/Climate%
2520Resilient%2520CRFS%2520in-depth%2520assessment_IWMI.pdf (accessed on
20 July 2023).
Feintrenie, Laurène, Frank Enjalric, and Jean Ollivier. 2015. Coconut and Cocoa-Based
Agroforestry Systems in Vanuatu: A Diversification Strategy in Tune with the Farmers’
Life Cycle. In Economics and Ecology of Diversification. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 283–95.
[CrossRef]
Franzel, Steven, Sammy Carsan, Ben Lukuyu, Judith Sinja, and Charles Wambugu. 2014.
Fodder Trees for Improving Livestock Productivity and Smallholder Livelihoods in
Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 98–103. [CrossRef]
Gautam, Madan K., Donald J. Mead, Peter W. Clinton, and Scott X. Chang. 2003. Biomass
and Morphology of Pinus Radiata Coarse Root Components in a Sub-Humid Temperate
Silvopastoral System. Forest Ecology and Management 177: 387–97. [CrossRef]
Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica, Paul Burgess, Jaconette Mirck, Anastasia Pantera, and
Tobias Plieninger. 2018. Scanning Agroforestry-Based Solutions for Climate Change
Mitigation and Adaptation in Europe. Environmental Science and Policy 80: 44–52. [CrossRef]
Hilimire, Kathleen. 2011. Integrated Crop/Livestock Agriculture in the United States: A
Review. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35: 376–93. [CrossRef]
210
Ibrahim, M. N. M., and T. N. Jayatileka. 2000. Livestock Production under Coconut Plantations
in Sri Lanka: Cattle and Buffalo Production Systems. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal
Sciences 13: 60–67. [CrossRef]
Jose, Shibu. 2009. Agroforestry for Ecosystem Services and Environmental Benefits: An
Overview. Agroforestry Systems 76: 1–10. [CrossRef]
Kaplinsky, Raphael, and Mike Morris. 2018. Standards, Regulation and Sustainable
Development in a Global Value Chain Driven World. International Journal of Technological
Learning, Innovation and Development 10: 322. [CrossRef]
Kreitzman, Maayan, Mollie Chapman, Keefe O. Keeley, and Kai M. A. Chan. 2022. Local
Knowledge and Relational Values of Midwestern Woody Perennial Polyculture Farmers
Can Inform Tree-crop Policies. People and Nature 4: 180–200. [CrossRef]
Kumar, B. Mohan, and T. K. Kunhamu. 2022. Nature-Based Solutions in Agriculture: A Review
of the Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.)-Based Farming Systems in Kerala, ‘the Land of Coconut
Trees. Nature-Based Solutions 2: 100012. [CrossRef]
Leakey, Roger R. B. 2017. Definition of Agroforestry Revisited. In Multifunctional Agriculture 8:
5–6. [CrossRef]
Lehmann, Johannes, Deborah A. Bossio, Ingrid Kögel-Knabner, and Matthias C. Rillig. 2020.
The Concept and Future Prospects of Soil Health. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment
1: 544–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McElwee, Pamela, Katherine Calvin, Donovan Campbell, Francesco Cherubini,
Giacomo Grassi, Vladimir Korotkov, Anh Le Hoang, Shuaib Lwasa, Johnson Nkem,
Ephraim Nkonya, and et al. 2020. The impact of interventions in the global land
and agri-food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Global Change Biology 26: 4691–721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mizik, Tamás. 2021. Climate-Smart Agriculture on Small-Scale Farms: A Systematic Literature
Review. Agronomy 11: 1096. [CrossRef]
Nair, Kodoth Prabhakaran. 2021. Technological Advancements in Coconut, Arecanut and
Cocoa Research: A Century of Service to the Global Farming Community by the Central
Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasaragod, Kerala State, India. In Tree Crops. Cham:
Springer International Publishing, pp. 377–536. [CrossRef]
Nair, P. K. Ramachandran, B. Mohan Kumar, and S. Naresh Kumar. 2018. Climate Change,
Carbon Sequestration, and Coconut-Based Ecosystems. The Coconut Palm (Cocos nucifera
L.)-Research and Development Perspectives, 779–799. [CrossRef]
Nicholls, Clara I., and Miguel A. Altieri. 2013. Plant Biodiversity Enhances Bees and Other
Insect Pollinators in Agroecosystems. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33:
211
Nuwarapaksha, Tharindu D., Shashi S. Udumann, Nuwandhya S. Dissanayaka,
Lakmini Dissanayake, and Anjana J. Atapattu. 2022. Coconut Based Multiple Cropping
Systems: An Analytical Review in Sri Lankan Coconut Cultivations. Circular Agricultural
Systems 2: 1–7. [CrossRef]
Nuwarapaksha, Tharindu D., Udaya N. Rajapaksha, Jayampathi Ekanayake, Senal
A. Weerasooriya, and Anjana J. Atapattu. 2023a. Exploring the Economic Viability
of Integrating Jamnapari Goat into Underutilized Pastures under Coconut Cultivations in
Coconut Research Institute, Sri Lanka. Biology and Life Sciences Forum 27: 27. [CrossRef]
Nuwarapaksha, Tharindu D., Nuwandhya S. Dissanayaka, Shashi S. Udumann, and Anjana
J. Atapattu. 2023b. Gliricidia as a Beneficial Crop in Resource-Limiting Agroforestry
Systems in Sri Lanka. Indian Journal of Agroforestry 25: 12–18.
Paramesh, Venkatesh, Natesan Ravisankar, UmaKant Behera, Vadivel Arunachalam,
Parveen Kumar, Racharla Solomon Rajkumar, Shiva Dhar Misra, Revappa Mohan Kumar,
A. K. Prusty, D. Jacob, and et al. 2022. Integrated Farming System Approaches to Achieve
Food and Nutritional Security for Enhancing Profitability, Employment, and Climate
Resilience in India. Food and Energy Security 11: 321. [CrossRef]
Perera, Buthgamu M. A. O., and Marshall C. N. Jayasuriya. 2008. The Dairy Industry in Sri
Lanka: Current Status and Future Directions for a Greater Role in National Development.
Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka 36: 115. [CrossRef]
Ramachandran Nair, P. K., Vimala D. Nair, B. Mohan Kumar, and Julia M. Showalter. 2010.
Carbon Sequestration in Agroforestry Systems. Advances in Agronomy 108: 237–307.
[CrossRef]
Raveendra, Thilina, Sarath P. Nissanka, Deepakrishna Somasundaram, Anjana J. Atapattu,
and Sylvanus Mensah. 2021. Coconut-Gliricidia Mixed Cropping Systems Improve
Soil Nutrients in Dry and Wet Regions of Sri Lanka. Agroforestry Systems 95: 307–19.
[CrossRef]
Raveendra, Thilina, Anjana J. Atapattu, Sumith H. S. Senarathne, C. S. Ranasinghe, and
Lasantha Weerasinghe. 2017. Evaluation of the Carbon Sequestration Potential of
Intercropping Systems under Coconut in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Geology, Earth
and Environmental Sciences 7: 1–7.
Rout, Pramod Kumar, and Basanta Kumara Behera. 2021. Cattle and Buffaloes Farming. In
Sustainability in Ruminant Livestock. Singapore: Springer, pp. 77–115. [CrossRef]
Ruba, Umama Begum, and Mohammad Samiul Ahsan Talucder. 2023. Potentiality of
homestead agroforestry for achieving sustainable development goals: Bangladesh
perspectives. Heliyon 9: e14541. [CrossRef]
Samarajeewa, A. D., J. B. Schiere, M. N. M. Ibrahim, and Theo Viets. 2003. Livestock Farming
in Coconut Plantations in Sri Lanka: Constraints and Opportunities. Biological Agriculture
and Horticulture 21: 293–308. [CrossRef]
212
Sekaran, Udayakumar, Liming Lai, David A. N. Ussiri, Sandeep Kumar, and Sharon Clay. 2021. Role
of Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems in Improving Agriculture Production and Addressing
Food Security—A Review. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 5: 100190. [CrossRef]
Seresinhe, Thakshala, and I. W. A. S. Sujani. 2016. Productivity Enhancement in
a Cattle-Coconut Integrated System-Implications for Environmental Sustainability.
Paper presented at the International Seminar on Livestock Production and Veterinary
Technology, Jalan Raya Pajajaran Bogor, Indonesia, August 10–12; pp. 127–31. [CrossRef]
Sharma, Rashmitha, Usha Mina, and B. Mohan Kumar. 2022. Homegarden agroforestry
systems in achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. A review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Developmen 42: 44. [CrossRef]
Soler, Rosina, Pablo Luis Peri, Héctor Bahamonde, Verónica Gargaglione, Sebastián Ormaechea,
Alejandro Huertas Herrera, Laura Sánchez Jardón, Cristian Lorenzo, and Guillermo
Martínez Pastur. 2018. Assessing Knowledge Production for Agrosilvopastoral Systems
in South America. Rangeland Ecology and Management 71: 637–45. [CrossRef]
Surendra, K. C., Devin Takara, Andrew G. Hashimoto, and Samir Kumar Khanal. 2014. Biogas
as a Sustainable Energy Source for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31: 846–59. [CrossRef]
Thornton, Philip K., and Mario Herrero. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation in Mixed
Crop–Livestock Systems in Developing Countries. Global Food Security 3: 99–107.
[CrossRef]
Utomo, Budi, Adi A. Prawoto, Sébastien Bonnet, Athikom Bangviwat, and Shabbir
H. Gheewala. 2016. Environmental Performance of Cocoa Production from Monoculture
and Agroforestry Systems in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production 134: 583–91.
[CrossRef]
Weerasinghe, Piyatilak. 2019. Livestock Feeds and Feeding Practices in Sri Lanka In Vitro and
In Vivo Screening of Newly Introduced Forages for Sustainable Intensification of Dairy
Production in the Context of Climate Change View Project Livestock Feeds and Feeding
Practices in Sri Lanka. pp. 186–206. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/337971752 (accessed on 22 July 2023).
Wulandari, Sri Yulina. 2021. Bioentrepreneurship Approach as a Pillar to Accelerate
the Integrated Farming System Implementation. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 733: 012107. [CrossRef]
Zoysa, Mangala De, and Makoto Inoue. 2014. Climate Change Impacts, Agroforestry
Adaptation and Policy Environment in Sri Lanka. Open Journal of Forestry 4: 439–56.
[CrossRef]
213
Approaches to Limiting Food Loss and
Food Waste
Ioana Mihaela Balan, Teodor Ioan Trasca, Ioan Brad, Nastasia Belc,
Camelia Tulcan, Bogdan Petru Radoi and Alexandru Erne Rinovetz
1. Introduction—Why and How Are the Quantities of Food Intended for Human
Consumption Reduced?
Dynamics of food security have evolved over time, being influenced by
demographic, economic, political, and technological changes. In general, the
pre-industrial period was characterized by limited food security, with low
agricultural production and high dependence on weather conditions (FAO et al.
2020, 2021; Pingali 2006).
With the development of agriculture and technology during the Industrial
Revolution, food production increased significantly and food security began to
improve. However, since the 20th century, climate change, population growth,
and increased urbanization have brought new challenges to food security. In the
1960s and 1970s, the Green Revolution introduced new agricultural technologies,
such as the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, to increase food production in
developing countries. This revolution has brought about a significant improvement
in food security in many countries. However, in recent decades, food security has
become increasingly threatened by climate change, rising food prices, food loss and
food waste, poverty, and conflict. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought
new challenges to food security by disrupting food supply chains and increasing
food prices. Currently, there is an increased need to address these challenges and
develop sustainable solutions to ensure food security for all people (FAO et al. 2020;
Godfray et al. 2010; Hoddinott and Haddad 1995; Parfitt et al. 2010; Pingali 2006).
According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2021 report, in 2020, approximately 768 million
people worldwide were severely food insecure, representing approximately 9.9% of
the global population. People experiencing food insecurity are found in all regions of
the world, but most are in poor or developing countries. According to FAO data, the
highest rates of food insecurity are in sub-Saharan Africa, where about a fifth of the
population faces the problem, followed by South Asia (about 14%) and Caribbean and
Central America (about 7.6%) (FAO et al. 2020, 2021; Boyd et al. 2019; UN WFP 2023).
215
The World Food Programme (WFP) showed in 2020 that, of all food produced for
human consumption globally, a third is lost or wasted. In 2020, this represented 1.3
billion tons of food loss and food waste, which cost over USD 1 trillion. Moreover, all
of this food which was produced but never eaten would have been more than enough
to feed two billion people. This is more than twice the number of undernourished and
malnourished people on the entire planet. Every year, the population of developed
countries wastes almost as much food as the entire net annual food production of
sub-Saharan Africa. However, in low-income and developing countries, 40% of
food loss occurs at the post-harvest/slaughter/catch and processing levels. From
an environmental impact perspective, looking cumulatively at what global food
loss and food waste mean in relation to environmental impact, if the total of these
quantities were a country, this country would be the third largest producer of carbon
dioxide in the world, after the USA and China (UN WFP 2023).
The world is facing many interconnected crises. The triple planetary crisis of
climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste is accelerating
(United Nations Climate Change 2022). Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine and other
protracted conflicts are raising the prices of staple grains and threatening food
security in many countries. These crises undermine efforts to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals (Ben Hassen and El Bilali 2022).
A shocking amount of food loss and food waste contributes to these crises, year
after year. Even if estimates of their level differ from one source to another, due to the
difficulties in collecting data from underdeveloped countries and some developing
countries, categorically these quantities are enormous and worrying, especially in terms
of their dynamics from one year to another. UNEP and FAO estimated in 2022 that 14%
of the total food produced for human consumption is lost, while 17% is wasted. In the
same report, UNEP and FAO noted in 2022 that food loss and food waste is sufficient
to feed more than one billion people in a world where currently 828 million people are
hungry and three billion cannot afford a healthy diet (FAO et al. 2022).
The link between food loss and food waste in terms of food security is an
issue widely debated and analyzed by all international organizations dealing with
food security concerns. The peculiarities of food systems in different countries
and geographical areas determine the level of food loss and food waste, in the
sense that they differ primarily according to the economic conditions of the country,
geographical area, and a number of other factors which refer to the respective states
(political, social conditions, presence of natural disasters, epidemics, etc.).
On the other hand, problems of food waste and food loss often present together,
which can generate confusion and implicitly incorrect results of analyses and studies.
216
This is why it is necessary that presentation and analysis of current situations
and intervention measures to reduce food loss and waste be treated separately,
because these two categories, both of which can reduce the amount of food available
for consumption, have different causes and implicitly different solutions. Thus,
approaches to food loss and food waste must be different.
The situation can be clarified by a simple analysis of the presence of food loss
and food waste along the food chain, in different food systems, depending on the
particularities of states. If food loss prevails in underdeveloped countries, it manifests
itself in the first stages of the food chain. If food waste prevails in developed countries,
it manifests itself in the last stages of the food chain (UN WFP 2021) (Figure 1).
Food waste is Food loss is

more prevalent. more prevalent.
Obvious when edible Obvious when food
food is discarded is damaged or
prematurely or destroyed before the
unnecessarily. consumer can eat it.
in high-income contries in low-income contries
Figure 1. Prevalence of food loss and food waste by geographic area. Source:
Authors’ interpretation of UN WFP (2021).
The aims of the study on food loss and waste presented in this chapter have
important meanings. First of all, it has the role of highlighting and quantifying the
extent of the problem. By identifying the amount of food that is lost or wasted and by
understanding the causes and mechanisms involved, a clear global picture of impact
on the environment, economy, and society can be achieved (Morone et al. 2019b).
Another aim is to identify and assess factors that contribute to food waste, such
as consumption habits, infrastructure, distribution systems, and specific policies.
This understanding is crucial to develop effective strategies and solutions to reduce
food waste. This study can provide recommendations and guidelines for authorities,
companies, organizations, and consumers to help them adopt sustainable practices
and promote effective food management.
The significance of this study consists of multiple aspects. First, reducing food
waste and loss has a direct impact on global food security. By using food resources
more efficiently, we can ensure that food is available for all and reduce pressure on
the environment and agricultural systems.
217
Additionally, the study of food waste has important economic implications.
Food loss and waste is a direct waste of resources, capital, and labor. By reducing
them, we can increase economic efficiency and generate a more circular and
sustainable economy (Morone et al. 2018).
Finally, the study of food loss and waste also has an ethical dimension. With
approximately one-third of the world’s food production being lost or wasted while
millions of people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, it is essential to address this
issue and for the population to take responsibility for using food resources wisely, in
a fairer and more sustainable way.
Thus, the ultimate goal of this chapter is to promote a more sustainable,
equitable, and efficient food system that ensures adequate nutrition for all, protects
the environment, and contributes to sustainable economic and social development.
2. Materials and Methods

In this book chapter, we used an interdisciplinary approach, addressing the topic
of food loss and food waste from multiple perspectives, including economic, scientific,
and cultural–religious. This interdisciplinary approach and analysis of specialized
literature in the field of food loss and waste represents useful academic research
tools for examining complex topics and providing a comprehensive perspective of
food security.
The materials accessed in this book chapter consist of relevant and credible
studies, articles, and data collections. The research methods were the analysis of
external secondary and tertiary data, collected by accessing scientific databases
such as Web of Science, Publons, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar, as well as
data provided by international organizations such as the United Nations, Food and
Agriculture Organization, World Food Program, International Fund for Agricultural
Development, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, World Bank,
Our World in Data and other relevant organizations, the main websites of religious
denominations, and religious texts in electronic or printed format. Additionally,
the collected data and studies of the authors were accessed, reinterpreted and
corroborated, as were the results of our own published research, which were
published in scientific journals. All these data were analyzed, compared, and
discussed in order to synthesize as faithfully as possible the approaches to limiting
food loss and food waste.
218
3. Food Loss—Concept, Typology, Current Situation Worldwide
Food loss occurs when food inevitably becomes unfit for human consumption
before people can eat it. The prevalence is higher in lower-income countries due
to specific factors, when food is damaged or destroyed unintentionally by pests or
mold (UN WFP 2021).
In low-income countries, food waste is low, and food loss predominates. In these
countries, the population has a low income, limited access to food and other resources,
and cannot afford to waste food. However, the lack of adequate infrastructure for
food production and quality generates food loss in the first stages of the food chain,
which subsequently generates situations of food insecurity. Although the situation is
as serious as that of food waste, with percentages being comparable, the difference
is the nature of the causes. In the case of food waste, this is generally a voluntary
expression of the consumer; in the case of food loss, there is an involuntary character,
which cannot be controlled, more and more often, due to lack of material resources,
which reduces the ability to protect food production.
In terms of relation to the food chain, food loss is manifested in the first
stages, namely in the agricultural production phase, storage phase, and then in
food processing phase, as well as in the distribution phase (Figure 2).
Agricultural Production Storage Processing Distribution Retail and Food services Household Consumtion
Food Loss Food Waste
Figure 2. Prevalence of food loss and food waste in the food chain. Source: Authors’
interpretation of FAO (2011a, 2011b).
Unlike food loss, which has involuntary human causes, food waste manifests
itself in the last stages of the food chain as a voluntary attitude, namely in the
retail trade and food service phase as well as in the food consumption phase at
the household level. By exception, the retail phase may exhibit both forms of food
reduction, namely food loss and food waste. This is due, in terms of food loss, to
improper food display and marketing conditions. On the other hand, food waste
can manifest itself in this retail phase of the food chain as a result of the aesthetic
demands of consumers. Thus, various foods such as fruits or vegetables remain in
219
grocery stores or agro-food markets due to aesthetic defects that have nothing to do
with their nutritional value.
In low-income countries, and sometimes not only in these countries, food can
be lost as a result of the harvesting process taking place prematurely. Farmers with
low incomes sometimes harvest crops too early, and the motivation is given by food
deficiency or acute need for money, from the second half of the agricultural season.
In this way, food loses its nutritional and economic value and can often be wasted if
it is not suitable for consumption (FAO 2011a, 2011b).
Poor storage facilities and a lack of infrastructure cause post-harvest/
slaughter/catch food loss in developing countries. Many farms in low-income
countries are not connected to electricity grids and have no other source of electricity,
so storage conditions (temperature, humidity) are unsuitable for storing and
preserving food. In addition, in many of these countries, the hot and humid climate
competes to create a storage environment that is difficult to ensure in the absence of
electricity sources. Fresh foods such as vegetables, fruits, meat, milk, eggs, and fish
directly from the farm or after catch can be damaged in hot and/or excessively humid
climates due to a lack of transport, storage, cooling infrastructure, and agri-food
markets (FAO 2011a, 2011b).
According to UN’s World Food Program USA (UN WFP 2021), causes of food
loss are diverse, but the most important are:
• Food lost before harvest due to drought or storms;

• Crops infested with insects, resulting from improper storage;
• Food spoiled during transport due to lack of refrigeration.
As for the post-harvest/slaughter/catch loss, they vary according to their

category (Table 1).
Table 1. Share of food loss in post-harvest/slaughter/catch processes.
Type of Food % of Loss

Cereals and pulses 8.6%
Fruits and vegetables 21.6%
Meat and animal products 11.9%
Other 10.1%
Roots and tubers 25.3%
Source: FAO (2019).
220
Use of cold technologies in the development of agricultural supply chains for meat,
dairy products, fish, and vegetable products began in the early 1950s with the growth
of the mechanical refrigeration industry. However, cold chains are still very limited
in most developing countries (Meat.Milk 2022). There are many technical, logistical,
and investment challenges as well as economic opportunities related to the use of cold
chain. The main segments of an integrated cold chain include (Meat.Milk 2022)
• Packaging and cooling of fresh food products;

• Food processing (i.e., freezing certain processed foods);
• Cold storage (short- or long-term storage of refrigerated or frozen food);
• Distribution (cold transport and temporary storage at controlled temperature);
• Merchandising (cold or freezer storage and displays in wholesale markets,
retail markets and food service operations).
Currently, a considerable part of this loss is caused by improper cold chain

processes and management. However, worldwide, about a third of fresh fruit and
vegetables are thrown away because their quality has fallen below an acceptable
limit, which is totally unacceptable. Much of this loss is related to incorrect handling
during supply chain processes. However, conceptually, the notion of “Expiry Date” is
outdated; it only refers to number of days a food product is of “acceptable quality” and
safe to eat, and these requirements depend on the conditions of optimum temperature
and transport (Jedermann et al. 2014). A better concept, however, would be that of
“First in—first out”, which was introduced in the late 1980s. The idea behind the
concept is to apply stock rotation so that each product’s remaining shelf life best
matches the remaining transport duration options, reducing product waste during
transport, and ensuring product consistency in the store (Jedermann et al. 2014).
Food quality variations and remaining shelf life are automatically calculated from
accumulated data on environmental conditions such as temperature variations and
shelf life, which are then used by warehouse management software to match shelf life
variation, stock rotation storage, routing and special handling. Unfortunately, due to a
lack of automatic data capture and shelf life calculation systems, this much more efficient
concept has found very few practical applications to date (Jedermann et al. 2014).
4. Food Waste—Concept, Typology, Current Situation Worldwide

In industrialized countries, food is lost when production exceeds demand.
To ensure the delivery of agreed quantities while anticipating bad weather or
unpredictable pest attacks, farmers sometimes make safe production plans and end
up producing larger quantities than needed, even when conditions are “average”. If
they produced more than needed, some surplus crops are sold to processors or as
221
animal feed. However, this is often not financially viable given the lower prices in
these sectors compared to retailers (FAO 2011a, 2011b).
Globally, about 14% of food produced is lost between harvest and retail, while
an estimated 17% of total global food production is wasted: 11% in households, 5%
in food services, and 2% in retail (United Nations 2022). However, the forms of
food waste can be diverse if also analyzed from the perspective of the consumer.
Thus, metabolic food waste is a real form of food waste, characterized by an
overconsumption of food. Metabolic food waste has the same characteristics as
any other form of food waste, i.e., it wastes food without needing to, thus reducing
the amount of food that could be effectively consumed (Balan et al. 2022a).
On the other hand, unsafe food is not fit for human consumption and is therefore
wasted. Failure to meet minimum food safety standards can lead to food loss and, in
extreme cases, impact a country’s food security status. A number of factors can lead
to food insecurity, such as naturally occurring toxins in food, contaminated water,
unsafe use of pesticides, and veterinary drug residues. Poor and unsanitary handling
and storage conditions and a lack of adequate temperature control can also cause
unsafe food (Toma et al. 2020).
Whether real or just perceived, food safety is one of the most important reasons
for food waste, throughout the agri-food supply chain. On-farm food safety risks
such as mycotoxin contamination of feed, overuse of antimicrobials in animal
disease control, and the incursion of zoonotic diseases can lead to food unfit for
human consumption and thus waste. Given the importance of food safety as one
of the most important attributes of all food, proper risk management along the
supply chain can help reduce food loss and waste. Therefore, there is a need to
improve the coordination between food waste and food safety policies. This new
approach to coordination must necessarily involve balancing scientific evidence and
the precautionary principle. At the same time, it is necessary to review current
regulations on food safety to identify those areas that generate waste that can
be avoided. There is also a need for hazard monitoring combined with waste
monitoring along the entire agri-food chain, followed by the provision of tailored
and realistic information on the links between food safety and waste. Last but not
least, investments in high-performance technologies are needed to accurately assess
the degree of edibility of food. At the same time, increased attention is required
on food labeling and packaging policies and practices. In their absence, it cannot
be guaranteed that food labeling and packaging do not generate unintended and
unnecessary impacts on food safety and, by implication, food waste, which are not
justified by scientific evidence (Toma et al. 2020).
222
5. Distribution of Food Loss and Food Waste along the Food Chain and
Measures to Reduce Them
The prevalence of food loss and waste varies according to the stage of the food
chain. As shown above, in low-income countries, food loss in the early stages of the
food chain is greater than food waste in the later stages of the food chain. This is
diametrically opposite in high-income countries, where there is less food loss in the
early stages of the food chain and more food waste in the later stages of the food chain.
These variations directly depend on food systems and the level of technology, as well
as the demands and requirements of the consumer, compared to the global level.
5.1. Analyses of the Levels of Food Loss and Food Waste

The level of food loss and waste is analyzed in order to achieve SDGs, especially
SDG 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, Indicator 12.3.1:
(a) Food loss index and (b) food waste index. Globally, the situation of these two
indicators shows variations depending on a number of factors which are present in
different geographical areas (Our World in Data 2009) (Figure 3).
30 100%
10
90%
25
23 80%
70%
20
60%
15 14 14 50%
40%
10 9
30%
7
6
20%
5
10%
0 0%
IA SSEA EU NAO SSA NAWCA LA
Figure 3. Share of global food loss and waste by region. Source: Authors’
interpretation of Our World in Data (2009). Legend: IA—Industrialized Asia;
SSEA—South and Southeast Asia; EU—Europe; NAO—North America and
Oceania; SSA—Sub-Saharan Africa; NAWCA—North Africa, West, and Central
Asia; LA—Latin America.
It is noteworthy that over 50% of global food loss and waste is recorded in
Asia. This fact is due to the large population, but also to specific conditions along
the food chain. Europe and North America, together, present the same values as
223
industrialized Asia. This fact shows that, although they are countries with a high
level of industrialization, concerns and the effects of measures to reduce food loss
and food waste are low (Lin et al. 2014).
The level of food waste recorded in 2019, depending on the segments of the food
chain that involve retail and individual consumption, varies significantly depending
on country, although they are interpretable depending on data collection methods.
The global reported level of food loss and waste in retail varies between 3.12
and 78.82 kg/year/capita, with the highest values in Malaysia, and lowest in New
Zealand (Our World in Data 2019) (Figure 4).
Powered by Bing
c Australian Bureau of Statistics, GeoNames, Microsoft, Navinfo, OpenStreetMap, TomTom, Zenrin
3.12 40.97 78.82
Figure 4. The level of retail food waste. Source: Authors’ interpretation of Our
World in Data (2019).
Additionally, the global reported level of household food waste varied between
33.38 and 164.36 kg/year/capita, with the highest values in Rwanda, and the lowest
in Russia (Our World in Data 2019) (Figure 5).
The global level of out-of-home food waste varies between 3.34 and 89.56
kg/year/capita, with the highest values in Malaysia and the lowest in Bangladesh
(Our World in Data) (Figure 6).
224
Powered by Bing
33.38 111.09 188.8
Figure 5. The level of households food waste. Source: Authors’ interpretation of

Our World in Data (2019).
Powered by Bing
3.34 46.45 89.56
Figure 6. The level of out-of-home food waste. Source: Authors’ interpretation of

Our World in Data (2019).
225
The paradoxical situation of food consumption and waste is not only
characteristic to some specific countries, but is a problem faced by many countries
all over the world. Even in countries with high levels of food consumption, food
waste remains a major challenge. This phenomenon can be attributed to common
factors such as consumption habits, poor infrastructure, and insufficient education in
effective food management (Falcone and Imbert 2017; Garcia-Herrero et al. 2018; Lin
et al. 2014; Otles and Kartal 2018) (Box 1).
Box 1. The Paradox of Food Waste in Romania.
At the national level, Romania, located in Southeast Europe, can be considered a representative
example for the study of food loss and food waste, as well as for food security, due to the importance
of the agricultural sector in economy, food diversity and authenticity, consumption behavior,
infrastructure, and government policies. The study of these aspects can contribute to the development
of effective strategies and policies to reduce waste and improve food security not only in Romania, but
also globally. (Dumitru et al. 2021)
Romania is a country with an average level according to several criteria. From an economic point
of view, Romania has registered a significant growth in recent decades, but it is still in the process
of developing to reach the level of developed countries. Its GDP, although growing, is still below
the European average. However, Romania has considerable economic potential, with rich natural
resources and a skilled workforce, which can contribute to sustainable economic growth in the future.
The population of Romania is significant, being around 19 million inhabitants. Compared to other
European countries, Romania has a relatively low population density, which can provide opportunities
for development in certain areas. With a territorial area of approximately 238,397 square kilometers,
Romania ranks as one of the largest countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This territorial expansion
offers considerable potential for economic development and for geographical and cultural diversity.
(World Countries n.d.)
An important aspect which has to be considered when analyzing Romania as an average country
is food waste and loss. Romania faces challenges in efficient management of food resources and in
reducing waste. Despite being an agricultural country with significant food production, an important
part of this food is wasted before it reaches the final consumers. Efforts to reduce food loss and promote
the more efficient management of food resources represent important challenges for the Romanian
government and society as a whole. (Dumitru et al. 2021)
Romania has a strong agricultural tradition and rich natural resources, which makes it dependent
on the agricultural sector. A good part of the economy is based on agriculture and food production.
Thus, it is important to understand and analyze how production, distribution, and consumption
processes are carried out in order to identify areas where food loss and waste occur. On the other hand,
Romania enjoys a rich culinary diversity and a variety of traditional and local food products. This
provides opportunities to study how these products are preserved and promoted, but also risks losing
traditional knowledge and unique food resources. (IRCEM 2021)
Related to food consumption and behavior, the study of food waste and loss can also focus on
the consumption habits of the population. Romania is experiencing changes in lifestyle and food
preferences, and understanding how these influence the amount of wasted food can help to identify
effective strategies to reduce them.
226
In Romania, infrastructure and food distribution systems play an important role in food waste.
The study of Romania can highlight aspects related to storage, transport, and logistics, as well as how
they can be improved to reduce food loss and waste. (IRCEM 2021; FEBA and CHEP 2016)
Government policies and initiatives of the Romanian Government involve measures to address
the problem of food waste and loss. Policies and initiatives are implemented to promote food security,
reduce waste, and improve food resource management systems. A Romanian case study can assess the
effectiveness of these measures and provide examples and lessons for other countries. (Gheorghescu and
Balan 2019a) In this context, a study from 2019 highlights that approximately 33% of the Romanian
population spends 30–40% of their monthly income on food, while 29% of citizens allocate 20–30% of
their monthly income for this purpose. Despite this fact, over 50% of food waste and loss occurs at the
households level (Figure 7). (IRCEM 2021; Gheorghescu and Balan 2019b)
Romania faces a paradoxical situation in terms of food consumption and waste. Although the
population spends a significant proportion of their monthly income on food relative to their standard of
living, food waste remains a major problem. This can be attributed to several factors, including eating
habits, poor infrastructure, and lack of education on effective food management. (Gheorghescu and
Balan 2019a) One of the main reasons for the high food waste in Romania is related to consumption
habits and food preferences. Sometimes, people buy more food than they can eat and it ends up being
wasted. There is also a tendency to throw away food on its expiry date due to food safety concerns,
even though it could still be eaten. Analyzing from another perspective, enormous amounts of food are
wasted in Romania, and the population in a state of moderate and severe food insecurity has increased
in recent years (Figure 8). (World Food Programme–Hunger Map 2022)
Food processing, Food service,

19% 12%
Primary production,
Households, 53% 11% Retail, 5%
Figure 7. The distribution of food loss and food waste in the Romanian food chain.
Source: Authors’ interpretations of Gheorghescu and Balan (2019b).
In addition, poor infrastructure and an inefficient distribution system also contribute to food
waste. Sometimes food spoils before reaching consumers due to deficiencies in supply chain, storage,
or transportation. This leads to a loss of significant amounts of food, which could be avoided by better
developed infrastructure and more efficient distribution systems.
227
To combat food waste in Romania, an integrated and coordinated approach is needed, which
includes education and awareness among the population, improving infrastructure and distribution
systems, as well as promoting efficient food management practices throughout the supply chain.
Thus, Romania can reduce food loss and contribute to a more sustainable use of food resources,
bringing benefits to the environment, economy, and well-being of the population. (Chereji et al. 2023;
Gheorghescu and Balan 2019a)
25.00
19.30
20.00
16.60
16.30
15.00
14.70 14.50
13.90 13.40
10.00
5.00
0.00
2014–2016 2015–2017 2016–2018 2017–2019 2018–2020 2019–2021 2020–2022
Figure 8. Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population

in Romania (percent) (3-year average) Source: Authors’ interpretation of World
Food Programme–Hunger Map (2022).
5.2. Distribution of Food Loss and Food Waste along the Food Chain
Production: Global loss at this stage is estimated at 20–40%, with considerable
variation depending on the type of agricultural product. The main causes include
pest and disease infestation, adverse climatic conditions, poor crop management,
and deficiencies in infrastructure and logistics (FAO 2011a, 2011b).
Storage: Food loss at this stage can reach 10–20% globally. These are mainly due
to improper storage conditions, such as inadequate temperatures or humidity, pest
infestation, and improper handling of the product (FAO 2011a, 2011b).
Processing: Food loss at this stage varies with food product, but has been
estimated at 5–20% globally. This can be caused by product mishandling, damage
during transport, interruption of the cold chain, and improper storage (FAO 2011a,
2011b).
Distribution: Food loss at this stage is estimated at 10–15% globally, with
significant variations by region and product type. These losses can be caused by poor
transport and handling conditions, problems with infrastructure and logistics, and
problems with documentation and import/export formalities (FAO 2011a, 2011b).
228
Retail and food services: This stage can be responsible for food loss of up to
5–10% globally, but also for food waste due to excess packaging, unsold products
or products that expire on the shelf. Uneven marketing of products can also be a
problem, leading to oversupply or undersupply. In food service, food waste can
be caused by too-large portions or a failure to recover leftover food (FAO 2019).
Food loss can occur at this stage due to product degradation during handling and
transport, but also the withdrawal from sale of products that are no longer fresh or
past their expiry date. There is also food waste due to unsold products or those that
are thrown away for other reasons.
Household: According to the FAO, around 40% of global food waste occurs at
the household level (FAO 2019). This includes food that is thrown away or that is
damaged and thrown away, as well as food that is eaten as leftovers or leftover food
that is thrown away.
This finding is confirmed by several studies and reports from around the
world. For example, a study by the UK’s Waste and Resources Action Program
(WRAP) found that around 70% of food thrown away in the UK comes from
households (WRAP 2021). Another study in Ontario, Canada, found that households
are responsible for about 47% of all food waste in that region (Parfitt et al. 2010).
In general, household food waste can have many causes, such as overbuying
food, improper food storage, past expiration dates, or preparing too much food. For
this reason, taking steps to reduce food waste at household level can be a key point
in waste reduction efforts. It is important to note that these figures are only estimates
and food waste can be difficult to measure accurately in some regions.
The enormous amounts of food that are lost and wasted have prompted
international organizations to try to reduce them for several years. Thus, numerous
studies have been developed through which different key measures, as well as
complementary measures, have been identified in order to reduce them. As we have
shown before, the problem of humanity today is not the lack of food resources, but
precisely the problem of food that, although it was intended for human consumption,
never ends up being consumed (Falcone and Imbert 2017; Gheorghescu and Balan
2019a; Morone et al. 2019a, 2019b; Otles and Kartal 2018).
5.3. Measures to Reduce Food Loss and Food Waste along the Food Chain
Related to the food chain, these key measures and complementary measures
can be synthesized according to the stage in which they take place. (FAO 2019; Parfitt
et al. 2010; O’Donnell et al. 2015; Balan et al. 2022b; Meat.Milk 2022) (Figure 9).
229
Production
Key measures Implementing food quality and safety management systems - to monitor and control all stages of food production.
Food processing technologies - to reduce food loss by improving process efficiency and decreasing production time
food.
Efficient supply chain management - to reduce food waste by eliminating unnecessary storage and decreasing
transport and storage time.
Using co-products and food waste - to produce other food products or provide nutrients for animals.
Complementary measures Employee education and training - staff in the food industry can receive education and training.
Data monitoring and analysis - to identify areas where losses occur and develop solutions for their reduce.
Collaboration between different sectors involved - collaboration between producers processors, distributors and
traders to more efficient supply chain management, and reduced food loss.
Using appropriate packaging and labeling - to prevent food loss by protecting food from spoilage and ensuring
effective expiry date management.
Storage
Key measures Temperature and humidity control during storage - to prevent food spoilage.
Using appropriate packaging and labeling - to prevent contamination and identify expired or about-to-expire food.
Frequent monitoring of stored food - to prevent spoilage and expiration.
lmplementing storage management systems such as FIFO (First-In, First-Out) and FEFO (First-Expired, First-Out) -
to ensure stock rotation and avoid food expiration.
Complementary measures Using sealing and air quality control technologies - to reduce losses due to changes in temperature and humidity.
Using appropriate storage and handling equipment - to reduce spoilage and risk of food contamination.
Implementing real-time temperature and humidity monitoring systems - to quickly detect of storage problems and
taking corrective action.
Implementing food waste reduction policies - to encourage donation or recovery of food that is about to expire or
cannot normally be sold.
Using temperature and humidity monitoring systems - to ensure optimal storage conditions and prevent food
spoilage.
Quick identification and disposal of damaged or spoiled food - to prevent spread of damage to other food.
Ensuring adequate air circulation in warehouses - to prevent the accumulation of heat and humidity that can lead
to food spoilage.
Regular sanitization of warehouses and storage equipment - to prevent contamination with microorganisms or
other pathogens.
Improving and modernizing warehouse infrastructure, such as installing tight doors and windows - to reduce energy
losses and maintain a constant and appropriate temperature in warehouse.
Using durable and high-quality packaging and palletizing materials - to prevent food damage during handling and
Processing transportation.
Key measures Optimization of production processes - improving efficiency and performance of production equipment and
processes to reduce loss of raw materials and final products.
Implementing preservation technologies - modern preservation technologies, such as packaging, preservation
pasteurization, freeze-drying, sterilization and drying contribute to extend shelf life of food products and to reduce
loss due to spoilage.
Increasing deree of automation - automating manufacturing processes can reduce human error and optimize
process efficiency thus reducing waste.
Implementing risk management policies and strategies - to prevent, manage and minimize risks, such as identifying
and eliminating critical control points, in order to reduce losses and contamination risks.
Complementary measures Promoting education and awareness - education and awareness of importance of food loss reduction to improve
loss management practices at all stages of food chain.
lmproving infrastructure, such as upgrading warehouses and transport systems - to reduce loss due to damage
and damage and degradation.
Promoting use of non-conforming products, such as imperfect food products - to reduce food loss, as these products
Distribution can be used in other production processes.
Key measures Ulsing high-quality seeds and advanced agricultural technologies - to reduce crop loss and increase crop yields.
Using efficient and economical irrigation systems - to reduce water loss and improve soil quality.
Implementing efective inventory management of agricultural products - to minimize product loss due to improper
storage and processing processes.
Developing partnerships wih smallholder farmers - to increase education and improve crop management practices.
Using advanced technologies and machinery for harvesting agricultural crops - to minimize product loss.
Developing organic material recycling systems - to reduce product loss by turning them into organic fertilizers.
Complementary measures Improving agricultural practices by using organic fertilizers and natural pesticides - to reduce loss do to
plantinfections and diseases.
Implementing protection measures against wild animals and pests - to minimize loss of agricultura crops.
Using sustainable agricultural practices, such as crop rotation and use of companion plants -to improve soil health
and increase crop yields.
Increasing crop diversity - to reduce risk of loss if one of the crops is affected by a problem.
Increasing farmer education and training on crop management practices - to reduce produce loss.
Figure 9. Cont.
230
Retail
Key measures Encouraging sale offood in bulk - to reduce use of packaging.

Promoting sale of food with a longer shelf life - to more distant expiry dates.
Developing awareness and education campaigns - to inform consumers about negative impact of food waste and
importance to choose sustainable food.
Promoting use of advanced technologies, such as mobile applications or artificial intelligence systems - to help
consumers to buy right amounts of food and to avoid food waste.
Developing and implementing stock management plans and food monitoring at store and restaurant level - to
reduce excess stock and avoid expired food.
Improving logistics and delivery systems - to reduce exposure time and avoid food spoilage.
Promoting foods with a short shelf life and use clear, easy-to-read labels - to help consumers to take informed
decisions about buying and eating food.
Implementing effective inventory management and demand forecasting systems - to reduce risk of excess or
shortage of stock.
Proper and accurate labeling of food products - to prevent their expiration or confusion about use-by date.
Implementing policies to reduce food prices close to use-by date - to reduce risk of over-storage or lost sales.
Taking measures to prevent food theft and destruction.
Complementary measures Educate and train employees on inventory management and sustainable food practices - to increase awareness
and reduce food loss and waste.
Cooperation between stores and non-governmental organizations -to donate unsold food to charity or to use food
for non-food purposes, such as production of biofuel or fertilizer.
Encouraging consumers to plan their shopping and buy smaller quantities of food through awareness and
education campaigns.
Promoting organic, local and seasonal food products - to reduce transport costs and encourage sale of fresh
products.
Encouraging cooperation between grocery stores and charities - to donate unsold or nearly used food to
disadvantaged people or social aid organizations
lmproving consumer food education - to a better information and decisions what and how much food to buy and
Food services eat.
Key measures Planning production and purchases based on actual needs and past sales data - to stop overproduction and
unnecessary food purchases.
Proper inventory management and product rotation - to prevent expiration.
Monitoring temperature and storage conditions - to prevent food spoilage and expiration.
Promoting sale of surplus and leftover food through mobile apps, special offers or other marketing strategies - to
minimize waste.
Donating surplus food to non-governmental organizations, food banks or other charities.
Complementary measures Staff training on stock management, food storage and handling.
Using adequate cooking techniques which maximize use of food and remove edible parts.
Adopting sustainable and recyclable food and beverages packaging.
Household consumption Implementing food waste composting system - to reduce amount of waste that ends up in landfills.
Key measures Planning food purchases and menus - to avoid buying and cooking excess food.
Storing food properly - to keep it fresh and reduce waste.
Total use of food, including leftovers and opt for small portions.
Recycling and composting of leftovers.
Reducing amount of food consumed through smaller portions and/or sharing meal with other family members.
Promoting a healthier diet by reducing consumption of processed and packagedf ood.
Complementary measures Educating consumers about reducing food waste through educational programs and public campaigns.
Encouraging consumers to buy imperfect but edible food and/or food products close to their expiry date to avoid
waste.
Promoting collaboration between households to share food that cannot be fully consumed.
Encouraging donation of surplus food to non-profit organizations such as food banks and to vulnerable people.
Using smart technologies to monitor food stocks and consumption data - to prevent waste.
Figure 9. Key measures and complementary measures to reduce food loss and food
waste along the food chain. Source: (FAO 2019; Parfitt et al. 2010; O’Donnell et al.
2015; Balan et al. 2022b; Meat.Milk 2022).
6. The Impact of Food Loss and Food Waste on the Environment

The further along the chain that food loss occurs, the more carbon-intensive
the waste. For example, fruit and vegetables spoiled at the harvest stage will have a
231
lower carbon footprint than jams or canned vegetables wasted at retail store, because
harvesting, transport, and processing accumulate additional greenhouse gases along
the supply chain (FAO 2011a, 2011b).
The environmental impact of food loss and waste can be quite significant and
can have long-term negative effects on our planet. Here are some concrete examples:
(Lipinski et al. 2013; FAO 2019; Kummu et al. 2012; Parfitt et al. 2010)
Greenhouse effect: When food is thrown away and decomposes, it releases
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. These
gases contribute to global warming and climate change.
Energy and water consumption: Producing food requires a significant amount of
energy and water, and when food is thrown away, that energy and water is wasted. In
addition, the food production process can deplete natural resources such as soil and water.
Land development and deforestation: To produce food, land must be cultivated
and maintained, which can lead to deforestation and overdevelopment of agricultural
land. This can lead to the loss of natural habitats for animals and plants, as well as
soil and water pollution.
On global average, the per capita climate footprint of food waste in high-income
countries is more than double that of low-income countries, due to wasteful food
distribution and consumption patterns in high-income countries (Table 2) (FAO et al.
2020).
Table 2. Per capita food wastage CO2 footprint on climate.
Regions kg CO2 /Capita/Year

North America and Oceania 860
Industrialized Asia 810
Europe 680
Latin America 540
North Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, South and
350
Southeast Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa 210
Source: FAO et al. (2020).
As previously shown, if food waste were analyzed as a country, this country

would be the third largest emitter of CO2 in the world, after China and the USA
(FAO 2013).
232
Globally, food loss and food waste generate 4.4 GtCO2 equivalent annually, or
about 8% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This means that
the contribution of wasted food emissions to global warming is almost equivalent to
global emissions from road transport, i.e., 87% of them. (FAO 2013) At the same time,
the volume of water used for them is equivalent to that of Lake Geneva, and the
agricultural area used is approximately 30% of the total agricultural area (Figure 10).
CO2
Food loss and food waste are

Nearly 30% of the world’s
responsible for about 8% of
agricultural land is currenly
global greenhouse gas occupied to produce food that
(GHG) emissions is ultimately never consumed
Volume of water used to produce

food loss and food waste is
equivalent to three time the
volume of Lake Geneva
Figure 10. Environmental impact of food loss and food waste. Source: Authors’
interpretation of Geneva Environment Network (2022).
7. Ethics Regarding Food Loss and Food Waste

Ethically, food loss and waste also have significant implications. From the
perspective of inequitable food distribution, food waste exacerbates inequality and
poverty around the world. Food loss and food waste reduce the total amount of food
available, which can lead to higher prices and increase the difficulty of accessing
food for those who are already socio-economically vulnerable.
The environmental impact is felt by the entire population, both those who waste
food and those who do not waste food. Food waste contributes to environmental
pollution through greenhouse gas emissions and the production of food waste that
ends up in landfills, affecting both those who waste food and those who ethically
manage food resources and avoid waste.
233
At the same time, the limitation of resources also affects the entire population.
Food loss and waste is an inefficient use of the planet’s limited resources. Food
production involves the use of many natural and financial resources such as water,
land, energy, and workforce. Wasting and losing food constitutes an inefficient
exploitation of these resources, which could be used for other important purposes
(Gustavsson et al. 2011; Buzby et al. 2014; Kantor et al. 1997).
In terms of business ethics, companies that contribute to food waste can be
perceived as unethical. These companies not only make financial losses, but also
contribute to negative environmental impact and social problems. Such companies
could be seen as prioritizing their profits over ethical values such as social and
environmental responsibility (Gustavsson et al. 2011).
Overall, food loss and food waste are complex ethical issues with negative
environmental and societal implications. Solving these problems requires a strong
commitment from governments, companies, and individual consumers to improve
the efficiency and sustainability of the food system (Gustavsson et al. 2011; Buzby
et al. 2014; Kantor et al. 1997; De Schutter 2014; Lipinski et al. 2013).
On the other hand, at the religious level, since ancient times, humanity has
been concerned with reducing food waste. However, with the rise of technology
and, implicitly, modern man, humanity’s responsibility towards food and towards
all resources necessary to obtain it (water, land, workforce, energy) has obviously
decreased. However, throughout history, the situation has not always been the same
as it is today. It is important to note that, in general, all religions and spiritual
traditions emphasize the importance of respect for food and nourishment and
encourage moderation and generosity.
In Christianity, biblical passages in the Old and New Testaments that refer
to waste and respect for food and foodstuffs are numerous. Perhaps the most
representative is “When they were all full, Jesus said to his disciples: “Gather up
the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” (John 6:12. The Holy Bible; https:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206&version=NIV, accessed on
2 March 2023)
In Quran it is stated precisely and representatively: “Eat and drink, but do
not waste, for He does not love the wasteful.” (Quran 7:31; https://quran.com/7/
31?translations=20,44,17,85,18,95,48,39,26,101,41,19,22,38,31,27,33, accessed on 2
March 2023)
In one of Judaism’s most important texts, the Talmud, there are several
references to the importance of avoiding food waste. Perhaps most eloquent in
this context are “It is forbidden to throw away food or destroy it on purpose” (Talmud,
234
Shabbat 128a; https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat?tab=contents, accessed on 2 March
2023) and “No one should throw away food, but should feed it to domestic and wild animals.”
(Talmud, Baba Metzia 62b).
Some references in canonical Buddhist texts regarding reduction in food waste
are: “Food should never be wasted, but should be treated as if it were nectar” (Vinaya
Pitaka, Part I, Sutta 3; https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vinaya-Pitaka, accessed
on 20 September 2023), “We should recognize the efforts and work done by people to
produce the food that we eat and do not waste it” (Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 55; https:
//www.britannica.com/topic/Majjhima-Nikaya, accessed on 20 September 2023),
and “We should be careful not to waste food and not we treat it with contempt, because every
morsel of food is a valuable treasure” (Sutta Nipata, Sutta 103; https://www.britannica.
com/topic/Suttanipata, accessed on 20 September 2023).
In Hindu religious texts, there are also references to food waste and the
importance of respecting food. Here are some examples and information about
where to find them in the respective texts: “If you waste food, you also waste the life
within you” (Mahabharata, Book 13, Anusasana Parva, Section XLVIII; https://www.
britannica.com/topic/Mahabharata, accessed on 20 September 2023), “Do not waste
food, because it is the source of your life and wealth” (Yajurveda, Taittiriya Upanishad,
Shiksha Valli, Anuvaka 11; https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yajurveda, accessed
on 20 September 2023), and “We should cherish food and not waste it, because it is the
source of life and vitality” (Bhagavadgita, chp. 17, Verse 10; https://www.britannica.
com/topic/Bhagavadgita, accessed on 20 September 2023).
These examples emphasize the importance of valuing and respecting food, and
that food is source of life and wealth. In the Hindu religion, food is considered a
form of divine gift and should therefore be treated with respect and gratitude.
In the Sikh religion, food is considered sacred and should be respected as such.
There is the concept of “langar”, which is a kind of community kitchen where food
is provided for free and everyone is welcome to eat together, regardless of caste or
social status (Nesbitt 2016).
In the Taoist tradition, great importance is placed on food and nutrition,
believing that food is essential to the health of body and mind. The consumption
of natural and whole foods is promoted and food waste is avoided (Maoshing and
McNease 2012).
In Confucian philosophy, food and eating are seen as an act of respect for oneself
and others. Respect and appreciation of food is promoted, and food waste is seen as
an undesirable behavior (Eno 2015).
235
These are just a few examples of religions and spiritual traditions that place
great importance on food and avoid food waste.
8. Conclusions
Food loss and waste is a global problem with a significant impact on society in
general, with economic, social, and ecological consequences. The economic effects
of food loss and waste are significant, as they increase the cost of food production,
transport, and storage. Furthermore, food loss and food waste reduce the profitability
of food businesses and ultimately affect food prices for end consumers.
The social impact of food loss and waste is also important, as it can lead to
hunger and malnutrition, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Food loss
and waste also contribute to economic and social inequality by reducing access to
quality and affordable food.
In terms of ecological impact, food loss and food waste are a major
environmental problem. They generate greenhouse gas emissions and unnecessary
use of natural resources such as water, land, and energy, thus contributing to
climate change and environmental degradation. In this context, reducing food
loss and waste is a global priority and requires immediate action at all levels. These
actions may include improving food production, transport, and storage systems,
educating consumers about the importance of reducing food loss and food waste,
and promoting technological innovations to improve efficiency and sustainability of
the food chain.
Initiatives and programs aimed at reducing food loss and food waste are
diverse and at different levels. There are many initiatives globally that aim to
reduce food loss and food waste at the production level by improving production
and distribution systems and promote more sustainable practices, in the context of
the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 2—Zero Hunger (SDG 2—Zero Hunger).
An example of such an initiative is the UNEP, which launched a program called
“Think.Eat.Save” to promote a reduction in food waste globally (United Nations 2022).
There are also numerous consumer campaigns and initiatives that try to promote
a more responsible attitude towards food and reduce food waste. These include
education and awareness programs, as well as campaigns to reduce food waste at the
level of households and public institutions. An example of such an initiative is “Save
Food, Fight Waste”, an awareness campaign launched by the Swiss Government to
promote reduction in food waste (Government of Switzerland 2022). In addition,
there are also non-governmental organizations and volunteer groups working to
reduce food waste by collecting and redistributing uneaten food. An example of such
236
an organization is Feeding America (https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us,
accessed on 28 December 2022), a US charity that collects uneaten food and
redistributes it to those who need it.
Food loss and waste is a complex problem and efforts are being made at all levels
to reduce it. However, the initiatives are insufficient. It is important that actions focus
on finding viable, efficient, and effective solutions to reduce food loss and waste and
promote more efficient and sustainable use of food resources, in the context to assure
social, economic, and environmental necessary conditions (Figure 11).
ECONOMIC
JOBS
PREVENTION Waste of raw materials, ingredients

PREVENTION and product arising are reduced -
measured in waste overall reductions
OPTIMISATION (A)
Redistribution to other people
REDUCTION
OPTIMISATION (B) Sent to animal feed
LE
AB
SIR
RECYCLING Waste sent to anaerobic digestion
DE
Waste composted
ST
RECOVERY
MO
Incineration of waste with energy recovery
WASTE
Waste incineration without energy recovery
DISPOSAL Waste sent to landfill
Waste ingredients/products going to sewer
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
HUNGER RELIEF CLEAN AIR,
HEALTHY SOIL
Figure 11. Hierarchy of food recovery. Source: Authors’ interpretation of CEC

(2023).
The FAO’s 2011 assessment of global food loss and waste estimated that, each
year, one-third of all food produced worldwide for human consumption never
reaches the consumer’s table. This is not only a missed opportunity for the economy
and food security, but also a waste of all the natural resources used to grow, process,
pack, transport, and market food. Through an extensive literature search, a 2011
assessment of food waste volumes gathered weighted ratios of food loss and waste
for different regions of the world, and examined different commodity groups and
different stages of the supply chain. These ratios have been applied to regional
food mass flows in FAO’s Food Balance Sheets 2007. Food waste occurs at all
stages of the food supply chain for a variety of reasons that dependent largely
237
on the local conditions in each country. Globally, a pattern is clearly visible;
in high-income regions, volumes of wasted food are higher in the processing,
distribution, and consumption stages, while in low-income countries, food loss
occurs in the production and post-harvest/slaughter/catch stages.
Future lines of research on food loss and waste should focus on several key
aspects. First, it is important to continue to develop and improve methods for
quantifying levels of food loss and waste (Morone et al. 2019a). Current methods can
often be limited by accuracy and difficulties in collecting relevant data. Therefore,
researchers should explore new approaches and technologies that allow a more
accurate and efficient estimation of the amount of food loss and waste at different
stages of the food chain.
Another important aspect is the analysis of the causes and factors that contribute
to food waste. A deeper understanding of consumption habits, food preferences,
production practices, and structural factors that can influence food waste is needed.
This could involve researching consumer behavior, food policy, distribution systems,
and infrastructure to identify hotspots and effective solutions to reduce waste.
It is also important to assess the impact of food loss and waste on the
environment, economy, and society. Research should focus on assessing food waste’s
carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, estimating associated
economic and social costs, and analyzing impacts on food security and human health.
As we move forward in food waste research, we should also promote
collaboration between different disciplines and sectors (Otles and Kartal 2018).
Interdisciplinary research can bring innovative insights and approaches, such as
integrating digital technologies and real-time data analytics to monitor and reduce
food waste.
As a necessity that imposes itself, future research directions should focus
on developing more accurate and efficient methods to quantify food waste,
understanding the causes and factors involved, and assessing the environmental and
economic impacts. By addressing these issues, we can make significant progress in
reducing food waste and promoting a more sustainable and efficient food system.
As a wake-up call, humanity needs to take note that if food loss and food waste
are not reduced worldwide, several negative things will happen:
• Increasing poverty and hunger: Food loss and food waste reduce the amount of
food available to eat. This can increase food prices and make them unaffordable
for those living in poverty, increasing the risk of hunger and malnutrition.
238
• Rising food prices: Food loss and food waste have a significant impact on food
prices. If no action is taken to reduce this loss, it will continue to increase,
leading to higher food prices.
• Impact on environment: Food loss and food waste have a significant impact on
the environment. Food production involves the use of resources such as water,
energy, soil, and others. If these resources are used inefficiently, more waste
and greenhouse gas emissions will result, contributing to climate change.
• Social inequities: Food loss and food waste are often linked to social inequalities.
While some regions and populations are affected by famine, others are
constantly throwing away food. While some countries face problems of obesity
and overweight, others face malnutrition and famine. Food waste compounds
these problems, as food thrown away could be used to feed people suffering
from malnutrition.
• Reducing food loss and food waste could help redistribute food to those
in need.
• Health problems: Food loss and food waste can lead to health problems among
the population through unbalanced or poor quality diets.
• Economic decline: Food loss and food waste represent a loss of economic
resources, and a waste of money and resources for agricultural producers and
other companies involved in food production.
In the context of SDG 2—Zero Hunger, the development of efficient and
effective programs to reduce levels of food loss and waste can ensure more food
for more people, provided they pursue equity and equality among all people in
the world. At the same time, it will have a positive impact on the environment,
productivity will increase, economic growth will be generated and societies will
become more sustainable.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.M.B. and T.I.T.; Methodology, I.B. and N.B.;
Software, B.P.R. and A.E.R.; Validation, I.M.B. and T.I.T.; Formal Analysis, C.T., B.P.R., and
A.E.R.; Investigation, I.M.B., T.I.T., and C.T.; Resources, B.P.R. and A.E.R.; Data Curation,
C.T., B.P.R., and A.E.R.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, I.M.B.; Writing—Review and
Editing, T.I.T. and C.T.; Visualization, I.M.B., T.I.T., and C.T.; Supervision, I.B. and N.B.; Project
administration, I.M.B.; Funding Acquisition, C.T. and N.B. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was performed in the frame of the project Development and
consolidation of the METROFOOD-RI National Network, grant offered by the Romanian
Minister of Research, Innovation, and Digitalization, as Intermediate Body for the
Competitiveness Operational Program 2014–2020, call POC/78/1/2/, project number
SMIS2014 + 136213, acronym METROFOOD-RO.
Acknowledgments: This research was performed in University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I
of Romania”—Research Institute for Biosecurity and Bioengineering.
239
References
Balan, Ioana Mihaela, Emanuela Diana Gherman, Ioan Brad, Remus Gherman,
Adina Horablaga, and Teodor Ioan Trasca. 2022a. Metabolic Food Waste as Food
Insecurity Factor—Causes and Preventions. Foods 11: 2179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Balan, Ioana Mihaela, Emanuela Diana Gherman, Remus Gherman, Ioan Brad, Raul Pascalau,
Gabriela Popescu, and Teodor Ioan Trasca. 2022b. Sustainable Nutrition for Increased
Food Security Related to Romanian Consumers’ Behavior. Nutrients 14: 4892. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Boyd, A. Swinburn, Vivica I. Kraak, Steven Allender, Vincent J. Atkins, Phillip I. Baker, Jessica
R. Bogard, Hannah Brinsden, Alejandro Calvillo, Olivier De Schutter, Raji Devarajan,
and et al. 2019. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change:
The Lancet Commission report. The Lancet Commissions 393: 791–846. [CrossRef]
Buzby, Jean C., Hodan F. Wells, and Jeffrey Hyman. 2014. The Estimated Amount, Value, and
Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United
States. In Economic Information Bulletin; Washington, DC: United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), p. 121. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/
publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2023).
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 2023. Seven Steps for Measuring Food
Loss and Waste Within Your Business, City, STATE, or Country. Available online: http:
//www.cec.org/flwm/checklist-item/why-measure-food-loss-and-waste/ (accessed
on 8 March 2023).
Chereji, Aurelia-Ioana, Irina-Adriana Chiurciu, Anca Popa, Ioan Chereji, and Adina-
Magdalena Iorga. 2023. “Consumer Behaviour Regarding Food Waste in Romania,
Rural versus Urban”. Agronomy 13: 571. [CrossRef]
De Schutter, Oliver. 2014. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council. Available online: https:
//digitallibrary.un.org/record/766914?ln=en (accessed on 20 March 2023).
Dumitru, Oana M., Corneliu S. Iorga, and Gabriel Mustatea. 2021. Food Waste along the Food
Chain in Romania: An Impact Analysis. Foods 10: 2280. [CrossRef]
Eno, Robert. 2015. The Analects of Confucius. An Online Teaching Translation. (Version 2.21).
Penguin Classics. ISBN: 978-0140443486. Available online: https://chinatxt.sitehost.iu.
edu/Analects_of_Confucius_(Eno-2015).pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
240
Falcone, Pasquale Marcello, and Enrica Imbert. 2017. Bringing a Sharing Economy Approach
into the Food Sector: The Potential of Food Sharing for Reducing Food Waste. In Food
Waste Reduction and Valorisation. Edited by P. Morone, F. Papendiek and V. Tartiu. Cham:
Springer. [CrossRef]
FAO. 2011a. Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change. Available online: https://www.fao.
org/3/bb144e/bb144e.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2023).
FAO. 2011b. Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes and Prevention. Available
online: https://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/library/details/en/c/
266053/ (accessed on 12 March 2023).
FAO. 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources. Summary Report.
Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf (accessed on 12 March
2023).
FAO. 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019: Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste
Reduction. Rome: FAO. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2020. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. Rome: FAO. [CrossRef]
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2021. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
2021: Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy
Diets for All. Rome: FAO. [CrossRef]
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2022. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the
World 2022: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable.
Rome: FAO. [CrossRef]
European Federation of Food Banks (FEBA), and Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool
(CHEP). 2016. Case Study: Fight Food Waste in Romania. Available online: https:
//www.chep.com/si/en/case-study-fight-food-waste-romania (accessed on 20 March
2023).
Garcia-Herrero, Isabel, Daniel Hoehn, María Margallo, Jara Laso, Alba Bala, Laura Batlle-Bayer,
Pere Fullana-i-Palmer, Ian Vázquez-Rowe, M.J. Gonzalez, M.J. Durá, and et al. 2018. On
the estimation of potential food waste reduction to support sustainable production and
consumption policies. Food Policy 80: 24–38. [CrossRef]
Geneva Environment Network. 2022. Food Loss and Waste and the Role of Geneva. Available
online: https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/reducing-
food-loss-and-waste-for-a-healthier-planet/ (accessed on 1 March 2023).
Gheorghescu, Ionut Cosmin, and Ioana Mihaela Balan. 2019a. Managing, minimizing
and preventing food waste from Romania in the European context. Lucrări Stiintifice
Management Agricol 21: 21–58. Available online: https://lsma.ro/index.php/lsma/
article/view/1707/pdf (accessed on 1 March 2023).
241
Gheorghescu, Ionut Cosmin, and Ioana Mihaela Balan. 2019b. Food waste and food loss in
Romania. Lucrări S, tiint, ifice Management Agricol 20: 356. Available online: http://www.
lsma.ro/index.php/lsma/article/view/1429 (accessed on 20 March 2023).
Godfray, H. Charles J., John R. Beddington, Ian R. Crute, Lawrence Haddad, David Lawrence,
James F. Muir, Jules Pretty, Sherman Robinson, Sandy M. Thomas, and Camilla Toulmin.
2010. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327: 812–18.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Government of Switzerland. 2022. Save Food, Fight Waste. Available online: https://www.
savefood.ch/ (accessed on 28 December 2022).
Gustavsson, Jenny, Christal Cederberg, Ulf Sonesson, Robert van Otterdijk, and
Alexandre Meybeck. 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Rome: FAO. Available
online: https://www.fao.org/3/i2697e/i2697e.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2023).
Hoddinott, John, and Lawrence Haddad. 1995. Does Female Income Share Influence
Household Expenditures? Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics 57: 77–96. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.
1468-0084.1995.tb00028.x (accessed on 20 March 2023). [CrossRef]
Institute of Research in Circular Economy and Environment (IRCEM). 2021. Study of Food
Waste in Romania. Romanian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform. Available
online: https://rocesp.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/V4-final-Food-Waste-Report.
Jedermann, Reiner, Nicometo Mike, Uysal Ismail, and Lang Walter. 2014. Reducing food losses
by intelligent food logistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 372. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Kantor, Linda Scott, Kathrin Lipton, Alden Manchester, and Victor Oliveira. 1997. Estimating
and Addressing America’s Food Losses; Washington, DC: United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Available online: https://endhunger.org/docs_hunger/USDA-
Jan97a.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2023).
Kummu, Matti, Hans de Moel, Miina Porkka, Stefan Siebert, Varis Olli, and Philip J. Ward.
2012. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts
on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of the Total Environment 438: 477–89.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lin, Carol Sze Ki, Apostolis A. Koutinas, Katerina Stamatelatou, Egid B. Mubofu,
Avtar S. Matharu, Nikolaos Kopsahelis, Lucie A. Pfaltzgraff, James H. Clark,
Seraphim Papanikolaou, Tsz Him Kwan, and et al. 2014. Current and future trends in
food waste valorization for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels: A global
perspective. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 8: 686–715. [CrossRef]
242
Lipinski, Brian, Craig Hanson, Richard Waite, Tim Searchinger, and James Lomax. 2013.
Reducing Food Loss and Waste. Working paper, World Resources Institute, Washington,
DC, USA. Available online: https://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-food-loss-and-
waste (accessed on 20 September 2023).
Maoshing, Ni, and Cathy McNease. 2012. The Tao of Nutrition, 3rd ed. Boulder:
Shambhala Publications. Available online: https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-tao-of-
nutrition-e25991207.html (accessed on 10 March 2023).
Meat.Milk. 2022. Reducing Food Loss through Efficient Use of the Cold Chain. Available
online: https://www.meat-milk.ro/diminuarea-pierderilor-de-alimente-prin-utilizarea-
eficienta-a-lantului-rece/ (accessed on 5 January 2023).
Morone, Piergiuseppe, Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Enrica Imbert, and Andrea Morone. 2018.
Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to assess
challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. Journal of Cleaner Production
185: 749–60. [CrossRef]
Morone, Piergiuseppe, Falcone Pasquale Marcello, and Tartiu Valentina Elena. 2019a. Food
waste valorisation: Assessing the effectiveness of collaborative research networks
through the lenses of a COST action. Journal of Cleaner Production 238: 117868. [CrossRef]
Morone, Piergiuseppe, Falcone Pasquale Marcello, and Lopolito Antonio. 2019b. How to
promote a new and sustainable food consumption model: A fuzzy cognitive map study.
Journal of Cleaner Production 208: 563–74. [CrossRef]
Nesbitt, Eleanor. 2016. Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Available online: https://www.google.ro/books/edition/Sikhism_A_
Very_Short_Introduction/zD8SDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Nesbitt,+Eleanor.
+2016.+Sikhism:+A+Very+Short+Introduction.+Oxford+University+Press,+ISBN:
+978-0198745570&printsec=frontcover (accessed on 2 March 2023).
O’Donnell, T., J. Deutsch, R. Pepino, B.J. Milliron, C. Yungmann, and S. Katz. 2015. Food
Was Never Meant to Be Wasted. Food Waste. October 21. Available online: https:
//www.biocycle.net/food-was-never-meant-to-be-wasted/ (accessed on 2 March 2023).
Otles, Semih, and Canan Kartal. 2018. 11—Food Waste Valorization. In Sustainable Food Systems
from Agriculture to Industry. Edited by Charis M. Galanakis. Cambridge: Academic Press,
Our World in Data. 2009. Share of Global Food Loss and Waste by Region, 2009. Available
online: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-food-waste-by-region (accessed on
12 May 2023).
Our World in Data. 2019. Food Waste Per Capita, 2019. Available online: https://
ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-waste-per-capita (accessed on 12 May 2023).
Parfitt, Julian, Michael Barthel, and Sarah MacNaughton. 2010. Food Waste within Food
Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B 365: 3065–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
243
Pingali, Prabhu. 2006. Agricultural Growth and Economic Development: A
View through the Globalization Lens. Paper presented at 26th International
Conference of Agricultural Economists, Gold Coast, Australia, August 12–18;
Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=
795db66ba7c9cfbe293ef881857635e87706e0ba (accessed on 12 March 2023).
Toma, Luiza, Cesar Revoredo-Giha, Montserrat Costa-Font, and Bethan Thompson. 2020.
Food Waste and Food Safety Linkagesalong the Supply Chain. EuroChoices 19: 24–29.
[CrossRef]
UN WFP—World Food Program USA. 2021. Food Waste vs. Food Loss: Know the Difference
and Help #StopTheWasteToday. Available online: https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/
food-loss-vs-food-waste-primer/ (accessed on 2 March 2023).
UN WFP—World Food Program USA. 2023. Hunger Map. Available online: https://
hungermap.wfp.org/?_ga=2.254518287.66435396.1679456688-1887669960.1679456688
United Nations. 2022. International Day of Awareness on Food Loss and Waste Reduction, 29
September. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-food-waste-
day (accessed on 8 March 2023).
United Nations Climate Change. 2022. What Is the Triple Planetary Crisis? Available online:
https://unfccc.int/blog/what-is-the-triple-planetary-crisis (accessed on 20 March 2023).
World Countries—Romania. n.d. Available online: https://www.globecountries.com/
country/romania.html (accessed on 1 June 2023).
World Food Programme–Hunger Map. 2022. Available online: https://www.fao.org/
interactive/state-of-food-security-nutrition/2-1-1/en/ (accessed on 26 August 2023).
WRAP. 2021. Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Food Surplus and Waste
in the UK—Key Facts. Available online: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/food-
surplus-and-waste-uk-key-facts (accessed on 1 March 2023).
244
MDPI
St. Alban-Anlage 66
4052 Basel
Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax +41 61 302 89 18
www.mdpi.com
MDPI Books Editorial Ofﬁce

E-mail: books@mdpi.com
www.mdpi.com/books

Transitioning To Zero Hunger - SDG 2 - HBK

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transitioning To Zero Hunger - SDG 2 - HBK

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transitioning To Zero Hunger - SDG 2 - HBK

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transitioning to

Series Editor: Manfred Max Bergman

Volumes in the series:

Volume 1: Transitioning to No Poverty Volume 10: Transitioning to Reduced

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated below:

© 2023 by the authors. Chapters in this

About the Editor vii

1 Preface to Transitioning to Zero Hunger 1

3 The Power of Social Capital to Address Structural Factors of Hunger 67

4 The Implications of Agroecology and Conventional Agriculture for 95

5 Agroforestry: An Avenue for Resilient and Productive Farming through 115

8 Coconut-Based Livestock Farming: A Sustainable Approach to Enhancing 197

9 Approaches to Limiting Food Loss and Food Waste 215

ALEXANDRU ERNE RINOVETZ IOANA MIHAELA BALAN

BOGDAN PETRU RADOI NASTASIA BELC

TEODOR IOAN TRASCA

TERENCE EPULE EPULE

Preface to Transitioning to Zero Hunger

Food insecurity remains a global concern, with challenges exacerbated by

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ratified by the United Nations

The Power of Social Capital to Address Structural Factors of

The Implications of Agroecology and Conventional Agriculture for

As global climate continues to change, changes need to be made in our

Improving the Diversity of Native Edible Plants and Traditional

Eliminating Hunger: Yam for Improved Income and Food Security

Yam, Dioscorea spp., is a valuable vegetatively propagated crop grown

Coconut-Based Livestock Farming: A Sustainable Approach to

2.1. Pathways to Zero Hunger

2.2. Case Studies

Funding: This research received no external funding.

1. Introduction: SDG 2 and Its Integral Connection to the Sustainable

3. Characteristics and Mutual Key Elements of Links between SDG 2:

3.1. The Link between SDG 1 and SDG 2

Box 1. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and poverty.

3.2. The Link between SDG 2 and SDG 3

3.3. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 4

Promoting access to quality education can significantly contribute to achieving

3.4. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 5

• Women play a key role in

Box 4. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase gender equality.

• Food and water security

3.6. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 7

• Sustainable energy for food

3.7. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 8

• Economic growth by stimulating

3.8. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 9

Innovation in agriculture, such as the development of new agricultural

Box 8. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and to increase industry, innovation

Box 9. Interlinked actions to reduce hunger and inequalities.

3.10. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 11

• Food security and access to

3.11. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 12

Sustainable agriculture promotes ecological and resource-efficient agricultural

– Brazil—Brazil implemented the Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (Food Acquisition Program),

3.12. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 13

• Sustainable agriculture and

Sustainable agriculture can help combat climate change by helping to reduce

3.13. The Link between SDG 2 and SGD 14

•Protecting marine food resources